User talk:BattleshipGray

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read
Doug Weller talk 07:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and violation of NPOV at John Solomon (political commentator)
Your recent editing history at John Solomon (political commentator) 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that you already have received a DS notification from User:Doug Weller. You seem to be in violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear BullRangifer (talk): I am not trying to be difficult, and I certainly do not want to violate Wikipedia rules.  The issue is that Snooganssnoogans (talk) repeatedly inserts the bias language into the article lede, when the only citation is to an Opinion article - not a reliable source. This is a violation of BLP, RS and NPOV, and needs to stop. He has been requested, repeatedly, to discuss this issue on the Talk page and get consensus, but he refuses to do so. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans is doing the right thing, and you've been warned, yet you persist. Disruptive editing and edit warring, especially after getting a DS and 3rr warnings, are very serious matters. Don't you like editing here? Do you really want to be blocked or topic banned? This isn't worth it. You should self-revert immediately and walk away from this issue, because you don't seem to understand the policies you are mentioning. Until you have a consensus on the talk page, you are not allowed to do what you've done. Blunt force doesn't work here. Edit warring is the wrong approach. I'll copy this to the talk page and we can continue there, but only after you have self-reverted. I'll give you a couple hours. If you don't do it, then you'll be reported and likely blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that consensus is with Snoogans. How could it be?  Opinion pieces are only good for the author's opinion which should be marked as such.  They don't belong in the lede in wiki-voice.  In any case, by my count BG has not broken any rulez.  Still, one thing is sure... dwelling on the matter might would not be wise.   I've already mentioned this page along with a couple other recent deformations at one of the public stocks.  The House doesn't care, because reasons.  So do be careful BG: being too earnest/right often gets the embattled thrown into the nearest WP:POV Railroad car out of the House and off to the gulags.  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 01:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c: Thank you for the cautionary advice.  I didn't realize, and still don't totally understand, how I was breaking any rules, but I obviously backed off. And I was warned for edit warring  not because of breaking rules but rather for continually trying to get this other editor to stop re-inserting language and just discuss the issue on the article talk page.   After my revert, he kept re-inserting language, in the lede, that was cited to an opinion piece that doesn't even say what he claims it says.  But I was warned and told blunt force and continuing to put my desired language back into the article would get me banned, and he was congratulated for doing exactly what I was warned about. I really appreciate Bull's explanation, but I still am confused about what is really going on here.  I mean - look at Snooganssnoogans' user page - he revels in doing what I was warned about.  I get that he has been editing far longer than me, but it just seems that certain editors here are really protected, and also protect each other, even if their edits and overall behavior may be questionable. -BattleshipGray (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you use to edit under a different account?
If so, which one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What kind of a question is that? What are you accusing me of? -BattleshipGray (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, it's extremely weird that a newly created account immediately shows a familiarity with Wikipedia policies, noticeboards, and talk pages, while also showing familiarity with Wikipedia usernames and proceeds to copy-paste blatantly NPOV-vio text to the page of every Democratic politician who has expressed support for the Green New Deal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans (talk)Well, what I know about Wikipedia policies is from reading about them. As for talk pages, I was told to go there to discuss edits.  It isn't hard to figure out - there is a little tab at the top of every article that reads "Talk", and it's not hard to select that tab.  As for the noticeboard - on Talk pages of people there is a link, and a statement to the effect that you should go to the noticeboard to discuss any issue with another editor.  As for the Green New Deal - I was just including important information about the huge cost to implement this program. And - does it matter which articles I choose to edit?  It was my understanding that anyone can edit any article that they choose.  As for NPOV-VIO - it would be more helpful if you would write in words rather than strings of letters.  I assume NPOV is "neutral point of view", but I have no clue what "VIO" stands for. BattleshipGray (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the fact that this user consistently pings users by copying their signature gives me pause to say that this is a returning user. That's something a lot of new users do: &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MJL, that diff shows you doing it with Sandstein's sig (did you use the wrong diff?), but I understand your point. There was a recently-blocked(?) editor who had a habit of doing that, but I don't recall who they were. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, that was the right diff. I was trying to demonstrate that I did that when I was new. No clue about what editor you could be referring to, though. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Since folks keep bringing this up - how do you refer to someone, and make sure they get the message, without copying and pasting their name from an earlier post? I don't want to talk about anyone behind their back. Thanks. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * BG - see my post below re:pinging (echo). Regarding whether or not you know if your ping worked, click on your "Preferences" in the top menu bar - when there, look to the far right, click on Notifications, and check the ones you want under "Notify me about these events".  I can't remember if you have to enable email or not but you will get a notice if the ping fails.  Atsme  Talk 📧 15:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Violation of Enforced BRD on Kamala Harris
The Kamala Harris page is under the following restriction: "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts."

You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk)I self-reverted. Please go to the aticle Talk page and discuss the reason for your removal of my edit. Thanks. BattleshipGray (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Restoring fringe nonsense on 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak
Here[] you are literally restoring pro-Kremlin disinformation. It's such fringe nonsense that the individuals involved now admit they were conned. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk): I can't. According to the article Talk page, an editor is limited to one revision per 24 hours, and my revision was only a couple hours ago. Sorry. BattleshipGray (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In such a circumstance, self-reversion is allowed. Just use a good edit summary to explain what you're doing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging
Simple way to ping: or  or if you want to blue link their user name but no ping them. Also see Help talk:Notifications Oh, and I use as evidenced in edit view so the code is ignored. Hope that helps. Atsme Talk 📧 11:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Project Veritas and false edit summaries
Please do not create false or misleading edit summaries as you did on Project Veritas. The literal first sentence of the cited Associated Press story is A disabled North Carolina woman is suing the right-wing group Project Veritas. Therefore, it exactly does call the group "right-wing," contrary to your false statement in the edit summary removing the sourced statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been more clear. The first source states "right-wing" only in passing, and is not the focus of the article.  The other 2 sources are not reliable sources.  If the term "right-wing" is going to be in the opening statement, there should be more support for the statement that just a passing statement in one article, and articles in a couple of British tabloids. -BattleshipGray (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a "passing statement," it's literally in the first line of the article. The Guardian is a widely-accepted reliable source on Wikipedia. You're welcome to open a Request for Comment if you disagree with the sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~Awilley (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Procedural block, since the user has lost access to this account and created a new one at User:GlassBones ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~Awilley (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)  Not sure how I accidentally left 2 templates ~Awilley (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)