User talk:Gustapus

Important Notice

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-1932 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 17:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election‎, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. I note that you are almost certainly the IP who edited this article earlier. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election

We go by what the reliable sources say and this LA Times references states "Flase" - FlightTime (open channel) 19:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that in the short space of about a sentence you have fractured English grammar norms and pied the spelling of "Flase", it's kind of scary that you fancy yourself capable of editing. No offense, just saying. Going back to my editing out the word "falsely", and your reliance on the LA Times as your "fact checker", be advised that the LA Times has lost any pretense to objectivity going back say 10 years or more, and it's probably not your best source. If you are happy with that, fine - we'll leave it lie.Gustapus (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors disagree with you, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And why wouldn't someone take offence when you insult them? Typos are not a crime, and English grammar is more flexible than you think. Doug Weller talk 22:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to go back to those heady Shakespearean times when spelling and grammar were a sort of free-for-fall endeavor, o.k. However, I prefer to stay in more "modern" times. Bottom line, if you're going to "edit", then why not edit properly and show that you have the "chops" to be doing so?Gustapus (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Doug Weller

Hello, Gustapus. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 22:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Doug Weller talk 22:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

See WP:AGF. Your comments on my talk page are both uncalled for and inappropriate on my page. If you are unhappy with an article use its talk page to make specific suggestions. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to stop

Stop trolling Doug Weller on his page unless you'd like to be blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I just reviewed your page, Bishonen, and the two memes in the upper left-hand corner are instructive. I promise to leave Doug Weller to his own devices henceforth.Gustapus (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an edit conflict as I was trying to ask you myself to stay off my talk page. It's a waste of my time. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller - you have my deepest apologies. Adios!Gustapus (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]