User talk:Mr Bill Truth

Mr Bill Truth, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mr Bill Truth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm Dawn Bard. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Essiac, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Essiac

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - your edits to the Essiac article have been reverted by multiple experienced contributors, and repeatedly adding the same unacceptable content isn't going to achieve anything except (per WP:3RR) possibly getting you blocked from editing. Rather than edit-warring, I suggest you read the relevant policy, and then if you have any questions raise the matter at Talk:Essiac. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I thoroughly resent the accusations of "edit-warring" and "repeatedly adding the same unacceptable content". Both of them are unfair accusations and not right. I have however posted some questions in the Talk:Essiac section. I would like to have them discussed. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yobol (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit rich isn't it Yobol ! You accuse me of edit warring when AndyTheGrump was doing edit warring himself. Well, it seems he wants to have the article the way he wants it to appear. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Essiac

The next time you violate Wikipedia policy by posting clueless anecdotal bollocks promoting quackery, as you did just now in the Essaiac article, [1] I will report the matter and request that you be topic-banned from any article covering medicine (alternative or otherwise) and any other topic within scope of WP:FRINGE. You have been repeatedly informed of Wikipedia policy on such matters, and warned of the consequences of ignoring such policies. I see no reason whatsoever why you should be given any more leeway - Wikipedia has blocked snake-oil merchants before, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it will do so again. Unless you wish to be the next example, I suggest you find another topic to contribute to, or peddle your credulous flim-flammery elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The one who is violating Wikipedia policy is you sir. I know exactly what your angle is friend. I'm not stupid. I don't give in easily to threats and attempts at bullying and intimidation. OK! I'm not promoting anything except for a balance and what I see is an improvement on the article. What is wrong with that? At present the article looks like a one sided pathetic joke. I'm here to add balance and add credible references that I have sourced from credible sites. If it was a one-sided article with 100% promotion of Essiac I would be adding that Essiac not be solely relied on as conventional treatments have merit. I'd rectify the wrong in that. I'm about balance and truth. Yes I do know a bit about alternative cures and I know a bit about conventional as well. I wouldn't throw that accusation of - - "clueless anecdotal bollocks promoting quackery" or the distortion of facts by saying - - "You have been repeatedly informed of Wikipedia policy on such matters, and warned of the consequences of ignoring such policies". That's dishonesty sir! Saying - - "Wikipedia has blocked snake-oil merchants before" and - - "I suggest you find another topic to contribute to, or peddle your credulous flim-flammery elsewhere." Makes you look like .... hmmm, we'll leave that up to the powers of truth, integrity and knowledge to work that one out. They know! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you post any more of your credulous shit, I will report the matter - and you will be prevented from doing so again. I've seen how your sort (quackery-shills) are dealt with plenty of times before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You've seen people banned for doing edits that are offensive to Monsanto or Big-Pharma have you ? How much of a role have you played in that ? And you have the cheek to throw around the accusation of "shill", really !!! That's a bit rich and certainly this seems to be a clear-cut case of the accuser having the necktie of guilt around his own neck. If you truly think that my edits are those of a - - "quackery-shill" nature as you put it then come and discuss this with me at the Essiac Talk page. I am about improvement, truth and balance. Your attempts to slander and cyber-bully me me won't get a good result. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the usual fuckwit big-pharm conspiracy theory - never far behind when the quacks get caught quacking. Pathetic. And no, there is nothing to discuss - you have been told that the article will comply with WP:MEDRS, and comply it will. Which means that you can stick your snake-oil 'truth and balance' where the sun don't shine (though come to think of it, that has been touted as a bogus 'cancer cure' too...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

When the ad hominem inludes threats and profanity it only makes that person seem more ill equipped to take on the subject at any angle. Other considerations, possibilities arise. I'm asking you to prove me wrong and engage in a respectful, mature , honest discussion about my edits on the Essiac Talk page. I have extended an invitation to you personally. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Health content

Hi! Please be aware that any biomedical content on Wikipedia should be sourced to sources which conform to the WP:MEDRS guideline. It is crucially important that we only carry high-quality material that properly reflects the best accepted knowledge in the field. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have used highly credible sources Mr Bill Truth (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

