User talk:MaosMao

Welcome![edit]

Hello, MaosMao, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Lewisburg, West Virginia did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Wallyfromdilbert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Carlos Maza, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Sabbatino. Your recent edit to the page Dante Exum appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. My apologies. If it is confirmed though, please reset the page to my edits if you are available. MaosMao (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

Your recent editing history at Josh Mandel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If sources describe Mr. Mandel as far right, then Wikipedia does too. If you have independent reliable sources that describe former President Trump as far right, or Senator Sanders as far left, please offer them on their respective talk pages. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide hundreds of sources that call President Trump far-right, a fascist, a Nazi, etc., but that does not make that assertion true. I don't care about Josh Mandel, I really don't, it is about consistency. It is not correct formatting to assert a politician's supposed views in the first sentence of an article unless they are outside the mainstream, and there's no reason to put Mandel outside of that. Socialists such as members of the "Squad", whose views align with those of European political parties that are labeled "far-left", do not have that described in their first sentence. This is simply a specific attack, for what reason I have no clue, against a completely mainstream politician, that goes against Wikipedia precedent. I invite you to prove me wrong. MaosMao (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Mark Finchem, David Duke, Justin Barrett, and a significant amount of others have their far-right views described in the first line. There's four examples, of which there's significantly more. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

331dot (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]