User talk:PunxtawneyPickle

Welcome!

Hello, PunxtawneyPickle, 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:

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! Longhair\^talk 02:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Bubble tea is disgusting. That said - why did you delete my entire section "Controversy" from the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article seconds after I added it? You obviously reverted the edit without taking time to read it and check the cites. I can only assume that you reverted the edit simply because it included criticism of this liberal darling. But politics aside, disallowing any criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez violates the very foundation on which Wikipedia rests - a neutral point of view. If the only statements allowed in an article are those which are laudatory, the article becomes nothing more than a political ad. Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive and objective. Please step back, be objective and fair-minded, and return my edit to its rightful place in the article.JohnTopShelf (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

It is ridiculous that there are articles in Wikipedia with criticism of everything from capitalism to President Trump, but criticism of Ocasio-Cortez is forbidden. JohnTopShelf (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can there ever be consensus about whether or not an article on AOC should include criticism? Her supporters, of which there appear to be many among Wikipedia editors, would never agree with inclusion of any criticism. But without inclusion of criticism, properly cited, there can be no neutral point of view.JohnTopShelf (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

I see that you flagged me for edit warring. I guess that means that every time I make an edit, it is immediately reverted. Look, I am not trying to be problematic. I just believe that criticism should be allowed in articles about all politicians - whether liberal or conservative. But any time I include any criticism whatsover in the Ocasio-Cortez article, it is immediately reverted, typically within seconds, before the reverting editor could have even had time to read much of it and certainly before my cites could be checked for accuracy (they were accurate). Why the issue with including criticism? What happened to neutral point of view? or has that been replaced with consensus - meaning no edit can be included without everyone agreeing with its inclusion. As I stated before, there can be no consensus when a number of editors make blanket reversions of edits which include anything they disagree with, not because it's inaccurate or not properly cited, but simply because it presents a position unfavorable to a position they believe. Keeping criticism out of political articles, regardless of the political leanings of the subject of the article, defeats the very purpose of Wikipedia. JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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-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.

--MONGO (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Stop with the "complicit" business and the aspersions against other editors. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet forum, and you are expected to treat other editors with respect. You may face sanctions if this behavior continues. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recasting the discussion. Leave your views on other editors out of it. You might also want to read WP:NOTNEWS. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not acceptable for you to keep carrying on with observations concerning what you think other editors are thinking., This is your final warning. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people page restrictions on William Barr, where you have reverted without attempting to reach consensus on the talk page or even explaining your edit in an edit summary. This behaviour will no longer be tolerated. When your block expires, feel free to participate in the discussion I created regarding this particular dispute (sorry for the following repetition, it's part of the template). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 11:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that you have been notified of the discretionary sanctions again. That means I can block you if you violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Canzoneri moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ginger Canzoneri, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ginger Canzoneri

Hello, PunxtawneyPickle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ginger Canzoneri, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sam Moskowitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Frazier. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ginger Canzoneri

Hello, PunxtawneyPickle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ginger Canzoneri".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]