I am opening a section about your editing at WP:AN/I. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to open a section about your own edit warring as well as your online bully tactics and use of profanity. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

About edit warring

Hi, When there's a dispute over content that you wish to add to an article and it is reverted, it is necessary to gain a consensus *before* it is added again - you do not add it and then demand a consensus to remove it. I therefore suggest you stop edit warring to try to get your contentious medical claims into articles, or you are likely to end up banned from medical topics or blocked from editing altogether. Squinge (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Aah I see Alexbrn has brought in a reinforcement. Saying the same thing that was said previously. I take note of your strategic placement of the word "contentious". I'm not the one who is edit warring here. Also I don't give in to cyber bullying tactics either. I'm here to edit credible and correctly sourced information to improve and expand the articles. Some may not like what I choose to add and I'll certainly take that into account. I will say that Wikipedia's reputation as a balanced and uncontrolled online encyclopedia is in doubt. That's the opinion shared by more than a few. I and many others know that there are certain editors on Wikipedia that are acting as gatekeepers for certain info. We'll leave it at that. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I should have said "contested" rather than "contentious". There mere act by another editor of reverting your addition makes it contested, and you then need to get a consensus to re-add the material. Have a look at WP:Consensus and WP:BRD for more guidance on how to proceed. (The latter is an essay rather than policy, but I think it's helpful). Squinge (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 I am noting here as well that the Arbitration Committee has determined that the topic of homeopathy is included in the scope of this remedy. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Archives

Hi. Noticeboard archives should not be edited (eg Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864) - for one thing, they're not going to be regularly checked by admins and nobody is likely to see your comments and answer. If you wish to continue a discussion that has been archived, you should start a new section at WP:ANI - you can copy the old section from the archive if you want, with a comment to say that's what you've done. I've reverted your change to the archive, but you now know what to do if you wish to continue that discussion. Squinge (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Squinge. Sorry to but you're wrong. The purple ones are closed. Not that particular one. BTW: That was a deliberately misleading attack on me too by AndyTheGrump. Now when he threatened to report me as per - - "If you post any more of your credulous shit, I will report the matter - and you will be prevented from doing so again. I've seen how your sort (quackery-shills) are dealt with plenty of times before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC" ) - - Well, he went ahead and reported me. This I believe because he attempts to enforce something and does so in a very negative way. How about if went ahead and reported him for what I believe is an abuse of accounts? I have cited his bullying attempts, profanity and negative behavior. I replied to him in a mature fashion. He uses the word "shill" as a form of accusation directed at me. Well, I believe that word is fired in the wrong direction. I truly do. From what I can see and some looking back through the archives, I feel I am on track with what I suspected. Would you like to know? Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I was only trying to help. Sections at WP:ANI get auto-archived (ie moved to the archive pages) if they get no responses within a certain time, and once that happens they're off the radar and the admins (and others) watching WP:ANI are very unlikely to see them - so if you edit the archive pages, you're very unlikely to get any responses. That's why I suggested posting at WP:ANI itself - you can either refer to section in the archive or even copy the archived section back to WP:ANI. Anyway, if you're not interested in listening to people trying to help you, then please yourself and post wherever you like - but don't start moaning if you don't get an answer. (And no, whatever it is you're talking about, I wouldn't like to know, thanks - and I have no interest whatsoever in your dispute with AndyTheGrump) Squinge (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed in your edit summary you said "Sorry Squinge but it hasn't been archived yet". Look at the title of that page - it's "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864" (my emphasis). Squinge (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see myself moaning if I don't get an answer. Interesting and somewhat amusing your edit Revision as of 10:29, 9 December 2014 where you felt the need to come back and add to your earlier reply to me - - "but don't start moaning if you don't get an answer" - - I guess you just felt the need to do it. OK, I see you're right about the archives. Obviously there's some kind of finalization process then they get turned purple later. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of content that is archived is never "turned purple later". Take a look. The point is that once something is archived, it's off-limits because it's no longer being discussed and/or watched, and making a substantial edit is a form of historical revisionism, so just don't go there. If you feel the subject should be revived, it is possible to start a new thread on the same subject on the noticeboard. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and sorted as you can very well see. I can't understand why you would feel the need to put in this last post. Oh well, I guess you just felt the need to. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where your "turned purple later" misunderstanding (which I addressed) was "sorted out", so there's no need for the snarky "felt the need to" (for me or for Squinge above). That's not AGF or civil. I explained it to you, so that's it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Again I repeat This has already been discussed and sorted as you can very well see. You have chosen to put in these comments 6 months later. This was already sorted well over 6 months ago. I put replies into the discussion as it wasn't in archived status to me. It was pointed out that the discussion was closed and then back then, I said that I now understood. Now more than 6 months later you come in and add your remarks to something that is already, obviously done and dusted, finished, finalized, closed, no need to revisit. Look, if you're unhappy about something else then it's OK to be open about it. I don't mind ☺ . Mr Bill Truth (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Mercola. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I think you had better stop edit warring Jytdog Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyber bullying?

