User talk:Radio Adept

Radio Adept, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Radio Adept! 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 experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Thank you for incorporating my userbox into your user-page! Interops (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CPAC

Hi Radio Adept. While you provided a high-quality source in this edit, unfortunately that qualifies as synthesis which is not allowed. Would you please self-revert? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies—I've fixed the reference. Radio Adept (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Adept, Perhaps I was not being clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the reference itself. The problem is that your edit constitutes WP:SYNTH. In other words, you're combining different references to reach a conclusion not found in either reference. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My source (available on the Internet Archive here) includes the full claim—that the Odal rune was the badge of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office; there is no synthesis here. If the issue is that the statement is in the same sentence as the 2021 CPAC stage, then I will remedy it. Radio Adept (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Adept, Yes, that is part of the issue. However, there is no reason to give a history lesson on the origins of the Odal Rune in the CPAC article. Please be mindful of WP:DUE weight. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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-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.

Editing RfCs.

RA, this looks like a good faith edit[[1]] but in general it is best to ask/clarify with the editor who opened a RfC before changing the text. Springee (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mellk (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]