Contents

User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Your recent editing history at Dinesh D'Souza shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is a notification that you have now reached 3RR at the D'Souza article. Also, a reminder that the article is under DS.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop bothering me on my talk page? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Snoogs, @NeilN: is familiar with some of the issues on this article, in case you feel it needs Admin attention. Current behavior aside, it should arguably be under the standard American Politics page restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring on The Gateway Pundit and Fox News. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 14:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

sorry about that. I must have missed the body part of your change (rather than just the lede) when I looked at it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd very much appreciate it if you could email me. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't use the Wikipedia email feature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working on fixing that right now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

	Truce and Peaceful Relations Going Forward
	What do you say to a truce and working toward peace between us going forward? I'm in - I hope you will be, too. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There has at no point been a conflict between "us". This has strictly been a one-sided affair with you WP:HOUNDING me across Wikipedia in a disturbing manner and to the detriment of the Wikipedia project. If you're now committing to stop harassing me, I certainly hope you will stand by it. I encourage you to accept Bishonen's generous offer of voluntary restrictions[1], and that point #2 covers all the pages that you stalked me to after Bishonen posted his proposal (e.g. [2]). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is an acceptance or rejection of ceasing the bad blood between us . Just like edit warring, bad feelings between editors is never one-sided. Your response reads to me like a rejection. Am I wrong? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What is it that you're asking of Snoogans? They are asking you to stop hounding them; what actions would they cease as part of a "truce"? –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)#"Immigration_hardliner"_is_sourced for a bit of background on these accusations of WP:HOUNDING, where Winkelvi claims to have been editing an article months before Snooganssnoogans did an edit there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi's record of WP:HOUNDING was well-documented and established at that point. I erroneously said he followed me to the Stephen Miller page, but my claim was not out of bounds. I edited the Miller page, was reverted by Winkelvi 6 minutes later, checked whether he had made any of the last 500 edits (August 2017-) on the Miller page[3], found that he hadn't, and levied the accusation that he followed me there. The accusation was thrown amid numerous recent instances where Winkelvi had been 100% confirmed to have stalked me. I checked the last 500 edits, but did not check the "Editor Interaction Analyser" as I had done previously (it takes a long time to load for me)[4]. That was of course a mistake. I do not think one mistaken comment of hounding suddenly makes all of Winkelvi's well-documented harassment acceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Or everyone could just put this behind them and move on? Seems like what they are trying to do right now. Less drama from any angle is better for everyone. PackMecEng (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not realise that there was such a long history of you two having interacted in edits. This one mistake doesn't make harassment acceptable, but it shows that we should all be careful before accusing someone of something especially something serious. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 14:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd very much appreciate it if you could email me. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't use the Wikipedia email feature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working on fixing that right now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

	Truce and Peaceful Relations Going Forward
	What do you say to a truce and working toward peace between us going forward? I'm in - I hope you will be, too. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There has at no point been a conflict between "us". This has strictly been a one-sided affair with you WP:HOUNDING me across Wikipedia in a disturbing manner and to the detriment of the Wikipedia project. If you're now committing to stop harassing me, I certainly hope you will stand by it. I encourage you to accept Bishonen's generous offer of voluntary restrictions[5], and that point #2 covers all the pages that you stalked me to after Bishonen posted his proposal (e.g. [6]). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is an acceptance or rejection of ceasing the bad blood between us . Just like edit warring, bad feelings between editors is never one-sided. Your response reads to me like a rejection. Am I wrong? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What is it that you're asking of Snoogans? They are asking you to stop hounding them; what actions would they cease as part of a "truce"? –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)#"Immigration_hardliner"_is_sourced for a bit of background on these accusations of WP:HOUNDING, where Winkelvi claims to have been editing an article months before Snooganssnoogans did an edit there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi's record of WP:HOUNDING was well-documented and established at that point. I erroneously said he followed me to the Stephen Miller page, but my claim was not out of bounds. I edited the Miller page, was reverted by Winkelvi 6 minutes later, checked whether he had made any of the last 500 edits (August 2017-) on the Miller page[7], found that he hadn't, and levied the accusation that he followed me there. The accusation was thrown amid numerous recent instances where Winkelvi had been 100% confirmed to have stalked me. I checked the last 500 edits, but did not check the "Editor Interaction Analyser" as I had done previously (it takes a long time to load for me)[8]. That was of course a mistake. I do not think one mistaken comment of hounding suddenly makes all of Winkelvi's well-documented harassment acceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Or everyone could just put this behind them and move on? Seems like what they are trying to do right now. Less drama from any angle is better for everyone. PackMecEng (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not realise that there was such a long history of you two having interacted in edits. This one mistake doesn't make harassment acceptable, but it shows that we should all be careful before accusing someone of something especially something serious. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You said: "see the talk page. this is settled language. language that reflects the sources. your language does not at all reflect the sources."

