VindiceLibertas

Editing dispute

Hello, @User:VindiceLibertas. I'm leaving this message because you've made numerous attempts to attach what appears to be a personal viewpoint to the page for Ibaneis Rocha. As I can see no apparent justification for this within Wikipedia's NPOV policy, please stop attempting to make these edits and confine them to a more appropriate venue. Thanks. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What's inappropriate is your desire to squelch the relevant political beliefs and economic knowledge involved with the political strife in Brazil, involving the protestors, resistance movement, and their rebellion against Lula's Socialist regime. Everything I wrote was within Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but your desire to erase economic, political, historical, and philosophical knowledge is not. You're an anti-intellectual, and I can clearly see your edit history favoring the Communist Party of China. The very founders of Wikipedia were inspired by Hayek's Critique of Planned Economies in his "The Use of Knowledge in Society," which elaborates on the knowledge problem and need to preserve decentralization. This platform is not for you, if you're looking to book-burn and defend the disgusting ideology, and my patience for you, alongside those like you, wears extremely thin. VindiceLibertas (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Any more edit warring, personal attacks, or plainly NPOV editing will be met with an indefinite block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What you've done is not aligned with the spirit of Wikipedia, and not a single one of my edits are NPOV violations. Your lack of understanding basic economics and arithmetic is not a problem that should limit my ability to elaborate on the political evolution of Ibaneis, his party, the Brazilian people, and the political strife in which he is involved. All you're doing is acting as a censor, and it is most disgusting. VindiceLibertas (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended as a non-partisan source of objective information, not as a political forum. I don’t see how economics and arithmetic play into this. If you can provide a source for the claim you made in the article, this would be a different story, but as you’ve provided none, the staff are presuming that it is your own opinion. SufficientChipmunk3 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

He's accused a fact-checking website of being a "resource for Communist supporters" on the talk page for the attacks while claiming CATO and Mises Institute pieces to be "inherently based in fact," so it seems he has a different view of "objective information" than what it actually is. The Kip (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)