User talk:Pattycursed

February 2021
Hello, I'm HMSLavender. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Lynn Beyak seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. lavender &#124;(formerly HMSSolent )&#124; lambast 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing it back makes it untrue. Her letters were blatantly racist. Pattycursed (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And the second part informa the reader that she needed to attend anti-racism training.. so they implies that her letters were racist. To not state it as that ..is contradictory Pattycursed (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Informs* doesn't that* Pattycursed (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.   Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense though. How is my statement not neutral ? It's not political at all. It's just a fact. Pattycursed (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain what is disruptive about it ? Pattycursed (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Lynn beyak posted racist letter. They were not just offensive. They were racist. How is that not a neutral fact when it's been proven ? Have you read those letters ? Pattycursed (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article.   Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My edit isn't a personal analysis. Her letters were unambiguous. They were racist. The rest of the sentence goes onto say that she was supposed to complete anti racism training. If her letters weren't racist then why did she need to attend anti racism training. Pattycursed (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you not respond back ? Pattycursed (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Or are you just waiting for me to edit the post again so you can block me ? Pattycursed (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You respond so quickly to my edits yet refuse to respond here. Am I not posting in the correct place ? Pattycursed (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are describing is WP:Original research. The anti-racism training was mandated for all government officials, and she refused to take it. It had nothing to do with her comments. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

She didn't refuse to take it. She refused to engage and because of her racism was asked to leave for others safety. While the program used may have been a general program that other government employees have taken, she was forced to take the training because if her racist letters. Pattycursed (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The best place to take this matter is Talk:Lynn Beyak to achieve WP:CONSENUS before reinstating. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 00:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from HMSLavender
lavender &#124;(formerly HMSSolent )&#124; lambast 02:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)