User talk:Kotys ek Beos

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

clpo13_(talk) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept original research, and biographies of living people have very stringent sourcing requirements. As an aside, regarding the "African-American pitcher" video you linked, the full conversation makes it clear he's telling the Pope about someone else. Please read the above notices before editing further in this topic area. clpo13_(talk) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're a bit confused. Original research refers to editing articles, but I only brought into discussion Joe Biden's mental health in a talk page. That is all over media and many examples can be found.

Or maybe I said something I shouldn't have and the censorship got to me? Very likely.

I don't know if it's worth bothering or not, but those are the facts.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original research refers to your personal interpretation of a video that doesn't by itself support your claims. Furthermore, if you didn't intend them to be used as sources, they had no place in the discussion. Unless you have reliable sources covering this topic (not tabloids, see WP:RSP), then refrain from discussing it. If my request that you abide by Wikipedia's policies sounds like censorship, then I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place for you. clpo13_(talk) 20:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Duda

In respons to your message. According to Article 145 of Polish Constitution The President can be be held accountable for an infringement of the Constitution, by the Tribunal of State not Constitutional Tribunal and such information can be added to the article about Mr. Duda. I think it would be good to work on these fragments but adding "allegedly" does not serve to improve the verifiability of the article. It is absurd to claim that when someone reads the listed "some lawyers (including professors Jan Zimmermann – Andrzej Duda's doctorate promoter, Leszek Kubicki – former Minister of Justice and Andrzej Zoll – former president of the Constitutional Tribunal" will think that this is some kind of body appointed to control the constitutionality of the president's actions or laws. The National Judicial Council did not "state anything as unconstitutional" or rule anything but published a statement of its views in the case ("[the law] conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution" not "[the law] allegedly conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution" ). Perhaps it would be better to replace one of these fragments e.g. like this: "which in the opinions of the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsman and also in the opinion contained in the position of the National Council of the Polish Judiciary violates the Polish Constitution." But not by means of inserting allegedly. Perhaps we could also replace "According to" with "in opinion" Grudzio240 (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the final solution proposed. Probably adding "allegedly" wasn't the easiest way to fix the problem. As someone who has legal knowledge, it is hard to accept the narrative of the media in legal matters and the problem is that on Wikipedia most of the sources are from media. Wikipedia's mission is to assure neuter and precise information.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biden

Howdy. Don't ask any questions, don't demand explanations. Just walk away from the Joe Biden article. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thier point has been answered many times at talk, it's not new.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good cop, bad cop. Interesting...--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:npa, you seem to be implying we are tag teaming.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that you walk away, so you didn't end up getting blocked. The request wasn't so I could win an argument. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Joe Biden. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]