User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

December 2018

Your recent editing history at Secure Fence Act of 2006 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.

Ryan Zinke

You appear to be edit warring and are up against WP:3RR. Take it to the talk page like you suggested. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As the powers that be have taken their time to warn me, I am passing on to you the fact that it was WP:1RR on this article. I was unaware of the restriction at the time. Now you are unquestionably aware. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Following up, as it was I who mistakenly told 7&6=thirteen that the article was under 1RR. The 1RR sanction was added after the edit war was over. ~Awilley (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

We are all now at least on the same page and new rules. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Zinke, Trump presidency, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Harding presidency

User:Snooganssnoogans Do not refactor my comments on my talk page. You know better. Please stay off my talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Candace Owens 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.
Just to ensure you know you're on the edge. Please don't revert again. Lourdes 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Improving Brian Kemp Page

I'd like to add more balanced criticism for Brian Kemp to improve neutrality on his page after adding a lot of negative info, but saw you reverted my change with praise from Donald Trump. It seemed to be because I took it from a video transcript (though I did cite it). Since you have more experience as an editor, could you explain why transcripts aren't allowed? Just want to get better :) Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betatype (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Beto O'Rourke Drug Policy

Hi I've attempted to remove the editor's overly political language that is unrelated to the biography of Beto O Rourke. The current source does not imply that Cruz's comments were false, it just quoted Beto's claim to be confused of marijuana's classification of a narcotic. The El Paso resolution cited by Beto himself lists "narcotic(s)" which leaves doubt on what drugs it could have included. I will re-edit with a better source and still maintain a neutral view of the controversy. Please scroll to bottom of page labeled "REGULAR AGENDA – OTHER BUSINESS" to see the resolution in question. http://legacy.elpasotexas.gov/muni_clerk/city_council_legacy.asp?agenda=01-13-09&addition=true Youronlyhope (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)youronlyhope

October 2018

You are edit warring and POV pushing at Jeanine Pirro. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Stay away from my talk page. I've repeatedly told you this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Pete Hegseth 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:C100:E5BF:867:9941:1E:5BCC (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I deleted some of your recent edits because they were not good. --Onlyheretovandelize (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Onlyheretovandelize

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R2 (bleep) 01:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Immigration

I just want to be clear I am not stating that immigration is bad. I just felt that the fourteenth citation on the "immigration" page of Wikipedia did not accurately reflect the sentence it was claiming to be a citation for. If you could read the abstract of the article I am referring to and see if you agree with me I would appreciate it.

If you feel I am wrong than please explain. Thank you. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Constitutional hardball

The article Constitutional hardball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDICT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi, Snoog. We've always been rather oppositional. I wonder if you would like to work together on something? I'm interested in this page that someone just translated from French on "Citizens' initiative referendum (RIC)". It's a "crazy" idea that's been floated in Presidential / Napoleonic / Kingly France in an effort to give the ordinary citizen (and not corporate people) more of a say in matters of legislation and representation. If you're not interested, no problem, but this is meant as a friendly offer, because I think it's something you could potentially find interesting. Best, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not report you, but I noticed that someone else just did, and forgot to warn you. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

This is to inform you that I am in the process of submitting a complaint to the above-linked page regarding your chronic NPOV issues.--Rajulbat (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

Deletion discussion about Constitutional hardball

Hello, Snooganssnoogans,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TheLongTone and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Constitutional hardball should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional hardball .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I am one of "Wikipedia's Jew editors" too

Snoo, this is appalling. You aren't supposed to espouse a particular political or not NPOV, regardless of what you think is inherently wrong or right. I am a proudly Jewish woman. I am disgusted by the biased page content on Peter Navarro's BLP. This has got to stop. I am going to bring this up at ANI if you don't let up on the stranglehold you have on that page. It is written as a hit piece. I mean it. All that crap has got to go. Shorten the article, fine. But stop saying that everyone in creation says that Navarro is wrong, crazy, and a lunatic. The article could be shortened dramatically. That's fine. The bias pushing is ridiculous. I don't care if you bring me up before the Arbitration powers of Wikipedia. Get me blocked. Whatever. I am sick and tired of you defaming a Harvard PhD economist. I am a graduate of Swarthmore College, Stanford University, the Wharton School, and have been a banker and financial economist for years. And I am an XX chromosome and fully Ashkenazi Jewish, both sides. You are giving us a bad reputation. Enough already!--FeralOink (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback Steve_King

