User talk:ElTejanito

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. BlueCrab RedCrab   17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As you've been advised before, please read our policies on original research and WP:SYNTH. In short, you don't get to post a bunch of primary sources and declare your own interpretations of them. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As we're getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, I'm cautioning you now that if you violate WP:NOR after this block expires, your next block will be indefinite. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Relevant policies you need to read and understand include WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. In your case, I think WP:OR is the key one. As an encyclopedia, we only cover research and reasoning already done by others, and you are not allowed to do your own. And research is published in, yes you've guessed it, secondary sources, not primary sources. If you want to cover a narrative about someone's genealogy, someone else must have done it first and had it published in a reliable source - you can not include your own genealogical research based on primary sources. To be unblocked, you really will need to show you understand that and commit to following it - no genealogy, no ancestry, no nothing produced by your own investigation of official birth records. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I get it...I said I'd play it how you want. That doesn't mean it's not goofy. It's also shady that my original block reason was for not citing sources. When I explained I did cite sources, another admin said they were "random documents." When I showed they were applicable primary sources, yet a different admin said it was original research. Almost like there's someone afraid of something. It's fine. I've submitted the primary sources to several genealogical societies in North Carolina and Alabama, as well as with experts at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Family Research Center. It won't be long before I have "reliable" secondary sources that will certify his guy's actual ancestry. ElTejanito (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and re: "There's no difference between you saying I am not the son of Santa Claus after you've seen my birth certificate and me saying R.W. Lee IV is not the nephew/grandson/whatever he's claiming today of R.E. Lee after reading North Carolina vital records ": No, there's no difference. But the key point you are missing is that *neither of us would be allowed to include our arguments in a Wikipedia article*, as we would both be doing original research based on primary sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing your point. I just think this whole thing is shifty. In the meantime, I claim to be the son of Santa Claus and will call OR on anyone who disputes that. ElTejanito (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Final thing I forgot. It's not so much that Primary sources are not considered reliable. It's a Wikipedia editor's research and deductions based on those primary sources that we can not consider reliable (even if you cite the primary sources so readers can repeat the research). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a better system would be that editors can just state the facts listed in primary sources and leave out deductions, even if they are obvious. ElTejanito (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can, sometimes and in some circumstances, but we can't do it to imply any outcomes or deductions. Anyway, if you're not unblocked in the next few hours, the block will expire naturally and you'll be free to resume editing. You are, of course, welcome to think the way Wikipedia works is goofy, shady, shifty, or whatever - but as you say you will follow Wikipedia's rules regardless, you should be fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Last warning before indef block
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks, WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Referring to editors who warned you about posting unsourced material as "cronies" of the subject is a baseless attack. Article talk pages are to discuss improvements/changes to articles, not as forums for disparaging the subject or other editors.  You were already on thin ice for making this blatantly false and BLP-violating edit, after having been blocked previously for disruption on this page.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So the person that maliciously blocks a user is the same person that rules on their appeal? That's fair. ElTejanito (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not "ruling on" your appeal, I'm simply commenting on your assertions and providing additional context for the reviewing admin. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)