1. What I found on the talk page says that the sentence should be included in the lead, not how it should be worded.

2. I changed the word "implemented" to "enforced", which exactly reflects what the text says. "Implemented" is not found in the article or in the sources.

3. As for the other changes:

I changed to DHS because there's 3 sentences in a row with "as Secretary of Homeland Security". That's unnecessary repetition for the lead.

Added the necessary hyphen. It's grammatically incorrect without it.

And it should go without saying as to why I removed the death parameters - but if a parameter is irrelevant and blank, there's no reason for it to be there.

4. Complete reversions are usually reserved for vandalism and the like. Otherwise it's considered disruptive. "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit."

—Musdan77 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I can find no connection between the IPs and the one account that keep removing those bits of info. Don't know if that is good news or bad news. I dropped a warning on that one IP's page (if you had warned them earlier I could have blocked already, after four reverts). If it continues, let me know; semi-protection is always an option. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello this is the IP u were talking to I apologize for my actions. Please listen to my reasoning. I have no ill intentions here I got carried away in anger and I apologize for it. All I want to know is why is something like that on the page when other Congress pages do not have something like that. Also there have been other people that have removed the quote and came to the same conclusion that I have and found the quote to be biased and removed it only to have the edit reverted later. Vandalism was not my intention. Also I apologize for not coming to the talk page earlier it said that the page did not exist for some reason and I did not know how to access it. I don't want any quarrels with you or this admin. Some people will find that statement to be biased and unfitting to the page. Once again I apologize for my actions and I hope we don't have any more issues in the future. Have a nice day.72.66.73.129 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh one last thing I will not edit from now on. I will only read pages so you will not hear from me again. I feel kinda bad about this ordeal and I don't want to think about it anymore. Good luck in the future and if somebody reverts the edit in question it was not me and I would not know who it was. Farewell.72.66.73.129 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted heckled-at-the-theater, not hosted-political-show-while-in-office. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, my fault. I should have looked more closely. Apologies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I just wasn't sure what you intended. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Per instructions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard I am adding this to your talk page.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you are unreasonably insisting on the inclusion of your preferred language on both the Tucker Carlson page and the Lou Barletta page. Regarding the Lou Barletta page, I posted a lengthy comment on the talk page several days ago about blatantly unbalanced and POV language that I had rewritten. When I went through the edit history this evening, I was not surprised to find that you were the author of that language (your edits were dated May 16). I surmise that you have strong political beliefs, as do I. It can be tempting to include one's POV in the encyclopedia. A look at your user page gives the impression that this may be a recurring problem. With respect, please examine your POV in regard to your editing. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw your snarky (and false) accusation that I have been whitewashing pages and making edits for no reason. I'm not amused. Cut it out. SunCrow (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Snoogans, accusing someone of whitewashing is a little close to the line if not over for personal attack. The section you made Talk:South African farm attacks#Whitewashing and stalking is not helpful with a title like that. So why change it back? Does an accusatory title like that help your case somehow? PackMecEng (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Editors who stalk me to other pages, only to remove whatever I add should be called out on it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely they should! Take them to ANI or AE for such things I would bet you would find some traction there to put a stop to it. But stuff like this is not the right way to handle it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ami Horowitz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have clearly violated the 3RR and I strongly suggest that you self-revert or I will report you. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He hasn't violated 3RR; you need 4 edits in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. He is edit-warring, but you are as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Also your claimed motivation (that the material in the lead duplicates and summarizes content in the article) is in fact the reason the material should be retained. I'm confident that a report would boomerang against The Kingfisher. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Kingfisher, I would be careful if I were you lest you be accused of POV-based removal of cited content on an ongoing basis. You tried this in May and June of 2017, and you gained no traction whatsoever on the talk page. I'm not sure if you have been warned about discretionary sanctions for American Politics-related topics, which this article may well fall under, so I'll post that note on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You said using Brooks' website was bad but then proceeded to also delete the source from al.com, thus confirming I couldn't have added anything without you being upset by it. - Informant16 August 23, 2018