Hello, Thenightaway. You have new messages at Talk:Steve_King#Request_for_discussion_-_King's_response_to_controversy_and_edit_reversion.
Message added 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LoveIsGrue (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay this is epic

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jabba_the_Hutt&oldid=878896745 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.151.70 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

OMG, that is hilarious and awful. It has been cleaned up, thankfully!--FeralOink (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-American activism"

Inserting "known for anti-American activism" into a BLP without a source, as you did here, isn't acceptable, and had you done that as part of an edit that wasn't a revert, would probably be sufficient grounds for a sanction by itself. I have removed that sentence; please go find a source first if you wish to reinsert it. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That was an accident. As you may know, it can be hard to track every single piece of text that's added or dropped from an article when IP numbers are doing mass-changes to an article. One IP number had edit-warred one particular mass-change multiple times over the course of days, and so when the IP number again mass-removed content, I simply glanced at the change and when it appeared to be the same change, I reverted again. Had I spotted the BLP-violating content that another IP number squeezed in, I would certainly have deleted the BLP-violating content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, but it's a contentious article and a BLP, so please do be more careful. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Howdy. I was hoping you could expand on your thoughts on your reversion of my edit on Cathy McMorris Rodgers. The relevant discussion is at this link. I hope we can have a civil and well-thought out discourse. I think my edits fall in line with the precedent of nearly every other well-written BLP but I am open to critique. Please provide some on the discussion page. Cheers! PrairieKid (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andri Fannar Baldursson

The article Andri Fannar Baldursson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Brexit

Your recent editing history 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 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 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.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Violation of enforced BRD on Tulsi Gabbard

I would like to give you a chance to revert your edits of your own accord to comply with the very clear TP notice on the Tulsi Gabbard BLP concerning enforced BRD. As it is you have clearly violated that principle as you've begun reinstating your edits without discussion on the TP (I even opened the section for you to make it easier for you...) The last version prior to your violation was this one. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my edit summary as a suggestion that you could make the changes without first discussing them on the TP. You can fix that by self-reverting and discussing. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for following the rules regarding the self-revert. You have not discussed any of the edits you wish to make except those I've specifically mentioned. You do not have consensus for any of the reverted edits at this point, except the ones that I rewrote the wikitext for you (without deleting articles as you had). Since you are continuing to make false accusations, I'm going to leave the talk page and let you try to convince people to help you on your own. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and won't interfere if you get consensus for reasonable edits. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: (1) You removed every single edit I made to the Tulsi Gabbard page and have refused, with a few exceptions, to explain what the problem with those edits were. (2) You want me to start a dozen or so talk page threads where I explain every single edit, and where I have to get consensus for every single edit. (3) You yourself now refuse to participate on the talk page or explain your reverts, yet you're gonna hover over the page, presumably revert every edit without explaining yourself and threaten sanctions unless I allow you to play veto player on the page. Is that about right? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, could you chip in on whether it's OK to hold a page hostage like this? This seems to completely violate the spirit of Wikipedia rules, and be an example of the abusive behavior common in American politics editing that you've tried to get rid off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, that is definitely not how things are supposed to work.

Editor A: Makes a bunch of changes to the article in a single edit

Editor B: Reverts the edit "Please make these changes in separate edits"

Editor A: Makes the changes in separate edits, as requested

Editor B: "Please self-revert as you have violated BRD"

Editor A: Self-reverts

Editor B: "Please discuss every individual change you'd like to make on the talk page before restoring anything

Editor A: *head explodes*

At this point the 24 hour requirement is obviously fulfilled because time has passed, and I would view the discussion requirement as fulfilled because both editors are making an effort to discuss things on the talk page. So I would suggest that you should be free to reinstate the edits one at a time, as requested, of course taking into account the specific objections on the talk page and the intermediate edits made by SashiRolls, and starting with things that are likely to have consensus. That will allow SashiRolls to specifically revert the changes they disagree with instead of doing it wholesale, and should help to focus the talk page discussion on the actual points of disagreement. ~Awilley (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello friendly admin @Awilley:. I believe you have mischaracterized what happened. Let me rewrite this according to my PoV:

Editor A: Makes a bunch of changes to the article in a single edit

Editor B: Reverts the edit with the ES: "Please make these changes in separate edits". Opens discussion on talk page.

