User talk:Snooganssnoogans

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!. Curivity (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Danielle Pletka

Hi,

I know you reverted the changes to her work history, but she never directly worked for Jesse Helms. Please see these screenshot records from Legistorm:

https://imgur.com/a/yFKtCna

She only worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - while Jesse Helms was the ranking member for a time period, she did not ever work directly for him. To say otherwise is incorrect.

Aleaiactm (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We should stick to what reliable sources say. Not interpret what that primary source is saying. To say she worked for the "Senate Foreign Relations Committee" would also inaccurately suggest that she was a nonpartisan expert, which she was not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that she is, and no one who works on the Hill would do so either. On the Hill you either work for a member, general support staff, or a committee. Committee employment is very much political - when there is a new majority, there isn't a guarantee that you'll stay employed. It is not an interpretation of the primary source to say that she didn't work for Jesse Helms - it is a matter of Congressional record. If she worked for Helms's office there would be a record of such employment. She is part of the committee staff, please see this article on Congressional staff Aleaiactm (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes on March 2nd

This is the second time you have reverted changes to this page I've made after accusing me of a litany of things to which you have no proof. The first time, you were shown to be incorrect, and you are letting your biases get in the way of reasoned stewardship.

When you reverted my changes this is the note you left:

revert whitewashing by an obvious COI account. remove self-sourced content that is presented in a non-npov manner and puffery.

Let's take a look at each of these claims.

whitewashing

Excusing that the term usually infers a racial component (and race is not discussed on this page in question), how was anything whitewashed? There was no narrative content deleted whatsoever. About 95% of my edit was adding additional information. If this person crosses the threshold of notoriety for having a Wikipedia page, then the page might as well be done well, being fleshed out with content regarding what makes this person notable - in this case, their views on US foreign policy.

obvious COI account

You have offered no evidence as to how I am in conflict of interest beyond being an editor of a page of a person that you clearly have some kind of issue with.

remove self-sourced content

You should familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons page. Per the page, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (emphasis carried over). While I did use the writings of the subject in my edits (which is allowed - and what I think you are confused about), none of the sources were self published by her or anyone else. They were all from reputable national outlets like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, The Daily Beast, and more. The type of sources Wikipedia encourages you to use because they have their own editorial standards. Again, you provided no insight into where you think I was using self-sourced content.

content that is presented in a non-npov manner and puffery

The only violation of this that I can find in the edits that I made is the use of the "prestigious" to describe an award the subject gave. Rather than deleting all of the edits, calling that out would have been fair and the word easily removed. Otherwise, you need to be specific as to where something is presented in a non-npov matter, and there are none of the types of adjectives described in the Wikipedia:Puffery page.

---

Your role as an editor is not to throw invective and do wholesale reverts of the hard work other editors put in. That is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Rather, you should open a talk page and list what specific items you have an issue with that violate wikipedia guidelines so an understanding can be reached.

I am making my changes again, with the delete of the word prestigious. Do not wholesale revert them. If there are factual, structural, or Wikipedia based issues with my content, pull out what there are issues with and I am happy to have a discussion.

If you do not think you can do that, then please escalate this to someone to adjudicate.

Aleaiactm (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You have exclusively edited the page of this one person, and your edits are devoted to removing controversial information sourced to RS (such as Pletka's climate change denial nonsense) while adding trivial and obscure commentary and detailed information about her life which was exclusively sourced to herself and her organization. It's hard not to raise questions about your affiliation with the subject of the article given these patterns. But that's besides the main point, which is that the content you added simply does not belong in the Wikipedia article, because the article is not Pletka's personal website. There is nothing to indicate that her views expressed in these op-eds are notable enough to warrant mention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg stop and synth?

Snoog, this edit [1] appears to be SYNTH. There was just a talk page thread about how to deal with Stop and Frisk, and this was not one of the concerns that arose there. Maybe revert and come to talk? SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no synth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

yes no yes no. It would help if you'd point me to my misunderstanding. I don't think you intentionally put synth in the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted for different reason. I can't find an article post-publishing of either study that confirms the findings cited. As it is, the article was an article about an article. I don't doubt the finding, just would like better Sourcing.

Slywriter (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

	Input
	Just checking on you! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Seibt

Hi Snooganssnoogans. Sorry for editing here, but I'm not a regular user, and am not sure how to contact you directly. I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you over Naomi Seibt, but your wording is decidedly partisan at best. As I understand it, Wikipedea is supposed to be a fact-finding site, and not somewhere for editors to air their personal beliefs. Could we reach a compromise? How about "..is a German Youtuber who is known for her climate activism, where she stands against the consensus of anthropogenic climate change..."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Livingstone (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Marry julian

Im very excited to be here thankyou for the warm welcoming Marry julian (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Stalking

