User talk:Trump supporter 1776
Managing a conflict of interest
[edit]
Hello, Trump supporter 1776. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Conservapedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
- instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Please also read WP:NPOV; your edit to it violates this policy. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
[edit]
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Conservapedia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with you, however the people who primarily wrote this article (those from rationalwiki) also have a stake in this too as they are vehemently opposed to and vandalize conservapedia. Trump supporter 1776 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would have to put citation needed on 'fact based' so could you keep it out until you have some citation showing evidence of that thanks? It looks more bible conservative stuff to me falling under what has started to be called post-truth or alternative-truth. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Trump supporter 1776, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Trump supporter 1776! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
Please read this notice
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Doug Weller talk 16:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- And the meaning of this is ??? Trump supporter 1776 (talk) 09:29, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- Just what it says. Read the links. It doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, it's meant to let you know that sanctions are in place on this topic. We have discretionary sanctions covering a number of topic areas, something I don't think Conservapedia has. These are set by our Arbitration Committee, which by the way is described inaccurately here] as we are a democratically elected body, Wales has nothing to do with us anymore. Maybe you could fix that. If your username had been "IbelieveinUFOs" I probably would have informed you of our WP:FRINGE sanctions, and if it had been "Clinton supporter" I'd have given you this one. It's only fair to let new users who have usernames that suggest they advocate a particular point of view to let them know if there are sanctions in that area. A couple of tips - particularly in the area of American politics, read the talk page before you edit, particularly the bumph at the top of the page. That will let you know if there are specific restrictions such as only 1 revert per 24 hours. With some articles, when you open the edit window to open you'll see an "edit notice" about possible sanctions or restrictions. Just make sure you follow our policies and guidelines and are aware of the sanctions issues and you'll be fine. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 11:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcoming editors
[edit]It's good that you are doing that using appropriate templates, but please don't add your own comments. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Your comment to an editor that "Failure to live by american values will lead to you being thrown in jail!"
[edit]That sort of edit can get you blocked. It's also confusing. Some people think Trump is the epitome of American values, and on the other extreme are those who think that he is the enemy of American values. In any case it sounds like the sort of threat we routinely block editors for as it could have a chilling effect. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)