Editor A: Ignores the TP discussion. Makes the changes in separate edits, despite objections appearing on TP}}.

Editor B: "Please self-revert as you have violated BRD; I'm sorry if I misled you into thinking you could restore the same giant edit bit by bit without discussion leading to consensus."

Editor A: Self-reverts because they clearly violated BRD; having still not discussed.

Editor B: makes careful, economical edits to do what Editor 1 wanted, but without deleting material; responds to Editor A despite their aggressive tone and accusations.

Editor A: continues making aggressive comments on TP.

Editor B: "Please discuss any edits you wish to restore that you have not discussed on the talk page. I have no desire to get involved in a fight with you. Work with others to get consensus."

Editor A: *head explodes* because they actually have to seek consensus and discuss, as suggested by the D in BRD, but realize that nobody wants to talk to them on the TP because of their agressivity. Then realizes they just have to whistle for an admin, because they are considered "of the body" of extremely right-thinking editors.

That's how I see it. BTW, Awilley, would you take a look at their accusations here and tell me what you think about their collegiality? (This is the very definition of "casting aspersions" immediately after you warned them about it, of course. But I asked you about this on meta while I couldn't reply and you didn't ask them to retract, despite the crystal clear violation. Maybe you don't read your meta talk page.

You should probably also check out their latest edit to TG's page. They obviously did not follow your advice. Having a day job that keeps me busy, I'm probably just going to stay away from the toxicity, I think and hope other people will find the patience to deal with them. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in the gaps. I'm glad that you're trying to work collaboratively. I totally get it about being busy in real life and trying to avoid toxicity, which is why I'm sure you'll forgive me for not thoroughly investigating an offense taken in September 2018. As for my "meta" talk page, I don't recall having created one, and I don't regularly check for messages left for me on other wikis. ~Awilley (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

vu. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Against my better judgment I looked at your edit. I've removed a couple examples of you repeating exactly the same prose already in the section, once in the same paragraph. Repetition is the mother of learning, I guess. I've also replaced extremely close paraphrasing with a direct quote and corrected your claim that al-Qaeda & Al-Nusra & co. were exclusively "Syrian terrorists", which they are obviously not. Were it so simple... I would also like to remind you that you have been repeatedly warned about casting aspersions on editors in edit summaries as you did here. I know that you added this blog and really want it to be represented differently, but the way it is currently is the result of somebody else editing your prose and leaving it in a copyvio state. My only edit to that sentence was to add quotation marks and correct the verb tense. I do not see how a direct quote introduced by "According to Ryan Scoville, Gabbard..." could be overly misleading since what follows is, in fact, an exact quote. Still, I did not add it. (Looking into it further, yes, I see now that it seems to be a correction posted at the end of the article, because Scoville had said the opposite. For some reason, in the interim someone decided we should only quote their correction.) If you wish to remove the blog post you added back on Valentine's Day, 2017, Snoogans, that's fine. You could do it exactly two years later, if you do it tomorrow. ^^ Nowhere did I say it had to be included, I was just pointing out that you added the blogpost you now want deleted, which I believe if you click the link above, you'll find to be correct.

I will not delete it personally though, as I'm not getting further suckered into mopping up after you (it entails a major rewrite, and I'm not spinning editorials like the one you added from Vanity Fair into the text). You or anyone else is more than welcome to do so. I'll just keep on pointing out where the bones are buried on the TP if you don't mind, and try to delete the worst of the transparently annoying repetitions. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(1) I did not write the text about the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, but rather moved existing text from one section to its correct section. The New Yorker source explicitly says "Its main aim, as Gabbard describes it, is to force the C.I.A. to stop aiding militants in Syria." (2) I can not for the life of me understand what you're saying about the Lawfare article. I clearly want my original write-up of the Lawfare article restored, but in the mean-time, the gross misrepresentation of the source needs to be removed. The Lawfare article literally says, "Whether Rep. Gabbard acted with official approval also remains hazy," but the text as currently written up falsely suggests that she was sent to Syria by Congress. (3) the VF article was not spun. RT should be described as a Russian propaganda network because it is one. (4) You yourself[1] argued for the inclusion of the misrepresented Lawfare text, so me saying you did so is not casting aspersions. (5) This is incredibly tiresome and annoying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

