User talk:SIPPINONTECH

Welcome!

Hello, SIPPINONTECH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! O3000 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2019 (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-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.

O3000 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the reliability of Axios (website)

Hello SIPPINONTECH. To bolster your argument on alternate definitions of Spygate, I suggest estalishing Axios as a reliable source on WP:RSN. I'm busy this weekend so I can't do that myself. To establish the reliability of a source, we are looking at (1) editorial control/oversight, (2) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (do they issue corrections when they are wrong, are they cited by other reliable sources -> find them from WP:RSP) and (3) the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. starship.paint ~ KO 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INTERLEAVE

Hello. Per WP:INTERLEAVE, please don't insert comments in the middle of other editors' comments, as you did here. I have corrected that here. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]