User talk:ElTejanito

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from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. BlueCrab RedCrab 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ElTejanito (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I cited all of my sources, which were all government documents, mainly North Carolina vital records and the United States Census. ElTejanito (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you cited amateur genealogists. You need a reliable source; see WP:RS. And you need to avoid original research; see WP:NOR. Yamla (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ElTejanito (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I used THESE sources and CITED them.

File:Birth Record of Robert W. Lee III.jpg

Birth Record of Robert W. Lee III

File:Birth Record of Robert W. Lee Jr.jpg

Birth Record of Robert W. Lee Jr.

File:John O. Lee & Robert S. Lee.jpg

John O. Lee Death Certificate

How are these "amateur genealogists??" ElTejanito (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please review the policies indicated below. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As you've been advised before, please read our policies on original research and WP:SYNTH. In short, you don't get to post a bunch of primary sources and declare your own interpretations of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ElTejanito (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What? "Post a bunch of primary sources and declare your own interpretations of them"? That is not at all what I did. I said X was the son of Y then cited a government document. Then I said Y was the son of Z and cited a government document. Then I said that Z was the son of Q and cited a government document, etc. Then I was blocked for citing amateur genealogists. All my edits were statements of fact, not interpretation of data, backed up by government sources open to the public. I did NOT include any analysis or synthesis of published material that served to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. I demonstrated that I was not adding OR by citing reliable, published government sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Are you sure you are looking at my edits and not someone else's? ElTejanito (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to say that person A is not related to person B, you need to find a source that explicitly says "Person A is not related to person B." Citing a bunch of random government documents, none of which explicitly say this, is original research. We have explained this several times to you. If you still don't understand, you need to ask for help understanding the parts that you don't understand. Otherwise, what's going to happen is that we get tired of explaining it to you, and we block you until you can demonstrate that you understand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As we're getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, I'm cautioning you now that if you violate WP:NOR after this block expires, your next block will be indefinite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ElTejanito (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So if I go on TV and claim to be the son of Santa Claus, then an editor goes on my page to say that I am not the son of Santa Claus and cites the public birth record from my State that shows my father is a man named Pedro Gutierrez III, you would block the editor because my government birth record is just a random document that doesn't specifically say that Santa Claus isn't my bioligical father? Then the burden becomes on the editor to locate another government document that says specifically "ElTejanito is not the son of Santa Claus"? I mean I can play it that way if you want, but that seems odd.

A human can only have 1 biological father, 1 biological paternal grandfather, 1 paternal great grandfather, etc. If a "random" government document shows my father's father is Pedro Gutierrez Jr., then that means no other human who ever lived could be my paternal grandfather. There would be no document listing who WASN'T my grandfather, because that would be billions of people.