you duplicated it, you didn't move it it was fine in counterterrorism. if you want to add a short reminder to the reader of what has gone before, be my guest, but does en.wp need to keep repeating the same points over and over? I'm sorry that c comes before s in the alphabet. And no, I don't think we need an "Assad" section, though I suppose it'll get added soon enough.

stalkers see comment 4 for transparent misrepresentation of what I said. I did not argue for inclusion of Ryan Scoville's piece. I pointed out your former attachment to it. Looking again, it does seem to tell only half the story, and my memory of it as a correction is mistaken. I'll delete the entire paragraph and propose it be rewritten on the TP. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to go to the talk page to rewrite an entire paragraph that you deleted without reason[2]. This is not how this works. You repeatedly fail to explain which parts you agree with and which parts you disagree with - how can I discuss the content whenI don't have a clue what the reasons for removal are? I do not have the time to start a million different talk page discussions about every minor edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, then, maybe someone else will. That's the way this place is reputed to work, sometimes. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello, Thenightaway. You have new messages at PrairieKid's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. (and Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers) Please accept this peace offering as a reminder of civility. As I said on my page, remember I am a real person too. I care a great deal about this site and I hope we can have constructive conversation to work toward good resolutions. Edit warring, being confrontational and condescending and disengaging are going to get us and this project no where. PrairieKid (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Now, whether or not you realize this, if you revert my edits on JHB, I would not be able to revert without breaking WP:3RR. Part of me is concerned you may be aware of this, having even set it up that way. I ask you to please consider taking the WP:DISPUTE steps before just strong-arming to your way. Come on, sir/ma'am. I am really trying to have good, productive dialogue. PrairieKid (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is very simple: you are not following WP:BRD. You have repeatedly edit-warred challenged content into the article, with not a single other editor expressing support for the text that you keep edit-warring in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as no other editor expressing support, no other editor has expressed support for your side either. I think we are the only two following the discussion. Honestly, that's just a poor point.

As I mentioned on CMR's TP, let's go to either WP:3O or WP:DRN. Which would you prefer? I will be fine with either.

Also, did you like the cookie? Can we try to get along? How's the weather where you are? PrairieKid (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Saslaw

Edits on Wikipedia must use neutral phrases. Your content is not neutral. Punkrockunicorn (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrockunicorn (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC) 

I have not heard back from you. I talked to some other wikipedia users about your passage and it appears to pass muster. I would like to suggest we move the section to issues as a compromise position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrockunicorn (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Asking for some advice

I have both a 1988 and 2014 Almanac of American Politics. They are great books for information on Congress people and sometimes other things. The 1988 book, a paperback, is easy to use, the 2014 edition I have on my kindle. When using books as references, I put in the page number where the information can be located, like here[3] but I can't do this with the 2014 book. I could put in Kindle location instead. Like I did here[4]. What do you think about Kindle location in place of page number?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martha McSally. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I have warned SunCrow about this as well. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

William Happer

I left a note for that person on their talk page, User talk:DLH. I think you should consider taking some action on some noticeboard or arb forum: it's worse than your edit summary suggests. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Figuring out the rules and practices on the admin boards is too complicated and time-consuming for me, and I fear any malformed requests will lead to a backlash. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Question for talk page stalkers

Is it possible to create a private Wikipedia sandbox that only I can read and edit? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:MyPage/sandbox.--Moxy (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Would that page be private? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know there is not something that would be completely private. PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have really grown to like the Wikipedia writing software (in particular the cite feature). I hate Microsoft Word with a passion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh in that case you could always try something like Connected Text. Its basically a personal wiki from what I understand.[5] PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never done it, but you could create your own wiki through Mediawiki. Miraheze looks like a relatively easy way to do this. I would love to have some kind of software that interfaces "one way" with Wikipedia, so that you could use links, templates, etc. while keeping everything private. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 edit warring