I kept the Jim Jordan stuff, which was sourced to AL.com. If I accidentally deleted some other reliably sourced content, please restore it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it's sourced by or what it says. All you're going to do is delete it. That's all any of the mods can do. DELETE. DELETE. DELETE. I would get rid of the last one you left on there, but then you would say I was "vandalizing" the site. - Informant16 September 7, 2018

Please stop following me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way at Wikipedia. Editors have a duty to correct the errors of other editors, especially those who use unreliable sources. The more you show signs of incompetence, the more editors will follow you and correct your errors. They are protecting Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your vigilance in defending Wikipedia from editors who won't follow our policies and who create unnecessary work for hard working editors. Thanks, and keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gina Loudon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WYDE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Corey Stewart shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Right deletion (from Brexit). for wrong reason. :-)
What you meant to say was "speculation so ruled out by WP:CRYSTAL, wait ti see it if it happens, then report". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I saw your recent edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Washington_Times&diff=next&oldid=861973957) of the Washington Times page, trimming it down. Isn't it customary to include where newspapers are distributed? Also, my edit, which as of this message, you have not edited, the phrase "unusually robust" is a direct quote of Rich's attorney and is mentioned in the CNN reference. Thanks. P37307 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The lede still notes where it is distributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Duh! You're right. I just looked at the edit changes. P37307 (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Peter Navarro shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 70.32.29.37 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Tucker Carlson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your recent editing history at Center for Immigration Studies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.29.37 (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously pal could you be more obvious? [9] What's the chances two editors independently happen on Eckard I, Margrave of Meissen, Dutch disease, Zollverein and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, years apart? I'll tell you exactly: 1 in however many editors there are because you and your "buddy" are the only two. Tsk. Tsk. 70.32.29.37 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's actually pretty insane that any editor I know happened to edit Eckard I, Margrave of Meissen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop cyberstalking me on Wikipedia. You're following my every move and undoing my edits. Please stop following me around. Thank you. --Sherwoodspeaks (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Per this edit, what do you mean that "numbers not visible"? You can see the numbers for each year in the graph. -Obsidi (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Only the first digit was visible for each year in my browser. I just now opened it on a different browser and they seem to work on that browser. Hmmm. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Try new graph. I can see the numbers on my end. -Obsidi (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Casualties of the Iraq War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your addition to Laura Ingraham has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Beefing up" the removed section was not recommended, in spite of what your edit summary here states. Please don't use edit summaries dishonestly - plainly put, don't lie about what other editors say to you. As well, this statement you put into the article, "Ingraham holds anti-immigration views" cannot be said in Wiki-voice and needs to be written in an NPOV manner. I'm hoping you will do that quickly. Even though Wikipedia isn't on a deadline, POV language should never be allowed to stand - especially in a BLP. There are rules against that, of course. We all need to follow them. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making sure mass media has its say here on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.226.145 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA and WP:AGF, let's cool this down on the CIS page. I see you added "To be nice" on your list of to-dos on your page, and let's both follow that advice. I shouldn't have accused you of coordinating with Marek, and in return I ask you not make groundless accusations toward me. We obviously have several disagreements on how to make the CIS page as accurate and NPOV as possible. Let's agree to resolve it in a more reasonable manner going forward. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang have you hit everyone up for election next month already!? That is some fast work! PackMecEng (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why have you twice reverted my Jeff Flake edits? There is a single paragraph in an otherwise fair (and long) article which is clearly written from a biased perspective, and cites an unreliable source. I repaired the offending paragraph with a balanced historical view, citing the Washington Post and a respected UK newspaper. On the Jeff Flake talk page, I explained that a quick read of the Wikipedia article entitled nuclear option (linked to in the questionable paragraph) will clearly show why an edit is absolutely necessary. Vcuttolo (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the archived discussion where it was agreed and concluded that diGenova -- a former US Attorney for the District of Columbia, a former Independent Counsel of the United States, a former Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, a former Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and a former Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee) -- is an unreliable source. If not, your reverts of my edits are an abuse of process and I will file a complaint at ANI. Quis separabit? 23:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion where it was agreed that diGenova, known for peddling conspiracy theories about the Russia probe per multiple RS, should be designated an unreliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Please discuss on the [talk page].Mikalra (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Asking since I think you have more experience than me on stuff like this -- should this be on the page and if so, where? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should. If Kemp has an association with extremists and this is reported on by RS, then yes. Simply appearing in a photo with an extremist is not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the photo op was notable. The ensuing controversy, ending with him distancing himself from Stachowiak was. Imo. But thanks for your input.--Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

sorry about that. I must have missed the body part of your change (rather than just the lede) when I looked at it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi === Please stop editing Maria Bartiromo's page. I was one of the founders of the page and changing her job description to "opinion news host" is inaccurate. She is a journalist, and the original description using the word journalist is more accurate and should remain. I can be conatcted me at m@endicium.com , if needed. Thank you and have a great day!

