User talk:DigitalDogg21

Wikipedia, the site that is bias and doesn’t allow people to make legitimate edits..continue watching CNN.

Welcome!

Hello, DigitalDogg21, 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) 00:40, 24 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) 00:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like liberal bias to me...

April 2019

Your recent editing history at Democratic Socialists of America shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O3000 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the radical left should do the same... stop being hypocrites.

Didn’t think I’d actually get a respond..

Please read wp:spa wp:rs and wp:advocacy.Slatersteven ([[User ::talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Please read wp:spa wp:rs and wp:advocacy. Wikipedia is not the right place for what you are trying to do, not because of any bias, but because as an encyclopedia we report what is in the sources without adding in our politics.

There is, however, a website that welcomes people trying to do what you are trying to do. It is at [ https://www.conservapedia.com/ ], I suspect that you will be happier there. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep blocking,

I didn’t edit anything, so how can I be blocked from editing? Are you Nazis? DigitalDogg21 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. I'd normally provide instructions on how to appeal at this point, but searching for said instructions would be a good exercise in reading and critical thinking for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help H:EDIT, makes it clear that EDITING talk pages counts as editing. this [[1]] thus was an edit, one that breached talk page guidelines (see wp:talk as we are not a wp:soapbox). Thus this fits in with a pattern of POV pushing that make it look very much like wp:nothere. Personally I would rather you talk page access was restored, everyone has a right to ask for an appeal. I would have like to see your justification.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]