User talk:Harrchurch

June 2018

Hello, I'm L293D. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gatestone Institute— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Gatestone Institute. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia coverage of Gatestone is totally ideologically driven and very biased. It was written by people who hate them.

We expect editors to show good faith, something you aren't doing. I doubt that you know much if anything about our policies and guidelines. You added "Gatestone reports on difficult issues surrounding Islamic immigration, that most mainstream media outlets try hard to avoid." without any reliable sources despite our basic policy at WP:VERIFY, and you deleted sourced text saying that Gatestone has been described as anti-Muslim. But it has been described as anti-Muslim, are you trying to hide that? And you haven't been around for years, you edited years ago and then a long hiatus. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't delete where it said it was anti-Muslim... I changed that to anti-Islamist and no one told me why that was wrong.

The Gatestone entry looks like it was written to discredit the organization. It'd be hard to argue against that.

First I was accused of vandalism, then of "bad faith". So that would mean I have some type of hidden agenda or motive... Okay what is it? When people act in bad faith, they must have a motive. What I was trying to do is provide a more accurate description.

This whole page looks like it was written by someone who doesn't like the Gatestone Institute. Does it not? They publish stories all the time that the MSM don't. That is common knowledge... Sure I could come up with lots of examples and footnote them but do you really want me to do that? It is a very common thing for them to report artcile the MSM don't. How much time have you spent reading their articles? I've been reading them for years.

It's portrayed as an organization that produces "fake" news. I've never seen any. That might well have happened a few times, but don't all media organizations get stories wrong sometimes? I would like to know, what is the criteria for an organization to be considered a producer of fake news? What % of their stories have to be fake?

This is the blurb from their web site on what they stand for:

"Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law; Human Rights A free and strong economy A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world Energy independence Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech."

I am going to post the Gatestone entry in a few FB, not left wing ones, and not right wing... but skeptic groups and ask the members for feedback, as to how accurate they think it is.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harrchurch, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

IanDBeacon (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I only have one account... Unless maybe I made another one long ago and forgot about it... In which case I haven't used it in years.. That is obvious not malicious. What is the ID of this other account I am supposed to have? What email address is with it? What exactly is it that I have supposed to have done with these two accounts? I cannot respond if I don't know I'm being accused of.

Surely, you can at least check my IP address... which comes from Cogeco, near Dundas, Hamilton Canada. Is this other account the same? I do have a VPN which I rarely use.