Hey, I was looking at some of your recent edits and I was wondering if I could convince you to please take a couple of extra seconds for article edits to write a brief edit summary, to let others know what you're doing in that edit. It looks like you're currently just writing edit summaries for some reverts. Here are some examples of the types of edits for which I'd like to see summaries: [10] [11] [12] ~Awilley (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, if you make a habit of writing talk page posts like this I will be imposing this sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Warning taken. But just to be clear, if I believe that I'm being stalked and reverted out of malice (or out of a misplaced desire to stop my "bad edits") by an editor, where should I take my complaint? Directly to the user on his talk page? Directly to an admin? But leave it out of the article talk page itself? Or should I wait with the complaints unless I can actually document a long-term pattern of harassment? As you may be aware of, I was harassed by Winkelvi (the harassment started months ago) but admins only took action this week. In another case of harassment by a now-banned editor called Sashirolls, I told the editor to stop harassing me and admins took no action (admins even banned me for a few days for being uncivil towards my harasser). The editor was later banned after he sought to doxx another Wikipedia editor. Now Sashirolls is seeking to doxx me on an off-wiki forum. I tell you this, because I think it's good to nip this kind of harassment in the bud early on (either by calling the editor in question out or making clear on article talk pages that an editor followed me there), yet Wikipedia seems extremely lenient towards editors who demonstrate obsession and harassment towards editors who edit in controversial issue areas. I'm not saying that your warning is wrong, I'm just trying to get some clarity on what my options are and how I can better edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to request that your remove this attempt to besmirch my reputation without evidence. Contrary to what you assert, I did not "out" Sagecandor (though I did help to ensure that Sagecandor would be identified as a sockpuppet of Cirt), nor have I ever asked anyone to "out" you. I did originally draw attention to your contribution to the George Galloway entry, because I was following the ArbCom case on that matter. The fact that I drew attention to your contribution led to your edit being unanimously rejected in an RfC. That was about content, as always. It is correct that EdJohnston blocked you for your over-reaction when I asked you about an unjustifiable edit you'd made to a woman's BLP. As it happens, I had added that page to my watchlist after she resigned from the DNC, since I figured that some people might make some bad edits to her page. A collection of five ArbCom decisions can be found at WP:Aspersions. There is significant consensus (45:1) that making claims like those above is problematic behavior: "a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." I hope you'll agree that the path of least resistance is just to remove the unjustifiable attacks. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What in your opinion is more likely to constitute harassment and make editing less enjoyable? Replying to the same editor multiple times (likely by coincidence as per topic of interest overlap), or persistently casting aspersions in order to get someone blocked? I'm not going to watch this page; just wanted to drop a note. wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And for what its worth, I think your decision to implement this sanction on a number of editors in American politics was a wise decision, and that it will likely improve editing in Am politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I will remember to do it more often. Just to be clear, are edit summaries a requirement? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't required, but using them is common courtesy.

On the complaints about stalking/harassment, you've basically got the idea: keep it out of the article talk space. Complaining to an administrator or at a noticeboard is fine, but only if you have good evidence and you're not engaging in similarly poor behavior. I should note that "stalking" (following) people's edits is not prohibited by policy, and I suspect it's something everyone does to some extent. So if you show up at AN/I with a list of articles that someone has followed you to, that's not enough. You actually have to show that there is harassment going on...that a user is seeking you out with the intent of obstructing your work and making life unpleasant for you. By the way, I've had a bit of experience being stalked/harassed myself, and it is very annoying. (This was before I became an admin, and the user had lots to say at my RfA as well [13]) I don't remember anything ever being done about it other than another user/admin occasionally pushing back when the harassing user took things too far. The user was eventually topic banned from my area of editing and quit editing after that I think. ~Awilley (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your contributions to the Mitch McConnell page. I'd never read an in-depth analysis of the obstruction conducted by him during the Obama years and found it informative. I know you've been getting some backlash from a user, and I'm certainly no stranger to that, but I hope that you're not dissuaded from continuing to edit. - Informant16 October 20, 2018