Please clarify. You think I'm bullying you by pointing out that your suggestions violate our policies and put you at risk of a Arbcom-enforced ban or block? --Ronz (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure if I've actually had any direct discussions with you Ronz. I'm certain that I haven't suggested that you have been bullying me. If you had attempted anything as such I would have pointed that out to you. That being the case it would be in my memory. Unless you can be a bit more clear here, I don't think I'll be able to discuss much more of this with you. Unlike AndyTheGrump, I don't recall you using any profanity(that contains the F word) at me either. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally reject the reasons given for the articles deletion. WHAT MORE CAN I SAY? Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly helpful reply

Mr Bill,

Any article can be subjected to a review for deletion. I would ask for a mentor here if I were you, and you can explore your questions and the Request for Deletion process/requirements with someone who knows something. Sorry that I can't be more help, petrarchan47คุก 06:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, all I can say is that you have integrity. Thankyou for your reply. Reading here, I am in 100% agreement. I am sickened to the stomach at what I see taking place. Perhaps this is not the place for me any more.I don't know. I'm going to do something else for a while to take my mind off this. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As am I, and I have been looking at this in depth for almost 3 years, so my negative response is not a knee jerk reaction to turmoil. I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful, but I must stand by my recommendation that you give up all hope and just go enjoy your life. petrarchan47คุก 08:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've posted another request on the deleting admins page here. I'm hopping for a reply. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs - Article that was deleted

Below is the article that was deleted unfairly. The reason given was ....

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

20:27, 16 July 2015 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Please examine. Any comments can be placed above where it says THE ARTICLE. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

RHaworth suggested that you try to get the article restored at WP:DRV, the official forum for reversing deletions, so he probably won't restore the page by himself. To request a review at DRV, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Leave the "xfd_page" parameter in the template blank. In the "reason" section, say that the page was incorrectly deleted under G11 because it was not promotional. Mention that you asked the deleting admin to undelete and they suggested DRV, saying that the sources were weak, and link to your request: User talk:RHaworth#Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. It is crucial that you maintain a totally polite, civil, and neutral tone. Do not mention big pharma, censorship, or anything besides the immediate question of whether deletion was appropriate under G11. Be brief and avoid any editorializing. Good luck! A2soup (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi A2soup, thanks so much for your input and also advice. I'll take heed to your valuable suggestions. I do appreciate it. I've been away from things for a few days. I thought we'd see a bit more input here but that's OK. I know that the film picked up some awards and honors [2] but I saw some others too. Should I include that or just keep it simple? Is it time sensitive? Many thanks. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs
Directed by	Gary Null Richard Polonetsky
Written by	Gary Null Richard Polonetsky
Produced by	Gary Null & Associates
Distributed by	Cinema Arts Centre Gary Null & Associates
Release date	December 9, 2012 (2012-12-09)
Running time	90 minutes
Country	United States
Language	English

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs is a documentary film directed by Gary Null, and Richard Polonetsky that looks at possible dangers of genetically modified foods. The people that are featured in the film leading scientists, physicians and professors. Also featured are attorneys and activists. It looks at the main players in Big Agriculture such as Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta.

About the film

The film looks at the possible relationship between governments and corporations that engage in genetic modification. In the film, Dr. Bruce Lipton mentions the world heading towards the sixth mass extinction of life on the planet." Some of the issues explored by the film are what can happen to people as a result of eating GM food and what can happen to a farmer who's non GM crop is in close proximity to a crop that has been genetically modified and what happens if the farmers crop is downwind.

