Hello, Patroit22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Heiro 15:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Giada De Laurentiis because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== July 2013

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a change to an article, United States v. Manning, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Patroit, we gotta go with what the newstory says. Manning has been at the JRCF pre-trial and will likely stay there. Indeed, Combs thinks Manning will be safe there because JRCF inmates are less dangerous. Until we know where confinement takes place, we gotta leave this out as speculation. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a change to an article, David Edward Coombs, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Same idea as in my previous message. In the case of Coombs, we have a source from 2010. So the written sentence about Coombs' client (Manning) cannot talk about the results of the trial. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patroit22. You have new messages at Srich32977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Julian Assange. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't inject your personal opinions into articles. WP has "rules and conventions", and you've got to follow them. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Recognizing that Patroit was seeking to add a term that had some support in the news, I am striking my comment. The good faith of Patroit is certainly recognized and appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally accept parties removing other parties submissions but I must concur that your evidence seemed to have little relevance to the case at hand. This is not a forum to gain support for Pvt. Manning, nor is this case anything to do with the court case and imprisonment of that individual.Seddon ^talk 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon= I thought this case had to do with naming of the article for Bradley Manning. The court case, confinement and possible pardon all relate to the name that is used for those activities. Guess i am wrong.Patroit22 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the witch hunt Patroit22 and have a cuppa. Take a break, re-read the comments made on the Edward Snowden and Julian Assange talk pages and come back refreshed with a different argument/debate. This is constructive advice, not a witch in disguise. If you can't get a consensus, adapt or change your argument, but take on board the comments from both sides and reflect. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you stop the personal attacks. This is not constructive criticism and I request that you comply with Wiki policy..Patroit22 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i'm going to call your bluff and request you point out what exactly is the personal attack there? Either read personal attack and learn what one is or stop pretending that you have suffered a serious insult. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another personal attack directed at me and not content. There is no bluff mentioned in any comments from me. What bluff ? The personal attack guidelines are to never refer to the contributor but only to contributions. What is serious insult standard? Patroit22 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Typical American who is unable to even spell "patriot" correctly. Getting massively butthurt over god like figures like Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning. Th4n3r (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the award but clarification is needed. Patroit22 is my unique user name and is not the word "patriot". The use of Chelsea's birth name of Bradley is this award seems not to comply with Wikipedia naming decision.Patroit22 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions don't stop people referring to an article how they like outside article space. Only Th4n3r can respond to why he/she used Bradley, instead of Chelsea.

Why do you use Patroit instead of Patriot anyway? I assumed myself that it was a spelling mistake. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a combination of the first four letters of a code name. the thee English initials of an obscure international organization and two random numbers to complicate Google and other search techniques. Was intended to be vague like MI5. Guess I need to ditch it with this much info in Wikipedia now available to trolls or staunch defenders of indicted intelligence leakers.Patroit22 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your thread at WP:RSN#WikiLeaks webpage as reliable source on exiled persons. I suggested there that you raise your concerns on the talk pages of the relevant articles. From your talk page it looks like you may already have tried to do that.

No offense, but your RSN comment made me wonder if it was possible you may not fully understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Almost all the references we used have a point of view. It is the job of contributors to do their best to draft contributions that use RS in ways that use a neutral voice. We don't stop using references that have a point of view. Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan- Yes I have tried that but editing that uses the self serving input from WikiLeaks about their founder and Chief Editor and leakers such as Edward Snowmen aided by Wikipedia in his flight from U.S. authorities is not a reliable source but changes are seldom made. . Thanks for your input.Patroit22 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of civil editing on the part of several editors leads me to leave Wikipedia. It is too bad that a few editors drive away good faith edits but it is evident to me that the Wikipedia culture is being hijacked by several interest groups. Objective editors know who these are. Wikipedia is a great concept and I am sorry to leave.Patroit22 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I understand your frustration but whather or not you are leaving Wikipedia, it might be a good idea not to drag on conversations by contributions such as this one. HiLo48 as you must have gathered is not going to suddenly see the light and come round to your point of view on this (or probably any) topic. In circumstances like this it's best to step away from someone else's talk page and let them have the last word. To do otherwise looks like you are baiting them for a response - and is a dangerous practice, as people are allowed a lot more latitude on their own talk page then anywhere else. If you are going to carry on editing at Wikipedia, which you are welcome to do of course, I strongly suggest staying away from others' talk pages unless you have a very explicit and defensible reason for being there. Most talk can be satisfactorily had at article talk pages. Now I will take my own advice and step away from your talk page - I won't post further unless you explicitly ask me to. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim. Thanks for advice. I will follow it. Fell free to post to my talk page till I leave.Patroit22 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to inform that consensus need be reached prior to pushing a controversial edit onto a article. If you can't reach a consensus in the discussion at Talk:Julian Assange#Edit clarification, forcing the edit through regardless will be seen as Edit warring, and will only creates animosity between editors. Instead, focus your efforts in persuading others on why the addition details about manning is needed in the lead section. Thank you. Belorn (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. Manning has been convicted and is in the only U.S maximum-security military prison as a result of leaks to the Julius Arrange led WikiLeaks posts in violation of the U.S..Epionage Act and other charges. Manning was not convicted of aiding the enem as mentioned in the entry.. Those are the facts. Consensus can hide the facts any way POV editing wants: but I will not be a participant in hiding the verified facts.Patroit22 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions to reduce persistent personal attacks are a step forward. Patroit22 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a note to yourself? If it's a warning to others then you should consider a banner at the top of your talk page to ensure people see it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Observation to see who responds.Patroit22 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...So you're Baiting people for attention? That's not a personal attack towards you it's a question. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

……..Jenova20-Not baiting anyone but question and allegation is telling. No more questions , please. ThanksPatroit22 (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still making good faith edits after deciding that I should not let Wikicyberbullies "win" by me quiting . Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.Patroit22 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]