User talk:Fefil14

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Fefil14, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Sailing stones. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the community's consensus on reliable sources[edit]

At WP:RSP are a list of sources that have been extensively discussed by the community.

The Washington Post is considered reliable.

The New Yorker is considered reliable.

Assuming off the bat that those sources are not reliable raises concerns about one's understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really think the source that I removed is considered reliable? very well then. Fefil14 (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:RSP. The Wikipedia community has reached a consensus that WaPo and the New Yorker are reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are some sources you would consider reliable? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]