Snooganssnoogans - You haven't edited the Joe Biden article for at least the last several months, but you suddenly visited the Biden article 35 minutes after me to change my edits. You accuse me of stalking you whenever I visit a site you have previously edited (which, since you are so prolific, is virtually any post-1932 US politics article), yet you just happen to show up at the only site I have edited recently, just to change my edits. Seriously, why are you harassing me? You really need to get a life. GlassBones (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop commenting on my talk page. I've absolutely had it with this bizarre and creepy nonsense. The Joe Biden page is on my watchlist, as can be indicated by my past edits on the page. Since your edits are usually awful and your edit popped up on my watchlist, I of course checked what you added to the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Be nice, folks.SarumanTheBlack (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem edits

Hi, you are adding references to a number of articles which are causing cite date errors as |date=undefined/ed is not a valid date. Could you please revise these to use a valid date. Thanks Keith D (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

First warning: stop introducing mendacious summaries into the Iraq sanctions death article

Hello, I'm Zusammenbruch. Your recent edit(s) to the page on the Iraq sanctions death page appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. *It does not matter whether those edits are "long-standing" features of the page; if they are incorrect and represent a misreporting of research, they must be removed*. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source (that the *consensus* has changed on Iraq sanctions deaths; one paper is not "a consensus" and may not be described as such). This is your first warning. This will progress to me requesting administrative intervention if you do not cease. You unfortunately have the right to be a white supremacist in private, but you may not introduce errors into Wikipedia that stem from your misinformed beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusammenbruch (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

GlassBones Topic Ban

Snoogassnoogans - I was told by Awilley that I since I have a topic ban I should ask someone prior to editing any Wikipedia article to determine if editing the article is a violation of the topic ban. Since I don't want to waste an Admin's time with my questions on this issue, since you are a long-time editor, and since you hold yourself out as an expert on what subjects fall within my topic ban, you seem like a good person to ask.

I intend to edit the Wikipedia article on the Battle of the Thames. In your expert opinion, would this be a violation of my topic ban in any way? Please advise. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Snoogassnoogans - I intend to edit the Wikipedia article on Central American migrant caravans. In your expert opinion, would this be a violation of my topic ban in any way? Please advise. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course it. And get off my talk page. Bother someone else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - I assume you meant to write "of course it is". If that is the case, I'm not sure how an article about people walking from Central America into Mexico falls under post-1932 US politics but I accept your opinion. Thank you. And there is no need to be confrontational or less than cordial with me. Indeed, you should be happy now that you got me topic banned. I hope you have a nice day. GlassBones (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

GlassBones See Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors'_user_and_user_talk_pages Please respect Snoogans's wishes and stop posting to this talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Awilley OK. GlassBones (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomiki Konst

Quit trolling. The photo is acceptable for use in the article, as it illustrates and shows the subject. One more revert and I'm reporting you to the ANI. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No-go area edit warring

Your recent editing history at No-go area 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack the motives of other editors

Snoogans, the last big ANI you were involved with included a warning about attacking other editors. Please keep that in mind when casting aspersions. If you don't I will not hesitate to take the matter to ANI. If you are too busy to do edits correctly you shouldn't be making those edits. Springee (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I will never stop calling out editors who remove the description "false" from the assertion that the Affordable Care Act created "death panels". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

	~ Applications~
	~ I heard there is an open spot in White House ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Gold standard

Re revert -- sure that a report of a US-specific opinion does not belong in the lead. It should sit under a US heading or should probably be removed altogether as it is mostly repeated in the Critics section. -- GhostInTheMachine (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianpolitico (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Wikipedianpolitico (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I have edited multiple pages from across the ideological spectrum to ensure readers have the facts regarding the COVID-19 crisis and those responsible for responding to it – from Max Rose's National Guard deployment to Kelvin Droegemeier's presence on the WH COVID-19 Task Force. Yet, I have only had a problem and only met resistance on Elaine Chao's page.

Even after modifying my submission to her page multiple times to satisfy concerns expressed – to merely note that Chao is a member of the WH Task Force and that Chao, as news outlets have reported, objectively announced COVID-related funding – you continue to undo all changes. Your latest edit included no explanation whatsoever. Wikipedianpolitico (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your reluctance to respond to the above in talk is quite telling. Is Chao not objectively a member of the WH COVID-19 task force? Did news reports not indicate that Chao announced the foregoing funding? Why are you trying to hide facts critical to holding public leaders accountable? Wikipedianpolitico (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Diamond And Silk

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Diamond and Silk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRehm8814 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted your edit on One America News Network

Please do not remove Disputed-Discussion Tags from articles without consensus. Please discuss on the Talk page for One America News Network first. Aeonx (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

One America News Network

I've created an RFC to get consensus on the One America News Network 'far-right' descriptor and settle this. I don't believe you (nor other editors) involved are behaving reasonably to properly discuss and close the disputel so I see the RFC process as a way forward. Aeonx (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no political agenda.

