Hello, Paok117, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on
my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!
HiLo48 (
talk) 09:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Black Lives Matter, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay I can clearly see Wikipedia is a place for censorship and isn’t a place for free speech. I haven't said anything wrong and I’m entitled to my own opinions and beliefs just because you disagree with something I have said doesn’t mean you should censor others. I didn’t really attack anyone personally nor did I label or demean anyone. I was just merely pointing out why there is no mention of violence or anarchy that occurred in 2020 in America during the BLM protests it’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion that I contributed. This isn’t based on any subjective opinion, but rather it’s based on objective truth. Paok117 ( talk) 23:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Doug Weller talk 20:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:Daniel Andrews. As for the Daily Mail, see WP:RSNP. We consider it unreliable. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Lmfao your clearly biased then, your not suitable to be an admin it’s clear you have a bias towards lefties. I think most people on Wikipedia find the Daily mail pretty reliable it’s a news tabloid after all. Paok117 ( talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I have read the “reliable sources” section on Wikipedia and I have also read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I understand how making an edit works and if Wikipedia strives to keep neutrality an important factor then it should be perfectly acceptable to include the Daily Mail as a source. That is why I quoted the Daily Mail since it covered a topic about Daniel Andrews “treason” charge since it has been reported by numerous media outlets in Australia. Paok117 ( talk) 13:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Paok117, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on
my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!
HiLo48 (
talk) 09:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Black Lives Matter, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay I can clearly see Wikipedia is a place for censorship and isn’t a place for free speech. I haven't said anything wrong and I’m entitled to my own opinions and beliefs just because you disagree with something I have said doesn’t mean you should censor others. I didn’t really attack anyone personally nor did I label or demean anyone. I was just merely pointing out why there is no mention of violence or anarchy that occurred in 2020 in America during the BLM protests it’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion that I contributed. This isn’t based on any subjective opinion, but rather it’s based on objective truth. Paok117 ( talk) 23:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Doug Weller talk 20:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:Daniel Andrews. As for the Daily Mail, see WP:RSNP. We consider it unreliable. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Lmfao your clearly biased then, your not suitable to be an admin it’s clear you have a bias towards lefties. I think most people on Wikipedia find the Daily mail pretty reliable it’s a news tabloid after all. Paok117 ( talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I have read the “reliable sources” section on Wikipedia and I have also read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I understand how making an edit works and if Wikipedia strives to keep neutrality an important factor then it should be perfectly acceptable to include the Daily Mail as a source. That is why I quoted the Daily Mail since it covered a topic about Daniel Andrews “treason” charge since it has been reported by numerous media outlets in Australia. Paok117 ( talk) 13:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)