Featuring

Featured in the documentary are Jeffrey Smith, Vandana Shiva, Shiv Chopra, Bruce Lipton, Joseph Mercola and Arpad Pusztai.

Venue

A special screening of the film was helf at the Longevity Center in Venice, Los Angeles on Saturday May 11th, 2013.

References

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Verifiability, not truth

Bill, I notice that you place a lot of emphasis on "truth"; your username and your recent addition to your user page reinforce that impression. Good for you, because truth is important. I don't know how old you are or how much experience you have with dealing with various types of "truth". I don't know whether you have ever changed your mind about a truth, or discovered that something you thought was truth wasn't true at all, or was only a part of the truth.

At Wikipedia we deliberately try to steer clear of the concept of "truth" for some very good reasons. This was even part of policy! It's not that we don't care. On the contrary, but we determine content by first looking at other things, and ultimately they may weigh as heavily as the "truth" of the matter. Why? Because very few "truths" are absolute. There are many angles to a subject, and everyone comes at it from different angles and with different reliable sources. Each editor thinks they, and only they, know the "truth", but that is rarely true. One has a leg, another has a trunk, and another has a tail. None of them really has the whole elephant, but they each think they do. Waving a "truth" flag at a time like that ends up being a fool's errand.

There is an essay based on a phrase we used to have in a policy: "Verifiability, not truth". Those words are still important to keep in mind. I suggest you study that essay, and then tone down the idea that you somehow possess the truth. That's not conducive to editing here, because it's a "know it all" attitude and not very collaborative. We edit collaboratively because "no one knows everything, but everyone knows something." We must respect that everyone has something to give, and we must work together. Anything which threatens that mutual respect is destructive and part of a battlefield attitude.

When you keep making negative comments and insinuations about other editors, as if they are moved by commercial or COI interests and agendas from Big Pharma, industry, etc., you're not assuming good faith, and that attitude poisons the well. It's an extremely serious violation of policy. If you have absolute proof, by name and very strong evidence, that an editor is being paid to edit in a certain manner which violates policy, then by all means discretely bring that to the attention of a trusted admin. Never do it publicly, even by insinuation, as that is outing and you can be blocked on the spot. That's one of the worst sins here. Without such evidence, you shouldn't allow yourself to even entertain the idea that another editor has anything but the best motives. You too must stand before God, and judging the motives of another person is a serious matter. It's a sin. Don't play God.

You must focus on content and sourcing, and work with others to collaboratively create content. We don't work by outside agendas here, but by policies which dictate how we should edit. Sure, we all have various understandings of what those policies mean, so we learn from other editors who are more experienced, and then we change our newbie opinions and interpretations. That's the way to become a good editor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I would say that our ages could possibly similar. I'm discovering things all the time my friend. Yes, in my lifetime I have caught myself in the midst of something untruthful and made the right change and other times I have not. That's a shame I have to live with. All I can do is try my best do right, and try hard not to be selfish. If I can pull a day off by doing the best I can then that's better than not trying.

Yes I have to stand before God. I'm not trying to play God. I'm just pointing out that there is something we all (Myself included) have to do and that is be truthful. Sad fact is that there are some here that are not!

Yes we have to work together and that's a good thing to aim for.

I don't keep making insuations as you put it. I'm saying that there is a held-belief by many that there are people who have motivations other than helping to expand the ever expanding Wikipedia. Perhaps those here that make shill accusations which I have had to endure as well as profanity and abuse mat take heed to your words. BTW: I don't believe in publc outing. Good suggestion about bringing certain matters to a trusted editor. I'll keep that in mind. Thankyou. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source confirming Black Mountain Press owns an operational time machine?