Enjoyed this comment immensely. 'in-depth analysis' is exactly what editors should NOT be doing because it strays very quickly into POV and OR. Imagine our shock.172.78.26.62 (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that the in-depth analysis in question were the numerous peer-reviewed research items that were summarized in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It occurred to me that an aggressive activist editor should have no real home on Wikipedia, because they're helping to destroy faith in the project. Yet here you are, doing your thing, with impunity and a self-righteous smirk. 172.78.26.62 (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You have undone my Billy Long Agriculture Section many times on the account of using primary sources. Aren't primary sources generally considered good? As they cannot be faulty do to (in this case) being the exact words of the person in question from him, and not a third party that could have distorted him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelchMan (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the WP:PRIMARY source content that you keep adding is that it fails to give appropriate context and it fails to meet WP:DUE. Simply use secondary reliable sources (such as news reporting). A secondary reliable source might for example note that Billy Long's own assertions about being pro-agriculture or whatever fly in the face of a record of anti-agriculture actions. That's why it's unacceptable to use politicians' own statements or those of lobby groups, unless they are substantiated and contextualized by secondary reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Paul Ryan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, just wanted to drop by and say "hi" as I intend to edit Stop-and-frisk in New York City over the next month or two and see that you're editing there too. Hopefully we can improve the page (it is currently a class C page) and get it up to WP:GOOD standards. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

HiSeahawk01, you may be interested in reading this[14] and adding the research that it reviews on S&F to the article. I haven't had time to read it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

HiSnooganssnoogans, thanks for the reply. I just left a note on talk stop-and-frisk nyc suggesting we give more historical context to the story. I agree with you that, since we are working on an encyclopedia, both sides of the story should be told. So, I think there should be more than enough room to both outline the goals and successes of proactive policing as well as the controversy that resulted in New York City. Anyway, I'm planning on working on this over two months, so we can have more discussions later. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The other party seems determined to win another e/w block. I've removed some of what they were arguing about though, as it's based on primary sources and is, frankly not particularly relevant to their notability. I also assume some kind of conflict of interest. ——SerialNumber54129 18:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KidAd (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I appears as if you are stalking my edits, reverting just because I have made the edit. If you disagree with edits, please take your concerns to the talk page rather than revert. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You are accusing me of "stalking" you and spuriously reverting you just because I reverted your removal of reliably sourced content on a page that I had edited considerably (and long before you first touched it)? A page that you yourself stalked me to on August 12 (less than 24 hrs from my previous edit on the page) during one of the harassment episodes[15] which later led to your block? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And I've told you before: stay away from my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been editing that page and pages related to Pirro for a while now. I haven't stalked you in the past or even now. But somehow, when I edit an article you do, you invariable revert what I've just edited. Frequently within minutes afterward. It's been going on since this spring. That does look and feel like stalking and hounding to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking are a serious matter both for the accuser and the accused. If you have supporting evidence you should take your concerns to the appropriate user conduct noticeboard where they can be acted upon. Spurious accusations of stalking constitute (at best) incivility and (at worst) harassment, so be sure that you are on solid ground. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. I would like to request that you keep a safe distance from me effective immediately. It is not your job to police me, especially given the fact that you ought to have people watching over you and your bad faith edit practices. Stay away, and have a nice day. ~~ KidAd