Your recent editing history ([6], [7], [8] 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. Today you have ignored the TP discussion. 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 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.. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a history of edit warring. Your edit here [9] is WP:SYNTH. I will give you some time to reconsider and revert your edit. DN (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo

You should know that this is how Spintendo treats editors with whom he has no previous contact or knowledge. What comes afterwards was written with the intention of defaming one user to support another who has been previously banned from the site: "You should ask the good people of Wikipedia who tried and failed to work constructively with this editor if they know what a bully sounds like. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to describe the pervasive coldness and contempt of character that arises from repeated attempts at communication with an individual who, against all decorum, ignores and invalidates their co-editors with stony silence. I'm sure they would leap at being able to describe the sound of an editor who quietly and without explanation scatters bizarre and unhelpful edits across the Wikipedia landscape, for reasons which seem like only purposeful distraction.

It would be important to hear them describe the anxiety and the anger that comes from seeing their hard work and time invested in articles on Wikipedia defaced by another editor for reasons which go unexplained. Actions from an editor who, when confronted with their peers concerns, artfully deflects them off of himself. An editor who then seizes those same concerns and complaints of his peergroup — not to address or validate them — but rather, to pusillanimously construe them into accusations which he could then use to throw back onto the character of others. Make no mistake, these were bullying behaviors meant to invalidate the integrity of the editors he came into conflict with. That editor's actions made a mockery of the content and conventions of the entire Wikipedian-editorial process itself. That this community rose up and fought back against a bully should rightfully be seen as a singular victory in the long-standing war of reasoned colloquy over disputatious and rancorous abuse." 37.228.129.81 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

POV editing

Quoting sources in an inaccurate, misleading, POV manner as you did here: [10] with regard to an article in Commentary Magazine during a deletion discussion, with edit note "it's ludicrious to describe her as a university lecturer," is not okay. It looks particularly inappropriate in this case since you nominated this article about a political activist for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Real publication

• James Morton Turner (12 November 2018). The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Harvard University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-674-97997-0. Today Republicans denounce climate change as a "hoax" and seek to dismantle environmental regulations.--Moxy (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2019 (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! --MrClog (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute

Hi Snooganssnoogans. Thanks for your edit to The Heartland Institute . I clarified it a bit. Why not keep some mention of Klein's work as well? --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Your recent editing history 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 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 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. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Republican Party (United States), you may be blocked from editing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Republican Party (United States). Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toa Nidhiki05 03:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Toa Nidhiki05. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 19:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on MS-13

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2019 (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. PaganPanzer (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kirstjen Nielsen ~ Family separation policy

that does not belong in the lead it is in the proper section I even gave you top billing in that section ~ this move was also approved by an administrator Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitchellhobbs, which admin approved the removal of this content from the lede? I see absolutely nothing about that on the talk page. In fact, an admin added the text to the lede, and there was a talk page consensus to include it.[11] This is long-standing content that has a consensus for inclusion. Please get a consensus if you want to remove it. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not have to tell you which one ~ BLP's leads are not the proper section to put political statements in and it is a very political move to put that statement where you did. The lead it is one of the first thing a reader reads ~ ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If you believe the text is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, you can (1) start a talk page discussion to convince others that you're right (you've done so, but no one agrees with you), (2) start a RfC to get community input, or (3) start a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. Do 1, 2 or 3. Just stop edit-warring this content out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wired UK article about Brexit Wikipedia page

Hello,

I'm a journalist for Wired UK magazine and I'm writing a piece about the Brexit Wikipedia page. I see that you've been a really active contributor to the entry and would love to talk to you about it. Are you up for being interviewed for the piece?

You can find my email on my Twitter page if so.

