Paok117

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Paok117, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Black Lives Matter, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay I can clearly see Wikipedia is a place for censorship and isn’t a place for free speech. I haven't said anything wrong and I’m entitled to my own opinions and beliefs just because you disagree with something I have said doesn’t mean you should censor others. I didn’t really attack anyone personally nor did I label or demean anyone. I was just merely pointing out why there is no mention of violence or anarchy that occurred in 2020 in America during the BLM protests it’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion that I contributed. This isn’t based on any subjective opinion, but rather it’s based on objective truth. Paok117 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 20:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your first edit also showed a lack of good faith

At Talk:Daniel Andrews. As for the Daily Mail, see WP:RSNP. We consider it unreliable. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Lmfao your clearly biased then, your not suitable to be an admin it’s clear you have a bias towards lefties. I think most people on Wikipedia find the Daily mail pretty reliable it’s a news tabloid after all. Paok117 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh? That wasn't my decision, that was a decision made by the community. You didn't even bother to read RSNP or you didn't understand it. Ah, you say "it's a news tabloid after all". Sarcasm? Doug Weller talk 08:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have read the “reliable sources” section on Wikipedia and I have also read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I understand how making an edit works and if Wikipedia strives to keep neutrality an important factor then it should be perfectly acceptable to include the Daily Mail as a source. That is why I quoted the Daily Mail since it covered a topic about Daniel Andrews “treason” charge since it has been reported by numerous media outlets in Australia. Paok117 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, "The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present." I've got nothing more to say about this. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)