User talk:PinocchiosPencilSharpener

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. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your edit. The verbiage you deleted was included in tweets from Rep. Joel McEntire. These tweets were previously included in whole on this site as a reference but were deleted by a previous revision. The original deletion of the tweets does not line up with policy as they were written by the subject:

“Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.”

As for the inclusion of the content of the tweets, this is also not against policy:

“If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.”

The reps tweets are still online, are noteworthy, and are easily referenced.

Please explain why you felt the need to revise my edits. PinocchiosPencilSharpener (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PinocchiosPencilSharpener: first off, the tweets you added are not in the source. Thus that was an unsourced addition to the article. As controversial statements, they absolutely must be sourced. No ifs, no ands, and no buts. If those statements were as "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" as you claim, they'd be in a news source. Lastly, the news source doesn't state that the newspaper conducted the investigation, thus we can't say that they did. When working on BLP articles, it's extremely important to get details right and supply citations. You have failed to do so. I seriously suggest that you back away from that article and find something else less controversial to work on. Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will pause on changes but…

How does a newspaper reporter write an original story without investigating? A reporters story is the written results of their investigation.

The tweets were directly linked and cited before they were removed by SounderBruce. When different editors have conflicting expectations it makes it very difficult for the rest of use to navigate. PinocchiosPencilSharpener (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are adding controversial content about a living person to an article, you must provide a source with your edit. You did not.

Those statements are very inflammatory. They are not in the news article. You did not insert additional footnotes for them.

Additionally, we have a weight problem. The majority of the text of the article is about one topic, skewing the overall perceptions. Perhaps additional content on other topics needs to be added before adding even more tweets? For someone who's been in office for two years, there should be a lot more in the article than just this Twitter business. No coverage of his election(s)? No statements of his positions or votes he's taken? Piling on more tweets not in the news article on the topic looks like a hatchet job, which is why I urge you to back away from this topic and move on to other things. If he's truly as reprehensible as you seem to think, at least do a living person the service of properly covering him and allow our readers to draw the appropriate conclusions. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will step away for now but I don’t agree on sugar coating or shielding someone because they haven’t been notable for something other than their poor conduct. Like I said above, I DID directly cite the tweets previously but that revision was deleted by another editor. PinocchiosPencilSharpener (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. I apologize for my defensiveness but I have a bad taste in my mouth for Wikipedia right now. I

have noticed a lot of condescending behavior from other editors. There seems to be a prevalent attitude to do as I say and not as I do. Despite providing references for changes, articles are being reverted because someone feels like they know better and makes changes based on their opinions and not facts. PinocchiosPencilSharpener (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a specific example, see the Gig Harbor, WA page. PinocchiosPencilSharpener (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PinocchiosPencilSharpener reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: ). Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]