Thanks, Matt Mrey445 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

personal ~

I just added a note in Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen in the '8 April 2019: Restore family separations' to lede section ~ I tried to revert what i said about you being political ~my bad ): and User:Escape Orbit put it back (Undid revision 891892846 by Mitchellhobbs (talk) don't blank conversations) I just wanted others to know that I apologized to you. that's why I added the note in the '8 April 2019: Restore family separations to lede' section ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

McGovern

Why did you undo my changes to McGovern article? These were good changes that made the article clearer - regardless of the positions one might hold about him. I think whether or not somebody likes him, the wiki article should make it clear what his opinions are. Instead of expressing one's own opinions on the matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.115.200 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Stop removing stuff on Kamala Harris' page merely because you do not agree with it. Removal of objectively true facts comes off as partisan. My edit was neutral as I presented both sides and made it clear she did not "lie". See WP:NPOV. I cited the matter from multiple sources, so it was clearly noteworthy and made sure the clarification from both her and the Breakfast Club podcast were mentioned because almost everywhere else ignores. Capriaf

Your edit introduced two faux controversies. The content does not belong on her Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, the marijuana and Snoop Dogg was not a controversy, nor was it false. It was miscommunication between the two parties and I was making it clear that was the case because other sites leave out that part. I worded it in a similar fashion to the matter regarding her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin. Now let it be in there as it complies with WP:NPOV and you're WP:CHERRYPICKING. Capriaf.

84percent

The "Stalking" section was removed from this user's talk page. I don't know if that's improper or not. I had also commented there. I'm sure they'll stalk me over here too. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Vocabulary

Skeptic: a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Denier: a person who denies something. Being skeptical of anthropogenic global warming doesn't mean one denies climate change. No charge for the education. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• By embarrassment, do you mean that your misrepresentation is being pointed out? I can see why that would embarrass you. That wasn't my intent though. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Required ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiLeaks RfC

Hi Snoogans, I wrote a draft of a new Version A from the Seth Rich content RfC. I tried to remove redundancies and the claimed copyright violations while maintaining the same meaning. I don't know if this is helpful but I hope so.

WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich which were spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets. On August 9, 2016, Julian Assange seemed to have insinuated that Rich was the source of leaked DNC emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. Wikileaks further fueled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.

It does make a big change by changing "hinted" to the qualified "seemed to insinuate/hint/suggest". I haven't read all the sources to know which choice is best. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 12:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplicating passages on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

I think it's better to have unique passages in each, to avoid repetition. El_C 23:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Political Position Sections

In this diff you added information to Jim Jordan's "Political Positions" section - I'm having a hard time understanding what his position is on the Pharmaceutical Industry based on that information. I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be in the article, but perhaps in a different section or heading. This is somewhat of a follow-up to our discussion on the Dan Crenshaw page, in that some of the things you're putting in Political Positions sections don't always seem clear to me about why they should be there. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:GPS Hospitality

Good morning Snooganssnoogans Hope you had your coffee,

I sent this draft for review, If you are the reviewer please let me know what I have to do to improve in order to be accepted, also there is a section in Burger King franchises (at the bottom) and GPS Hospitality for ref of why I started this article ~ thanks ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions

Your wholesale reversions are pretty terrible. While your edit summary applies to some of the content, it does not apply to all 8 revisions. When someone makes it easy for you to undo particular edits, you might was well utilize it. Killiondude (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Second time. Killiondude (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to solely remove the bad parts, but I could not do it individually except to leave the first edit in. I cannot spend 15 minutes manually maneuvering through a huge edit. The other editor (who knows very well that a large chunk of that series of edits would be contested - it's been subject to talk page discussions) can restore the non-disputed parts himself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

"War hawk, my ass". While I generally share your sentiment, Please attenuate your commentary. Assume Good faith and all that. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Jihad Watch

Your politically correct edits of Jihad Watch do not have neutrality and are out of the wiki line. -Yohananw (talk)

Instead of revert wars, UNDO, let's report your pc no pov work to wiki -Yohananw (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls case request

This is a courtesy notice that the case request for SashiRolls has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For more information on why the case was declined, please see the link above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Greetings Snoogans! With this edit[12], you re-instated new content[13] that I had just reverted.[14] Please self-revert pending talk page discussion. — JFG ^talk 16:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm Bneu2013. I noticed that you recently removed content from Illegal immigration to the United States and crime without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. the studies you removed are about incarcerated aliens, not all illegal aliens. Nothing about them says that all illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes, just that incarcerated aliens were more likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. You appear to be trying to slant the article toward a certain point of view, yet refuse to discuss on talk page. Please stop removing what you are referring to as "anecdotes about sanctuary cities"; the fact that sanctuary cities are controversial is well established by these sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated deletions at John F. Solomon