Coordinating with other editors to go after me as you did here[16] is not acceptable behavior. It is WP:HARASSMENT. Furthermore, asking other editors to revert a specific edit of mine on a post-1932 US politics article (as you appeared to do) seems to be a violation of your topic ban (in spirit, at least). I will write these warnings on my talk page. Just don't pretend that you haven't been warned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your statement above--like many other statements you have made on Wikipedia--is misleading. Contrary to what you said, KidAd did not "coordinate with other editors to go after you." In fact, he did not ask me to take any action toward you at all. His use of the term "enemy" was unfortunate, but--contrary to what you said--I do not believe his comments violated WP:HARASSMENT. What KidAd in fact did is express (understandable) concern and frustration with your editing behavior. The "warning" you gave him blows my mind. Given the litany of warnings and disputes that appears on your talk page, and given the experience I've had in dealing with you over a period of months (dismissiveness, snark, twisting of the truth, unwillingness to look at your own glaring POV issues, and insistence on getting your own way when disputes arise), I don't believe you are in any position to warn other editors about supposed conduct failures. You say that you find KidAd's behavior "not acceptable." Do you care whether your behavior is acceptable? If so, I can't tell from your user page, where you have posted a list of negative comments other editors have made about you; it appears that find those comments funny, or see them as a strange badge of honor. If you want other editors to care about your warnings, your opinions, or anything else, you might want to begin by extending the same concern and courtesy to them. It would be a welcome change from your usual modus operandi. SunCrow (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm hoping you can clarify what the need for secondary sourcing is. If a person gives an interview to a news or opinion source, why wouldn't that be admissible before some other outlet talks about it? I believe I've seen an individual's tweets used as sources on other articles; I just don't see how an interview differs from that in any meaningful way. Qehath (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We use secondary sourcing to ensure WP:DUE weight and to ensure WP:NPOV. Editors randomly picking moments and positions from primary sources can give a misleading depiction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed that tag is still on the page, especially considering my own attempts to add content that one could consider objective, i.e. what he's done in office rather than how he's been assessed. Regardless, I do think you and I share a commonality in wanting to contribute to that page. I'm just tired of my stuff getting reverted by people that never add anything, as you might be as well. Maybe we could collaborate. - Informant16 11 December 2018

I would like an explanation from you regarding why SmartVote and Cleveland.com are not reliable Secondary Sources. A legislator's voting record is public and therefore reasonable information to include on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreytFolly (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is a reliable secondary source. VoteSmart is a collection of all votes, and therefore fails to meet WP:DUE. If you want to add LaRose's position on various issues, a good way to go about it is to look at say Cleveland.com's coverage of him and include the positions that Cleveland.com covers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me your definition of reliable secondary sources varies depending on which edit/reversion you are attempting to defend. On "secondary sourcing" above, you claim that "Editors randomly picking moments and positions from primary sources can give a misleading depiction" while under Billy Long, you say: "The problem with the WP:PRIMARY source content that you keep adding is that it fails to give appropriate context and it fails to meet WP:DUE." These appear to be contradictory explanations.

If Cleveland.com is a reliable source (as you indicate), then your reversion of my edit was inappropriate, and frankly, annoying, But yet according to your response quoted above, Cleveland.com wouldn't be because it could give a "misleading depiction". Yet SmartVote simply compiles a legislator's voting record with comment. It is not a primary source (that would the actual voter record), thereby making it a secondary source. Either Votesmart is neutral, which is supposed to be the point of WP:DUE or it is biased, which I see no evidence of. Either way, I still see no convincing argument for why my edits were reverted. GreytFolly (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your use of the Cleveland.com source was inappropriate because the source did not mention LaRose. That makes it WP:OR, which is a no-no. And no, there are many reasons why primary sources are inappropriate, and the ones I've mentioned are not contradictory. Furthermore, it's not my task to explain to you how WP:DUE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR etc work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I am a longtime reader of Wikipedia and am very familiar with its policies for years, but I am not an editor (except for minor tweaks as an anonymous editor). I created an account because I believe this discussion on BLP for Steve King affects the credibility of Wikipedia, but I am also assuming good faith when you are discussing this. Please do the same with me. Also, unrelated, I might be a bit slow in my replies but I will keep an eye on what you have to say. Cheers. JLaw220 (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Why are you having a problem with my adding to the page of Hans von Spakovsky? The page mentions Georgia voter ID was thrown out by a District Court judge. I added that the Circuit Court reinstated it in 2009 and that the Georgia Supreme Court gave final approval in 2011. I provided a link to a article about both elements. Why remove the addition and leave people thinking the Georgia voter ID law does not exist. My addition is appropriate in light of the claim that the law was thrown out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excalibur26 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Unless you can prove who killed Seth Rich - in which case you should immediately contact the DC PD - you don’t get to claim that allegations that in large part are highly unspecific are “discredited.” We can agree that the allegations in question are highly controversial, not widely held, especially in polite society, but absent proof of what happened, they’re not “discredited.” Please desist. Alterrabe (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You can take that up with the numerous reliable sources that have described the conspiracy theories as false and unfounded. Here at Wikipedia we have strict rules about how we treat fringe theories. R2 (bleep) 16:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I have discussed multiple issues I have with the miller article on its talk page; let's discussMagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I notice you have reverted an edit multiple times. Obviously you take an issue with my objective edits, so do you care to discuss what the issue was? Nuerotoxic2213 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that his hosting white racists has no place in the article, but not under career. perhaps under white genocide conspiracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiohdi (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)