User talk:Loopbackdude

The importance of sources

Hello, I noticed that your edit history shows a lot of chatting on article talk pages. Per WP:NOTFORUM they are not for general discussion but for constructive article improvement and collaboration. Instead of complaining, it is better to link sources that contradict the contested material, or that support the view you would like the article to reflect. WP:BRD is also a good guide, it suggests to boldly edit while citing a reliable source (WP:RS, WP:CITE). If those edits are reverted, the talk page should be used in attempt to seek WP:CONSENSUS or it's also possible to just move-on. The WP:RSN noticeboard may be used to consult the community about the usability of a source in a particular context. —Paleo Neonate – 21:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AP discretionary sanctions alert

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.

Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusing language

Your choice of tortured language is confusing, making it very difficult to be sure what you mean. It's as if there are missing words, incorrect grammar and punctuation, and/or assumptions we can read your mind going on. If English is not your first language, that could explain the problem. That's okay, but we need to understand you before proceeding, so please proofread your comments before publishing them. -- Valjean (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Robert Reich for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day)

I responded to you at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day). I screwed up the ping. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Steele_dossier that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 13:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was it about you... it was not. A particular editor has been incorrect on choosing sources for years and rightly deserves critisim. Clearly a political hack, and based on what he edits, most likely a paid political hack. Loopbackdude (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Steele_dossier. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Andre🚐 04:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was it about you... it was not. A particular editor has been incorrect on choosing sources for years and rightly deserves criticism. Clearly a political hack, and based on what he edits, most likely a paid political hack. Loopbackdude (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage accdess revoked for abuse. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]