User talk:Manikhat18

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Manikhat18, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 15:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Is there a reason you posted this on my talk page? Meatsgains^(talk) 01:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob stefanowski.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Bob stefanowski.png

Thanks for uploading File:Bob stefanowski.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antifa (United States). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa edits

"the terrorist organization known for their use of state-backed violence against peaceful protesters." Really? Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics

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 recently 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 any 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 13:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues

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 recently shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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 any 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 10:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Your recent edits to American political subjects have been tendentious, in my opinion. Admittedly I don't understand the point of this back and forth at Antifa (United States), but it ends with a change of the word "stated" in the sentence "Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically" to "Their supposed focus, etc". Stated is neutral and in accordance with the source; supposed introduces a non-neutral element of suspicion. This is fairly ridiculous, especially in the prominent place where the sentence is: last in the lead section. Here you removed the well-sourced final sentence in the lead of the article Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which brought the history of the Second Amendment into the present. How you can think that's "irrelevant" baffles comprehension. Your earlier edits are all of a piece with these recent ones. Please edit more constructively and neutrally on these controversial articles, or you're likely to find yourself banned from editing them, per the blue boxes above. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Proud Boys, you may be blocked from editing.

Your changes have already been discussed on the article's talk page. Reliable sources repeatedly describe the Proud Boys as far-right, and Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, censorship, political correctness, or whitewashing. Again, if you want to make these changes, gain consensus first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Grayfell. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UW

You have ignored all 4 previous warnings. You have been reported to the administrators for repeated vandalism and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JC7V-talk 05:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for intentionally being a dick to 3-4 different people. why should we have to put up with people like you?.

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]