January 2021
edit
Hello, I'm Thanoscar21. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Josh Hawley have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- So you defend people who incite insurrection against the lawful government of the United States?
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Josh Hawley. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- So you're saying that you support MAGAs? Gotcha.
- This is, once again, a direct violation of the rule I just pointed you toward. But since you seem to care so much: No, I don't support Hawley. If you actually looked at the revision history of that page, you'll find that I've added a lot of missing negative material that should have been there in the first place, and if you looked at my page, you'd see I have a BLM userbox. But just to be clear: my edits speak for themselves, and regardless of my personal political beliefs, I'm not going to let people call Hawley either the sole individual responsible for an anti-American coup or, alternatively, this nation's last line of defense from antifa terrorists. On Wikipedia, citations are needed for claims, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If you can truly find a non-opinion source reporting something you want to include, suggest it on the talk page. And just to clarify something else: there's no reason a conservative couldn't edit Wikipedia, so long as they follow the same guidelines I have, which are to not allow your political opinions to get in the way of productive editing. For reference:
"Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."
AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is, once again, a direct violation of the rule I just pointed you toward. But since you seem to care so much: No, I don't support Hawley. If you actually looked at the revision history of that page, you'll find that I've added a lot of missing negative material that should have been there in the first place, and if you looked at my page, you'd see I have a BLM userbox. But just to be clear: my edits speak for themselves, and regardless of my personal political beliefs, I'm not going to let people call Hawley either the sole individual responsible for an anti-American coup or, alternatively, this nation's last line of defense from antifa terrorists. On Wikipedia, citations are needed for claims, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If you can truly find a non-opinion source reporting something you want to include, suggest it on the talk page. And just to clarify something else: there's no reason a conservative couldn't edit Wikipedia, so long as they follow the same guidelines I have, which are to not allow your political opinions to get in the way of productive editing. For reference:
- So you're saying that you support MAGAs? Gotcha.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |