User talk:142.0.106.121

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (142.0.106.121) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

endorsements[edit]

Just leaving this message here in case you don't see the edit summary on the list:

Regarding inclusion of endorsements, please see this RfC (a discussion which decides how to apply wikipedia policies and guidelines) -- basically, we need the endorsement covered by independent reliable sources and for them to be covered explicitly as "endorsements" (not donors/supporters/etc.).

To be clear, in some cases it's a question of whether it's an explicit endorsement, but in other cases that's not the issues -- it's that the endorsement hasn't yet been covered by independent reliable sources (or those sources weren't cited in the list yet). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Please try to be more kind with your edit summaries. There’s no reason to get angry, curse, and use all caps over small issues. Tedm03 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already been warned once. Now you are SHOUTING in your edit summaries. Do it again and you'll get blocked from editing. Instead of shouting in an edit summary, why not instead discuss it on the relevant talk page: Talk:Steve_Schmidt? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Steve Schmidt. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Muboshgu, what I said was not inaccurate. Did you read the article. He said he was a democrat. Read the article before accusing me of posting inaccurate information. I read the article you all cited. It says he is a democrat. It could not be more clear. So cut it out and admit you're wrong. It's not inaccurate.

Show me where he says he's a Democrat and I'll apologize to you. He is an independent who will be voting for Democrats. The quote is even in the article: This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party. If you're not WP:CIVIL in the future, you will be blocked for longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying he is only voting democrats. He's been only advocating for democrats and making ads for democrats. The article says he will only back democrats. He's a democrat. Deal with it. He literally says he's only voting democrat. He's a democrat. It's a fact Muboshgu. Maybe if you just admitted you were wrong I wouldn't get so mad. Respect is earned and you did not earn it

In other words, he is an independent who is voting for Democrats in 2020. He didn't register with the Democratic Party, so he's not a Democrat. We report on him as the reliable sources report, and they reported his statement that he is an independent who will vote for Democrats, which is not the same as being a Democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu here's a source https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/20/steve-schmidt-top-gop-strategist-renounces-indecen/ Now show some humility and admit you're wrong. If you won't admit you're wrong, kindly leave me alone.

You're talking about the part where it says he will become a Democratic voter? Lots of independents vote for Democrats. Others vote for Republicans. So, he's an independent who will vote for Democrats, at least in 2020. He did not register as a Democrat, and therefore is not a Democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I literally gave you an article saying he's a democrat. You're wrong. You're willfully wrong. Now go away because now you're a bad faith actor. I gave you a source that said he's a democrat. Just be done and admit you're wrong or go away.

It didn't say that he's a Democrat. It's the author of that article, from a highly partisan source, using a phrase that you are overinterpreting. He says in his quote, which the Washington Times article includes, that he is an independent. I am acting in the best faith I can here, but your inability to get that he says he is an independent voting for Democrats does not make him a "Democrat" is a bit odd. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, if you're only voting democrat, then you're a democrat. It's like a rose calling itself a sunflower, its still a rose. I'm an independent voter and I am registered to an actual party. He said he's a democrat. You're stubbornness is not welcomed here. Go away and never talk to me again. I make an edit, ignore me. Do not talk to me. Kindly, go away.

Your message[edit]

Hi there! This is a note to let you know that I responded to the message that you left on my user talk page. You can read it by clicking here. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

Why do you keep deleting Hillary Clinton’s photo? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.