User talk:Lpouer4832xs

Welcome!

Hello, Lpouer4832xs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 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! JesseRafe (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently 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 any 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.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing approach

Finding articles online that contain negative content about groups or people you disapprove of, and then posting them to article talk pages, is not a useful way to contribute to Wikipedia. This is particularly the case when the sources you are using are low-quality links like blogs pushing debunked conspiracy theories. I suggest that you try editing articles not closely related to hot-button issues on which you have strong opinions: it may help you develop an appreciation for our policies like WP:RS, without running the risk of being blocked for disruptive behavior. —JBL (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joel B. Lewis is giving you good advice. I'm glad to see it because I've been considering banning you from talk pages relating to American politics since 1932. That's something I can do as an administrator. I'm also a member of the WP:Arbitration Committee responsible for the sanctions mentioned above. Please find something else to do. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC) @Joel B. Lewis: sorry, meant for you to be pinged just for information but left out "User:". Doug Weller talk 19:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

This article is under 1RR restrictions. Please observe. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was silly, and warring over it was even sillier. WP:FART was invoked. Now you're up on a noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lpouer4832xs reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: ). Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to living or recently deceased people and articles and content relating to abortion

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

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 recently shown interest in abortion. 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 any 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.

January 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]