User talk:Garp21
Welcome!
[edit]
|
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
DS Violation
[edit]I see you that you blanked SPECIFICO's warning about violating the editing restrictions at Trump–Ukraine scandal. If you violate editing restrictions again, I will seek to have you sanctioned at WP:AE. Please play by the rules.- MrX 🖋 23:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI....
[edit]At this diff your edit summary asked: "How is a www.whitehouse.gov document/ transcript a disreputable source?" Well, it's a primary source that should not be used if it's unduly self-serving, and especially if it's a falsehood. This quote is something to keep in mind: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Let's face it, the only reason we quote Trump is because he's notable, not because he's reliable in any sense of the word. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Edit-warring on William Barr
[edit]The Barr page is covered by discretionary sanctions and does not permit more than one revert within 24 hrs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions violation at William Barr
[edit]These two reverts, on a 1RR article, are another violation of Discretionary Sanctions. Given the various warnings you've received, I think it would be prudent for you to undo the second one. [1] [2].
While I'm visiting, I am curious: Have you edited under any other Wikipedia ID's? You seem to be uncommonly comfortable for a new user navigating this website. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I only removed content that that was added back by another editor without consensus. I believe you're posting on the wrong user's talk. --Garp21 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's still a violation and it's only a matter of time until somebody feels like reporting it. You've got more violations per week on Wikipedia than anyone in recent memory. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Someone should check editors with an affinity for rightwing conspiracy theories who were banned in the last few months and happened to edit Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) a lot. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your comment is not only bordering on harassment, but is a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Please stop. --Garp21 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've asked Snooganssnoogans and SPECIFICO to stop, but they persist. Consequently, I blanked the last comment and will blank any additional ones that falsely imply that I'm an account banned in the last few months. --Garp21 (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your comment is not only bordering on harassment, but is a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Please stop. --Garp21 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
mishandled inept disaster
[edit]Avoid inserting personal opinions such as mishandled, inept, and disaster. See the Wikipedia policy pages for Neutral Point Of View, No Original Research, and Verifiability. Alsee (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)