User talk:Mikeymikemikey

Mikeymikemikey, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mikeymikemikey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is now time to ask you to read wp:dropthestick and wp:tenditious.08:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Are you a politician? You are quoting this nonsense as a way to disparage a new editors reputation. It's pretty easy to do, here I think this are relevant for you: stonewalling WP:STONEWALL, wikilawyering: WP:LAWYER, being a d**k to new editors with this wiklawyering: WP:WP DNB

Also read: WP:INTREF4

"Sources that are reliable for some material are not reliable for other material."

And read: WP:WELLKNOWN

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

please note it says "and" not "or", so like you avoid using messy, avoid using "far-right" as none of the articles were about Project Veritas' "far-right" views.

Will you concede I have a point, or will you do some more wikilawyering? Or just ignore me because you know the cabal of veteran editors who have your back? I feel I have not been uncourteous, yet I'm met with rash wiki-bureaucratic filibustering. My point is well in the guidelines and has not be addressed, so I'm not tendentiously holding a stick.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read wp:tenditious and wp:dropthestick. wp:badgering a forum will not convince anyone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven WP:STONEWALL WP:LAWYER Mikeymikemikey (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]