User talk:Correctfact

Correctfact, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Correctfact! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Zoie Palmer

A person does not have to be the biological parent of a child to be a parent. If there's a kid living in the house with her and Alex, then she has a kid, period — we will not disappear the fact from her article just because she didn't personally give birth to the child. And if you dispute the fact again, the article is going to be locked so that you can't edit it at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You created a user account simply to edit the Zoie Palmer page. Your edits were undone by more experienced Wikipedia editors. You returned to the article to repeat what had been undone. Your behavior is verging on vandalism. If you think Wikipedia does not block registered users who vandalize articles, think again. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, a person does not have to be the biological parent of a child to be a parent — if there's a kid living with her and her partner, then she is correctly and properly described as a parent to that kid regardless of whether her or her partner is the child's original biological mother. This is your second warning that your edits are not appropriate. The article's editprotection has now been bumped up so that you cannot edit the article at all — and once that expires, if you touch the article again without explaining yourself, then you're going to be on the receiving end of an editblock. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My only interest in Zoie Palmer is that I watch Lost Girl, but I have to agree with the other editors here, she does qualify as a parent so removal of that claim in the article because ..... well I don't actually know why you keep removing it because you haven't used edit summaries in any edit except your first one to the article. I strongly recommend that you take Bearcat's advice and don't remove the content again without first discussing it. You should do that by opening a discussion at Talk:Zoie Palmer and expressing your concerns but you should not edit the article until there is consensus for your changes. If you don't discuss, then a block is more than likely, and warranted. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please show me a tertiary reference for where she is the parent of the child? The child has two equally involved parents. End of story. If Zoie and her partner were married then she would have a step son, not being married doesn't make you the parent? I missed all the anger in the messages... so here it is. Base your anger on facts. I find it more outrageous you discredit his actual parents of which he has two. Zoie might be a great role model or step mother figure but the fact is she is not his adoptive mother, his step mother, actual mother etc. So if you can find a label that actually fits then use that.

It is not our job to reflect "insider knowledge", or to dig into legal documents to find out the depth of the real story — if the media coverage says that she and Alex have a son, then our job is to say what the media say, period, and not to directly investigate whether they're actually right or wrong about the "real" complexities of the situation. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it — if the media say X, then we say X and the case is closed.

Again, a person does not have to be a child's biological parent to be a parent — and her status does not erase or negate the child's father, either. You seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting how parenting actually works: even though Alex and a third party may be named on the kid's birth certificate, if the kid's living with Alex and Zoie then he does still have to listen to Zoie if she says "eat your broccoli" or "stop hitting the dog" or "clean up your room" or "you're being bad, take a time out", Zoie can still pick up the kid at school or take him to the doctor for a checkup, and on and so forth. The legal parents are not necessarily the only people who are parents to a kid — a kid whose legal parents break up and then get remarried to other people does not have two parents and two people who are nothing to him whatsoever, but now has four parents. The fact that not all of the parents may necessarily have equal rights in some circumstances does not make them not all parents, because parenting is not just a question of who would have the legal right to pull the plug if the kid ever (god forbid) got hit by a car and ended up in a coma — it's also a lot of other day-to-day things that Zoie's role in his life is perfectly consistent with.

But again, our job on here is to reflect what the media say about it — we are in fact explicitly prohibited, both by our own rules on here and by federal privacy laws, from digging into people's private legal records to make our own separate determination about whether the media coverage was right or wrong about it. If they say X, we say X — it's not our job to say "the media say X but really Y", if there are no reliable sources for Y, and it's not within your right to insert Y into the article without sources for it either. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Zoie Palmer. AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Bearcat warned you above about changing the article again and I asked you to discuss this on the article's talk page. Changing the article,[1] and then posting on the talk page,[2] is not discussing it. It's edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Correctfact. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 12:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Correctfact. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 12:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Zoie Palmer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NOTRIGHT and WP:TRUTH if you want to know why you are getting reverted and blocked for your edits.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Müdigkeit, Correctfact was blocked for their disruptive edits. "Verifiability, not truth" has been deprecated as an editing philosophy for a few years now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)