User talk:Hutz18

January 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Cultural appropriation, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 11:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I came to comment on your edit to this effect at 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, but I see you were already notified of this issue days ago. BD2412 T 05:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I see some confusion… so I want to help you understand something. The issue with your edits is this: A reliable secondary source is required that mentions that statute as being applicable to the matter at hand. Simply providing links to online copies of the statute (no matter how many), does not show that reliable sources have covered the topic of the audit to include the statute… but instead shows original research on your part to come to the conclusion of that statute being relevant. What you need to provide are sources that, without synthesis, cover the statute as a piece to this topic. If you cannot find such a source, then the material cannot be added back. - Merely edit-warring your version back, over and over, is not going to help here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 29 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 08:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)