User talk:Visitantehumanoide

Welcome!
Hello, Visitantehumanoide, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Diego (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Only warning
The enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy was recently strengthened. You may not post defamatory content about any living person anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, without substantial references and consensus for doing so. There is no reason that you can't discuss the article content without getting into personal details. If this recurs, you will be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for discussing in the talk page
I've been permanently blocked from all wikipedia just for discussing the neutrality of Zoe Quinn's article in the talk page. I didn't even edit the main article. I got warned just once after it but I got blocked despite not doing any other edit. Is it really fair to get blocked for ever just for discussing in the talk page something that is the central topic of the scandal? I mean if you can't discuss or talk about that, better delete the whole article, otherwise you are puting on it just what the person and his sympathizers want, which isn't what wikipedia aims for, is it?. I don't pretend that gossips get writen like if they were facts, but the scandal I refer to is imporant enough to be at least mentioned and I believe it would have been included if it was another personality and not a her. For example, in Terry_Richardson's article the acusations of his inappropriate sexual behavior are included despite being just rumours that haven't been proved. Why is that different to this? --Visitantehumanoide (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Visitante, you've not been blocked for discussing the neutrality of the article, but for posting unsourced claims about living persons in the talk page. All claims you discuss must be made by a reliable source, and you need to link to that source whenever you mention those claims; in summary, you can't use your own words to discuss the article - all claims about living persons must have been made by others, by people with some authority.
 * In addition, it's essential that you avoid writing the exact details about those claims and that refer to them in general terms. Instead of saying "when she did such and such things", you may write "when she did the things that [(link) this journal article] mentions". By using this style, you can discuss any relevant topic without putting at risk the person you're talking about, and the Wikipedia project for being accused of libel.
 * As for your block, it should be lifted if you agree to follow these rules; the block is only intended to prevent you from posting more unsourced details about living persons. You can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them (it's part of their job as admins, so to say, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block). Just don't ask questions within your unblock request; that's reserved to explain why you will not be a problem to the project, not to request clarifications about policy. If you need to attract the attention of an administrator, you can write   in your comment and they will get a notice. Diego (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To echo what Diego says, you weren't blocked for discussing, you were blocked for speculating about the private sexual behavior of someone who has been extensively harassed, primarily for being female in a male-dominated culture. Wikipedia isn't a gaming forum, it's not Reddit (where mods have also sanctioned such discussions) and it's definitely not 4chan. You can discuss article neutrality without posting gossip.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With the being female in a male-dominated culture argument are you saying that you are trying to compensate something by allowing gossips in articles about men but not in the ones about women? I have no problem following the rules as long as they are not gender biased.   --Visitantehumanoide (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Coverage of Zoe Quinn controversy
Hello, Visitante humanoide. Biographies of living persons are written conservatively, giving as few details as possible with respect to controversies. You can read a more detailed account at the article GamerGate, which topic is explicitly about that controversy and can go on with more details. Diego (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, the "details" must still be sourced and appropriately related to the subject of the article and only as detailed as necessary for understanding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been Indefinitely blocked from editing for WP:BLP violations at Talk: Zoe Quinn. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥   19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)