I noticed you have been adding a number of internal links to Black Mountain Press, a publisher that according to the Wikipedia article was founded in 1994 (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). The problem with these links is that all the citations you are adding to links into are for books published before 1994. Do to this glaring inconsistency, there is no possibility that the publisher which you created an article for earlier to day is the same as the publisher which printed John S. Goff's series of books on Arizona Territorial Officials. --Allen3 ^talk 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have just realized that. Actually at least 3 of the links are valid. The others obviously are not. There are actually 2 publishing companies with the same name and set decades apart. I have a solution to the problem. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Black Mountain Press

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Black Mountain Press requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Geogene (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style matters

Do you read the edit summaries for edits made by others to things on your watchlist? If you did, you would notice I have fixed some glitches which you habitually make, and finally requested you to start doing it yourself, yet you still do it, so I'm approaching you here. I have been trying to improve your articles, but it's frustrating when I don't see cooperation, and I don't want to waste my time. The Manual of Style (MoS) is huge and no one expects you to know all of it. I certainly don't! So please accept this advice as an attempt to help you improve your editing. You'll have more success if you do.

The issue is regarding the placement of references and some other formatting issues. According to the MoS, there should be no spaces before or between refs, and punctuation goes before, not after a ref. Also the External links section goes after the References section. Please go back to articles you have edited and fix these, and then start doing it properly from now on. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I took note about the spacing the last time I was here. Yes I will make an effort to put punctuation before, not after a ref. As for external links section going after the References section, well if that's the way it is supposed to be then that's the way it will be. No dispute there. But, you'll have your work cut out for you friend as a lot of editors like to put external links before the references section. Personally I think it looks better with the refs at the bottom. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the Layout's Table of Contents and you'll see the proper sequence for an article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out for a guide. Thankyou. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of American Veterans: Discarded and Forgotten

The article American Veterans: Discarded and Forgotten has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NFILM and WP:FRINGE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Garzfoth (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh hi there Garzfoth, Comes as no surprise here that you have Proposed the deletion of American Veterans: Discarded and Forgotten. I've seen you in action since your work on NaturalNews on 18:08, 4 August 2015 to the latest with American Veterans: Discarded and Forgotten 13:48, 7 August 2015. You have been busy, haven't you! You've certainly lightened Jeffrey M. Smith x 14 edits, Stephanie Seneff ‎x 3 edits, Organic Consumers Association x 25 edits, Philip Bereano x 3 edits that made the article go from 11 references to just 2 now. MY goodness you certainly have been a busy bee. I see some of the references you removed from Philip Bereano were from news services such as Ocala Star-Banner, The Christian Science Monitor, The Seattle Times , The New Zealand Herald and The Maui News. So an article that had 11 references is now just down to 2. Not much to anchor it down now. Oh well, being so light it may blow away with the next gust of wind that comes through Wikipedia. BTGW: Looking at the reduction here that you have done, Organic Consumers Association: Difference between revisions where you said (F*ck this, I'm removing the entire "current campaigns" section, it's way too far beyond saving at this point. This needs to be redone in a style similar to what is used in Greenpeace.), it almost brought a smile to my face. Not sure why though. I think possibly because you appear to take your work very seriously. My word you have been hard at it. Hmmm ... Goodness you have been busy. Have a nice time at it. I dare say you're on the way to making at least some of Wikipedia .. .... ... ..... . Mr Bill Truth (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here. Do you have an issue with any particular edit I've made? To address the specific issue of Philip Bereano, I don't see how you can defend the way the article was before I cleaned it up, it was in terrible shape. You seem to be completely ignoring as many Wikipedia policies as possible while editing, it's really quite stunning, and you seem to be here solely to promote certain WP:FRINGE views and material. Additionally, your writing style has issues, I'm not sure if you're a non-native English speaker or if you're just not used to the writing styles used on Wikipedia, but either way, it's not helping your case, and it gives the impression that you're not putting much effort into producing quality writing in the first place.

On the topic of taking my "work" seriously, or being "hard at it", this vagueness is not helpful or productive at all. I assume you intend to imply some (wholly imaginary) shady intent on my part, which is quite the ironic implication from the user whose edits are primarily composed of WP:SOAP activity. Garzfoth (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You have a destructive way of cleaning up articles. The tone of your commentary while doing so easily gives the impression you're on an another road rather than the "editing to improve one". From what I have witnessed so far, I can say here that some of what you have done borders on vandalism! And for you to say my edits are 'primarily composed of WP:SOAP activity; is either inane or intentionally misleading. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"You have a destructive way of cleaning up articles." -- I make bold edits when necessary, which it was in these cases. In the case of Philip Bereano, I first removed content that had no place in the article in the first place, then made one single broad cleanup edit that rearranged, rewrote, and expanded the content, but also removed a lot of completely unsalvageable content. In case it isn't clear, the original article was nowhere even near to being acceptable. As I said, you are not writing in the style expected on Wikipedia.