So I removed the word unsubstantiated from one of your posts, because 'unsubstantiated' is a biased term. If you want to debunk someones online article, citing another opposing article is not enough proof. In the areas of politics, it is not your job to decide whether a person's opinions are right or wrong, only to faithfully report what they are. I've read some of Victor Hanson's online article, so when I went to learn more about him on Wikipedia, I was surprised to find a biased description of his views. Hanson is probably wrong about the COVID19, but until all the facts come out, now is not time to be calling someones opinions unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:91FB:F000:4CDC:F6C3:61B1:210A (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey

104.245.146.51, an anonymous IP address from Canada, has done literally nothing other than to reverse Egypt-related edits, mainly mine, not unlike you. Are you Canadian? Is that IP address you, or is it someone else? Zakawer (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your undoing of my revision on Vladirmir Putin

Hello. I had added information about Russian collusion to assist Bernie Sander's campaign to become Democratic nominee. The information was widely reported and I referenced the Washington Examiner. Can you explain why you undid my revision? Your explanation, "undue in lead", is not very telling. Mozad655 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That Russia tried to assist the Sanders campaign in 2020 is obviously not one of the most notable things in Putin's bio. By restoring the content to the lead, you've egregiously violated WP:BRD and should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but please understand that it was never my decision that alleged Russian collusion, be included as "notable" or appropriate in Putin's bio. Prior to my edits, the section already emphasized alleged Russian collusion in Trumps favor. I merely added adjacent information about Russian collusion in favor of the Sanders campaign. Mozad655 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Successfully aiding a US presidential candidate into office is infinitely more important than unsuccessfully boosting the candidacy of a primary candidate. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the magnitude of the alleged crime is the same, irrespective of whether or not the effort was successful? Mozad655 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether something should be in the lead or not. Important aspects of a bio go into the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree with your perception of "importance". It is as relevant, that Russia allegedly meddled in the US elections in 2016, as it is in 2020. Feel free to create a section on the talk page if you want to argue this with other editors. I personally find both mentions of alleged Russian collusion, to be trivial, in the great scheme of Vladimir Putin's bio. Many more much more important policies have come out of Kremlin than claimed meddling, the scale and importance of which is entirely undisclosed or unknown. Mozad655 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So you're not only violating WP:BRD but admitting that you're adding content that you don't think should be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tildes

In this, you seem to have hit the tilde key five times instead of four. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Can I freely disagree with your contention that a source isn't an "RS", if I feel you're incorrect? Does a third party review your RS decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 18:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Do not add content from unreliable secondary sources such as http://politicsthatwork.com/."

On what basis is that particular source 'unreliable'?

"Also, do not add bullet points to articles."

What rule states this?

"For example, if someone opposes abortion, you need to link to a reliable source (such as the New York Times) that says the person opposes abortion. If you cite http://politicsthatwork.com/ and list bullet points, there's a good chance that your edits will be reverted. If your edits cite actual reliable sources and are worded in the same way that the RS word things, the edits won't be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)"

Again, on what basis is that particular source unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, for one, there is no information about who is behind that site. If you want to make sure that your editing isn't a complete waste of time and will just get reverted, make sure to use reliable sources, such as newspapers and academic sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is my understanding that .gov sources qualify as reliable sources. So I guess we'll have to let a third party decide, or keep reverting each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, if it's not reverted by me, it will be reverted by someone else. I'm trying to help you here and prevent you from wasting your time. This is simple: source it to newspaper coverage. Otherwise it will be huge waste of time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

endorcements???

I read your "endorcements", and i must say... i think i love you. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

John Solomon

While I assume your revert was made in good faith, it was not appropriate. The lead of his article references his awards for journalism and that is what he is. It belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B16E:698A:3D52:9287:7ED4:8282 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I take it back. Clearly your edit was not made in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B16E:698A:3D52:9287:7ED4:8282 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance at Andrea Palm

Hello. I recently created a page for Andrea Palm, Secretary of the Wisconsin DHS. I would greatly appreciate your input and contribution on the page. Thanks, KidAd (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Subramanian Swamy

Your recent editing history at Subramanian_Swamy 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amazingcaptain (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WalkAway

First off, I'm honored to finally meet you. Your reputation preceeds you, and your no nonsense campaign to purge wikipedia of right wing bullshit deserves nothing but respect. That being said, i noticed your revert of my edit on the WalkAway campaign, and I'm a bit confused by your reasoning. I said the campaign is right wing, which it is by it's very nature, and astroturfed, which is evident by most of the sources cited. All i really did was complete a sentence in the lede which felt incomplete, with information that's already referenced in the article, and that everybody on the discussion page already reached a consensus on. Admittedly i didn't add the references, but that's because I'm not entirely sure how they work. I don't believe the edit needs to be reverted because of what's essentially a formatting error. Admittedly I'm opposed to the article existing in the first place, as it gives the campaign too much credit. I maintain that it should be a subsection under Russian web brigades the way it initially was. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)