User talk:Architeuthidæ

Welcome

Hello Architeuthidæ and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Jim Jordan (American politician), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Missvain (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Hi, did you see the edits that I removed? I don't know how my contributions could be perceived as not conforming to policies given what I was removing. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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-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.

Please bear in mind that as Wikipedia editors, our role is to convey the content of reliable source references according to their weight in mainstream discourse. Your personal opinions or speculations are not helpful on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just as the barnstar says I have seen some of your talk:page arguments about bias and I appreciate them. Heres a barnstorm for what its worth. Keep up the good work. EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Unfortunately I think the problem may be systemic in how Wikipedia determines "reliability" of sources. I've heard a variety of definitions and arguments for accepting news articles at face value, and the fact that sources like Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and CNN are supposedly categorized as "non-partisan" is very disheartening to say the least. Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Arrived here after reading your comments on the impeachment trial talk page. It can be disheartening to work on the Wikipedia project at times, but I'm always happy to see an editor question and probe the accepted 'way things are done'. While I admit that there simply has to be a pool of sources that the community, by consensus, agrees are reliable, it doesn't mean that this can't change over time - the sources and the consensus about whether they should or should not be on the list. It is surely healthy to examine the reliability of sources on an ongoing basis. I admire any editor willing to do that battle and deal with the inevitable wall of protest. RandomGnome (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edits to David_Wright_(journalist) use as a source a group known for deceptively editing videos. This is well documented at: Project Veritas. This is a violation of WP:BLP and must be removed or cited accurately. Otherwise you are smearing a living person. O3000 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Which edit violates BLP? Let me have a look at the link to the edit and we'll discuss. Although, I have to inform you that I didn't add the information about David Wright's suspension. I just did some copy editing to restore neutrality. Architeuthidæ (talk)

It is not neutral. Biographies of living people must be based on good sources -- not sources that have committed fraud. You have restored this text and repeatedly whitewashed the source. Veritas is not just accused, it is known for repeatedly, deceptively editing videos to harm living people for political purposes. Wikipedia cannot be a part of defamation. O3000 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)