If that's just too crazy, then I will stick to stating who the records show are the patrilineal ancestors of Robert W. Lee IV, and not mention that his claims do not match the records even remotely. ElTejanito (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's always possible to reduce it to an example that results in apparent absurdity. But no matter how obvious your own deduction might seem, you can not include it in Wikipedia as it would be a breach of Original Research policy. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, only includes what reliable secondary sources say. So, for example, recording who is not related to whom can only be of interest to Wikipedia if a secondary source says it. And you can not analyse someone's ancestry claims yourself - unless a secondary source that we can cite has done so, we simply do not include any such analysis at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that this addition is a textbook example of original research, and that is very much forbidden by Wikipedia policy. If you want to include anything about that specific claim, you can only do so if you can find it in a reliable secondary source (not in an official government document, in a reliable secondary source whose author has done the analysis you attempted). If you are to get yourself unblocked, it will be on the understanding that you do not include *any* genealogical research of your own, not even listing his patrilineal ancestors, if you have obtained the information from your own inspection of primary sources like birth records. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ElTejanito (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is also easy to give an absurd example when describing another absurd thing. There's no difference between you saying I am not the son of Santa Claus after you've seen my birth certificate and me saying R.W. Lee IV is not the nephew/grandson/whatever he's claiming today of R.E. Lee after reading North Carolina vital records (and sharing links to those records in the references) that list the vital statistics of him, his father, his grandfather, etc. back 200+ years. I'll play it how you want, though. Just so no one moves the goalposts on me later, explain to me what qualifies someone as a "reliable" secondary source? That way I do it how you want it done. I also don't understand how any secondary source is more reliable than a PRIMARY source (i.e. the United States Census). ElTejanito (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block has expired - you are no longer blocked. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Relevant policies you need to read and understand include WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. In your case, I think WP:OR is the key one. As an encyclopedia, we only cover research and reasoning already done by others, and you are not allowed to do your own. And research is published in, yes you've guessed it, secondary sources, not primary sources. If you want to cover a narrative about someone's genealogy, someone else must have done it first and had it published in a reliable source - you can not include your own genealogical research based on primary sources. To be unblocked, you really will need to show you understand that and commit to following it - no genealogy, no ancestry, no nothing produced by your own investigation of official birth records. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I get it...I said I'd play it how you want. That doesn't mean it's not goofy. It's also shady that my original block reason was for not citing sources. When I explained I did cite sources, another admin said they were "random documents." When I showed they were applicable primary sources, yet a different admin said it was original research. Almost like there's someone afraid of something. It's fine. I've submitted the primary sources to several genealogical societies in North Carolina and Alabama, as well as with experts at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Family Research Center. It won't be long before I have "reliable" secondary sources that will certify his guy's actual ancestry. ElTejanito (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and re: "There's no difference between you saying I am not the son of Santa Claus after you've seen my birth certificate and me saying R.W. Lee IV is not the nephew/grandson/whatever he's claiming today of R.E. Lee after reading North Carolina vital records ": No, there's no difference. But the key point you are missing is that *neither of us would be allowed to include our arguments in a Wikipedia article*, as we would both be doing original research based on primary sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not missing your point. I just think this whole thing is shifty. In the meantime, I claim to be the son of Santa Claus and will call OR on anyone who disputes that. ElTejanito (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final thing I forgot. It's not so much that Primary sources are not considered reliable. It's a Wikipedia editor's research and deductions based on those primary sources that we can not consider reliable (even if you cite the primary sources so readers can repeat the research). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a better system would be that editors can just state the facts listed in primary sources and leave out deductions, even if they are obvious. ElTejanito (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can, sometimes and in some circumstances, but we can't do it to imply any outcomes or deductions. Anyway, if you're not unblocked in the next few hours, the block will expire naturally and you'll be free to resume editing. You are, of course, welcome to think the way Wikipedia works is goofy, shady, shifty, or whatever - but as you say you will follow Wikipedia's rules regardless, you should be fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning before indef block

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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ElTejanito (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for talking on a talk page about facts presented in an article in the Washington Post. I commented on how the main article was finally able to be updated based on the new facts in evidence as a follow-up to earlier discussions about how to improve the main article on the talk talk page. I didn't attack anyone, and I wasn't editing the main article page to add my personal thoughts. ElTejanito (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a catastrophic problem. You have basically no chance of being unblocked until you can show a reliable source indicating that Lee was indeed convicted of fraud. Additionally, this is really problematic. It demonstrates you really aren't capable of behaving appropriately here on Wikipedia. Given your history of problematic editing, I suggest you find somewhere else to contribute. However, if you are able to demonstrate that Lee was indeed convicted of fraud and convince us you'll never again edit like you have been so far, you are welcome to make a new unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Referring to editors who warned you about posting unsourced material as "cronies" of the subject is a baseless attack. Article talk pages are to discuss improvements/changes to articles, not as forums for disparaging the subject or other editors. You were already on thin ice for making this blatantly false and BLP-violating edit, after having been blocked previously for disruption on this page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the person that maliciously blocks a user is the same person that rules on their appeal? That's fair. ElTejanito (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "ruling on" your appeal, I'm simply commenting on your assertions and providing additional context for the reviewing admin. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]