User talk:EliteArcher88

Welcome!

Hello, EliteArcher88, 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:

{{Div col|colwidth=30em|style=column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2;}}

{{Div col end}}

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 {{edit|Special:MyTalk|ask for help on your talk page|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --🐦DrWho42 (🔨) 04:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Violation of [[WP:BRD]]

You're violating WP:BRD on Turning Point USA and should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

::Its okay SNoogs, admin Black_kite explained how the edit must be approached in Wikipedias voice, I'm working on rewording it now. which if you look in my revert I invited you to do if you cared about it being accurate, but it seems you just want it omitted completely? EliteArcher88 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

::: I do want it omitted completely. Why are we citing the drivel of liars and conspiracy theorists? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

::::Snoogs, despite your personal beliefs, Fox News, a reliable verifiable source reported that Charlie Kirk stated that he refused money from the PPP, this is notable as it is also reported by a reliable/verfiable Daily beast article here, [https://www.thedailybeast.com/pro-trump-student-group-turning-point-usa-applied-for-then-rejected-coronavirus-aid article link] and also a National Review article here [https://www.nationalreview.com/news/turning-point-usa-brags-about-rejecting-big-government-coronavirus-relief-loan-after-applying-for-it/ article link]. So if its notable and corroborated between sources. Worded correctly as Black_Kite suggested, what's the issue? I admit maybe my initial edit was worded out of Wikipedias voice, but if your reasoning is bias about Charlie Kirk, I don't think thats good enough reason to omit notable documented, published events.EliteArcher88 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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.

}} Doug Weller talk 10:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 general sanctions

{{Ivm|2=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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here{{#ifeq:{{Gs/topics|sanctions sanctions = covid }}||.
|:

{{talkquote|}}}}

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

}} Doug Weller talk 10:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions renewals for American Politics and Covid-19

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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-1992 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.

}} {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

}} Doug Weller talk 15:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)