User talk:Patriot S2X

January 2023
Because of your disruptive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Anna Paulina Luna. You are free to make well-referenced, policy compliant Edit requests at Talk: Anna Paulina Luna. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Familiarize yourself with these policy pages: WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What is "disruptive editing".
 * My edits are truthful, accurate, and properly sourced.
 * The term "disruptive" can imply a bias on behalf of Wikipedia against truthful, compliant, accurate, and properly sourced information. Patriot S2X (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Patriot S2X, please read WP:BLPPRIMARY for the policy on using primary source documents on biographies of living people. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I can appreciate not revealing personally identifiable information, the subject of the BLP has, herself, revealed her own birthdate and other PII. I did not reveal that content. She opened that door herself, not I.
 * But I was not given the opportunity to correct the error, and was indefinitely banned from ever contributing again. I could have found a more compliant way, but that opportunity was taken away.
 * This is decidedly an uninclusive and intolerant and not-self-correcting site and it is not comforting that my sources was disallowed. They are the proper sources - and they are credible, and verifiable. Without them, all that is left is speculation, hearsay, chismes, and self-promotion. I reviewed the sources of the person which were allowed - and it is determined these are very POOR sources and exemplify very POOR scholarship. Patriot S2X (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This was literally my first ever contribution to Wikipedia. It was impossible to know all of your rules. I see that my mistake was that I used reliable, credible government sourced information and actual video of the suspected person speaking (for the purpose of context) and that I avoided the use of implication or inference or unreliable or not-credible sources. I see, further, that you prefer secondhand information which cannot be verified or sourced to any credible or historical record. I am grateful for the opportunity to have learned what poor scholarship looks like. I won't be using your services any longer. Patriot S2X (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cullen, I reviewed WP:NPOV and it is determined that I did not present a bias in my contribution. I presented facts, and only the facts, as they are, regardless of their implications, decided only by merit, and unabridged by any point of view.
 * Your decision was an example of bias - and is therefore not compliant with the NPOV policy. Patriot S2X (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, you clearly don’t understand our policies and guidelines and we enforce them a bit more to protect living people. And your suggestion that it’s the subject of the article is involved is bizarre and sounds a bit paranoid (not saying you are paranoid, just that it sounds paranoid). It’s a good block. Note that you need to be civil on the talk page. Doug Weller  talk 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest the subject of the article was the person who banned my contribution, Your implication is bizarre. Patriot S2X (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And it is far from "impossible" to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines; many thousands of editors manage to do that just fine. We do understand that inexperienced editors don't know everything ... but what we do expect is that when informed about this guideline or that, their response is going to be "I didn't know that, thanks for the tip" rather than "How dare you?!?"  The first type of newbie editor promises to be an asset to the encyclopedia.  The second type almost never is.   Ravenswing      19:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Once you truly understand the relevant policies and guidelines, you can appeal the block. Indefinite does not mean forever. In the meantime, you can make edit requests on the talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * The "indefinite ban" was harsh.
 * But I'll look for avenues of approach. Patriot S2X (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't get a tip. I got banned.
 * If I had received correction first, maybe a pro tip, before getting banned, then you point would be well accepted.
 * As it were, I have no opportunity to review the material and make a correction.
 * Tip: It would be helpful if you read the conversation before contributing to it.
 * You're welcome Ravenswing. Patriot S2X (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not banned. You are blocked from editing just one article out of 6.6 million articles. Major difference. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like you should read your own talk page before making further posts to it. Cullen328 advised you to review WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.  Your response was to argue with him.  Schazjmd advised you to review WP:BLPPRIMARY.  Your response was to argue, and declare that you were right and everyone else is wrong.  Now if your goal is to get an actual siteban instead of being blocked from just the one article, this is the way to proceed.  If you have a notion, instead, of demonstrating that you can be a productive editor and appealing that one tban down the road, then the way's been pointed out to you.  There: another protip.   Ravenswing      16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)