User talk:MKPoosh

Hello, MKPoosh, 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:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Widefox; talk 17:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Maria Miller, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

[1] and [2] Widefox; talk 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sadiq Khan. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. regentspark (comment) 15:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was clearly sourced with not only the BBC air date of the program in question but a Youtube clip of the program in question. MKPoosh (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos are not generally a source. Regardless, you need to take this to the talk page. If someone reverts your latest insertion, and you re-insert it, I will block you. --regentspark (comment) 16:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was clearly sourced, the date of the BBC debate show was sourced. And a link was given to the video of the debate. That's double sourced btw. Please explain to me why the person who reverted this sourced, accurate wiki edit is not also being threatened with blocking etc. In addition how to I access the relevant 'talk' page etc.MKPoosh (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding the information (WP:BRD) so the onus is on you to get consensus. --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can one get consensus if a doubled sourced edit is deleted? If someone doesn't like anything and there is a consensus of bad apples then accurate information will be deleted. MKPoosh (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this on the talk page rather than edit warring on the article. Present your case, along with sources, at Talk:Sadiq Khan. Other editors will examine the sources and will agree if your case is reasonable. If they don't, and you still believe you're right, use the procedures available at WP:DRN. I looked at the edit history, and other editors have disagreed with you so you need to be careful. --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to help me out here MKPoosh (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to The Gateway Pundit, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:22, 15 October 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.

Doug Weller talk 08:12, 15 October 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 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]