User talk:Truthclarification2

June 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Brock Pierce has been reverted. Your edit here to Brock Pierce was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/brockpierce/status/1405666231244443649) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: as below, please stop deleting this section on the spurious basis of poor sourcing. The two sources are both indisputable primary source materials: Pierce's own tweet with the doctored image; and the newspaper's non-doctored front page for 16/06/21. There is zero scope for questioning the accuracy of these sources. Wikipedia administrators have been alerted to the repeated reversals.

Final warning
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, as you did at Brock Pierce. Melcous (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: This is an absurd claim. I have provided a link to the original tweet by Brock & I have provided a link the original newspaper cover. The amendment is not in any way, shape or form "original research".
 * See WP:3RR and WP:BRD - if you insert the same material again you will likely find yourself blocked from editing here. Melcous (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And it is literally the definition of original research: "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" Melcous (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: your interpretation confounds logic and reality. The objective facts of the matter - that Pierce has disseminated a falsified newspaper about himself - are confirmed absolutely & without scope for subjective interpretation by the two primary sources. A case has been raised with Wikipedia administrators.


 * Taking two primary sources and then adding your own interpretation is synthesis and original research. Your edits are correctly being reverted and you should honestly just stop and actually read the policies which have been repeatedly explained to you. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: there is no interpretation in the paragraph whatsoever. If you have genuine concerns about subjective interpretation, you are welcome to amend the wording to strip out what you perceive to be subjective. But the objective facts of the matter - that Pierce tweeted a falsified newspaper front page about himself - are corroborated beyond any doubt by the primary sources. This section will be repeatedly reinstated in the interests of Wikipedia's commitment to factual accuracy.


 * Please review everything that has been shared with you. In addition you may wish to review WP:RGW, WP:OWN, and WP:3RR. VViking Talk Edits 14:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are just trolling now and you will find yourself blocked. Stop it. Melcous (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Brock Pierce) for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. Izno (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)