Maybe I should just go over some of the original article in more detail to explain. Don't take this as exact, it's just a roughly written broad overview to help you understand the issues. Also, please excuse my oversized paragraph, I don't want to break this apart across multiple lines. Let's start with the head section. In here, you say he is "notable as a professor". This is already unacceptable, we do not need to say he is "notable", this is nothing more than a flimsy excuse to justify his notability (which, for the record, I strongly doubt he is notable enough for a wiki article). Additionally, being a professor is hardly notable. Now, next you say he is an outspoken highly prominent activist. This is a claim that is uncited, unsupported, and overstated. Outspoken -- how? highly prominent -- why? You need to support all this, but you also need to beef up the first section with more content, give us an overview of his achievements, not just this exceedingly brief and worthless two-sentence summary. Also, you need to cite the professor bit. Onto the infobox. Here, you filled out, oh, two fields. Nationality American -- which BTW is uncited. Occupation -- this is hardly useful, just a duplicate of what you said previously. There is no other useful information in the infobox, or in the head section, where there should be much much more. Onto the bio. He has co-founded various organizations. This is a terrible sentence, please don't write like this. He is the co-founder of -- oh, look at that, a red link. Please don't do that. You cited this, good job, it's not a great citation, but it's okay. Next you say AGAIN that he is the co-founder of CRG, which you just said previously. This is sloppy writing. He is connected with CBP blah blah -- this is uncited, and I don't see any reason to include it. You need to explain why this is important and not just a minor trivia item. You give a little detail about his university teaching -- I moved this to the head, if you want this info here, you need to expand on it further. He also studies -- this bit is worthless without detailed expansion, as it stands, it's nothing more than vague irrelevant trivia. Onto the next half of the bio. He attended the 1992 summit, great, but 2400 NGOs and others attended, you need to do a far better job of explaining the notability of this if you want to include it, as it stands this does not belong in the article. Next we roughly transition into talking about him speaking at some random venue without much explanation about why this is notable, and the usual poor writing, which as I said, is a big issue with your contribs.

...wow, that's a huge paragraph, and I didn't even cover the entire article. I think this should be enough to let you figure out the issues with the other sections on your own, they're actually even worse and this is glaringly obvious. If you want to write about his opinions, you need a WP:NPOV summary of his views, NOT this terrible mess of random trivia, claims, fringe stuff, poorly written quotes, etc.

I hope this helps you understand some of the issues with your writing and that article, as well as why I made the changes I made. The other major article you seem to have an issue with my edits on is Organic Consumers Association. You didn't go into much detail beyond singling out the "Fuck this" edit, so I'll focus on that one. As you can notice in my contribs, I spent a bunch of time working on the entire article, including the sections I eventually removed in that edit, so it's not as if I didn't try to salvage those sections before giving up. As the edit summary shows, I specifically pointed out Greenpeace as an example of how the removed content should have been covered. I don't want to waste a huge amount more of my time on another stupidly long explanation of every little issue with the article, I really shouldn't have to explain this to you in this much detail in the first place. You seem to be more focused on ignoring the issues with what was removed and focusing on the amount removed, which is terribly myopic and IMO seems to be a deliberate attempt at framing my edits as destructive when they were in fact constructive, as the volume doesn't matter, the quality matters, and the quality in this case was pure trash, so I removed the trash. If you really want me to waste more of my time explaining this, please at least highlight some specific thing you take issue with.

MOVING ON... "The tone of your commentary while doing so easily gives the impression you're on an another road rather than the "editing to improve one"." -- Please highlight with examples. I think you're misinterpreting portions of my writing style as something it is not. I suggest looking through my past contribs to see the style and content of my edits and edit summaries before drawing any conclusions about my motives.

"From what I have witnessed so far, I can say here that some of what you have done borders on vandalism!" -- I do not agree, please highlight with examples.