I've started a talk page discussion section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_F._Solomon#Repeated_deletion_of_balancing_information_on_Uranium_One_story Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated reverts/changes at Joseph diGenova

LOL! Oh the irony! Can we have a look at your revert history of this page?! You, and a few others that keep changing this page content to your desired opinions, would make great democrats... you don't practice what you preach!RLove79 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Republican Party

I noticed you recently reverted my edit to the Republican Party and didn't revert my edits to the Democratic Party. Could you please elaborate on why you did this? Interstellarity (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

If you’re going to add references to articles, can you please us descriptive titles? Names like “:0” and “:02” are not helpful and are difficult to find. Just copying the article title as the reference name normally suffices. Toa Nidhiki05 16:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Going to repeat this in case you didn’t notice - please stop using numbers for reference names. It’s not helpful. Just copy the article title into the reference name so it can be easier for people to find for additional citations in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rejected change

hiya

Perhaps count to 10 and think about others' contributions before revert them. Occasionally you might learn something.

thanks

2RR

Hey, I am very happy to see you working with other editors and using consensus to resolve disagreements, I think it's great. I also like the way you have been improving the brexit article with good solid content and sources. One item of note is your reversion of another editor twice today. As a rule of thumb, I always avoid doing more than one revert of another editors edits within a 24 hour period. I note you have reverted another editor twice today. Just some friendly advice, you may want to avoid multiple reverts. Most of these articles dealing with politics have a 1RR restriction, not sure about the brexit article, but it's a good idea to avoid multiple reverts. Keep up the good work.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Body Worn Video

Hello Snoogans, I reacted on your revision of changes I made. You make a good point, but I believe mine is even better. :-) I don't know if you get an automated message of that or not, but I would appreciate a reply on that page. Once that's done, I'll take this message off your User talk page. Thanks and have a good day! Sanderflight (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Solved the issues you noted, thanks for your help. I'll delete our debate from the talk page on Body Worn Video.Sanderflight (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you should delete talk page discussions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A rare event

I'm glad we agree on something! -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

reporting you for trying voice your opinions and forcing content not related to the subject

see in the page's talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cornstein

Required notification

There is currently a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have requested enforcement regarding your violation of the 1RR rule in effect for the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article. You have made three partial reverts within a 24-hour period. SunCrow (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RS/N

You asked "Can I please get confirmation from this noticeboard that Fox News is not considered a reliable source on the subject of climate change?" I think that question should be submitted to a formal and carefully worded RfC. The AOC piece is so glaringly false that I'm convinced we need to downgrade Fox as source, at least for climate change.- MrX 🖋 17:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you do it. You know the rules around here better than me. Make sure to use the academic sources that I cited in the recent RS discussion (the RS that showed glaring errors by Fox's 'straight news' division and malicious intent by Fox's managing editor) and perhaps complement it with sources cited in the 'climate change' sub-section of the Fox News article (in particular, Climate Feedback explicitly saying that Fox News is unreliable on this issue - it doesn't any clearer than that). I'd also make clear to note that you're not talking about the opinion shows or editorials by Fox (otherwise the discussion will descend into a discussion about Sean Hannity). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional content that may be relevant:

• Curtis Brainard, the managing editor of Scientific American, noting in 2011 that all of the mainstream media had long since upgraded its coverage of climate change to no longer present a false balance between scientists and deniers EXCEPT FOX NEWS: "Almost all the US newspapers now report the science straight; they just don’t cover it prominently or enough. There are some opinion pages like in the Journal that display scepticism but you don’t see the same issues with climate sceptics quoted in news stories that you did six years ago. The exception is Fox News which is absolutely terrible and has a large reach." Page 39 of Poles Apart: The international reporting of climate scepticism[15] by James Painter. Published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, but I would just ask the question in a neutral way. The academic sources would be appropriate for an actual vote/comment. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFNAME

Per WP:REFNAME:

Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":1".

You generally edit in political articles that have dozens and dozens of sources. Please use more descriptive refnames. It’s literally as simple as just using the cited article’s name for the refname. Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Extreme bias

All changes were made based on cited news articles and this is not a campaign account. Changes to previously cited material were made due to the bias and slant of the source material. Reinstate immediately. Chase Simpson (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)