"And for you to say my edits are 'primarily composed of WP:SOAP activity; is either inane or intentionally misleading." -- I think you should take a good hard look at how your edits persistently fall under WP:SOAP, especially #1, #2, #4, and #5. Garzfoth (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Mr Bill Truth. Along with my work on health and ag articles, I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are on a bit of a run about movies by Gary Null. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and questions for you below.

Hello, Mr Bill Truth. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 August 2015‎ (UTC)

In reply to your tactic of placing Conflict of interest in Wikipedia on my talk page. First of all I put the Preceding unsigned comment template in here as this is really 2 sections for a reply and for the benefit of the onlooker who I believe you had in mind when you put this nonsense in, I would like to make it easier to follow.

All I can say in reply to what you have done here with this Conflict of interest in Wikipedia section, is .... You expose yourself more and more and confirm my suspicions about your real purpose on Wikipedia. In addition to making a total ass of yourself, you just confirm what many people suspect And once again I feel pity for you. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments and question

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Gary Null, or companies that produce or distribute his films or other products? Or to any of the subject matter you've been working on? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks!

You can reply here - I am watching this page. Once you do, we can take it from there. Thanks in advance for talking! Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You're either a total idiot Jytdog or you take to the given tasks very seriously. I may find time to reply to this piece of gross stupidity that you have put down here. Whilst considering a possibly .... if it's what I suspect and you're just obeying your masters, I feel the greatest pity for you. I really do. You have no idea of the pity I feel for you. Oh I will say one thing. I work for nobody and I bend over for no body! Oh and one more thing again. Either way, I truly pity you. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a valid question, based on your editing to date. Would you please answer? If you don't want to talk to me about that, I understand. We ~could~ take this to COIN and the community could discuss it. I really have no desire to tangle with you. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You're contunually making more and more of an ass of yourself. Sorry, I'm not going to play your silly game. You say We ~could~ take this to COIN and the community could discuss it. I really have no desire to tangle with you. Thanks.. Do what you want or your handlers want you to do. Once again, I feel great pity for you. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that talking about another editor as you are, is sanctionable behavior. I'll let it go as you are fairly new and excitable, but you should stop doing that. I'll tee up a case at COIN for others to engage with you on this stuff, and will provide notice to you when I do. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, Please be aware that misusing a a wikipedia process and using a title such as Conflict of interest in Wikipedia as a means to slander another member is not a moral thing and I dare say not looked upon lightly. If you're engaged in such a tactic then I would ask you right now to desist with this behaviour. And to post such things as you have with
"Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Gary Null, or companies that produce or distribute his films or other products? Or to any of the subject matter you've been working on? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks!"
This is not a righteous thing to do especially if it's used to slander someone. If you are engaging in this behavior then I ask you to cease this at once! I have been tolerating this harassment for a short time and whilst I still pity you greatly, I feel a need to ask you to stop it. I won't stand for bullying and harassment so you need to take note & behave. I'd rather you not post any more nonsense on my talk page. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your editing fits the pattern of an editor with a conflict of interest; the question has a basis. It may be that you are an advocate without a COI but the discussion is not progressing, so I'll go ahead and open the COIN case now, and that will be my last word on this. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is done. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Gary_Null. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh please won't you just go away You're becoming extremely tiresome. BTW LIES, I pity you in a way that you'll never be able to fathom Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Black Mountain Press for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black Mountain Press is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Mountain Press until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI again

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Enhanced babies listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Enhanced babies. Since you had some involvement with the Enhanced babies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've blocked you indefinitely because it's clear you're here more in an advocacy period, not to create a neutral encyclopedia. This is not just due to your conduct at the AFD over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs which was concerning but the fact that you are repeatedly and quickly creating problematic articles after problematic articles. Currently, I see that you are building up Vaccine Nation which has the same problems as the Seeds of Death and while you are ignoring all the concerns people had before (and thus making everyone go through the bureaucracy of listing the page at AFD for another week of debate, you are at the same time storing the contents of articles like Seeds of Death and the rest at User:Mr Bill Truth/sandbox. This is not the behavior of an individual who actually wants to work with others here but rather of an advocate which is not a reason to be here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)