User talk:Ghost of hugh glass

WP:Identifying reliable sources
Maybe you think opinion columns in right-wing and left-wing media are reliable sources. They're not. Padding Social Justice Warrior with "sources" that don't satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines doesn't help to establish the phrase's notability. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be pushing a point of view. Perhaps you should disengage from the topic area, at least until such time as you can be objective. I'd hate to see you be sanctioned. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR violation
Hi! In your revert of the addition of some tags of possibly unreliable sources here, you crossed to your fourth revert within 24 hours on the Social Justice Warrior article. Rather than the dealing with the edit warring noticeboard which would probably just recommend a self-revert, I'd like to ask you directly- would you please self revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't understand that rule. Is it a revert of the same edit -- or any revert on that article? Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The textbook definition given on the page for edit warring is "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.". Essentially, undoing something another editor did recently. Obviously it's not a revert if you undo something inconsequential somebody did a year ago. For reference, the edits you've made that I believe are reverts are these- reverting somebody's removal of sources, reverting my removal of a source, fairly self explanatory, and reverting the addition of some unreliable sources tags. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that, I thought it was the same exact edit. I honestly just went there to revert myself but have already been all caps reverted by the other POV pushing editor. I won't make any more reverts, no matter how blatantly you, he or anybody else is pushing their point of view, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, glad I could help. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you revert your recent revert. As you reverted my edit you are violating 3rr again.96.253.53.16 (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My edit summary explains why I did it. That was in good faith and I'm reasonably confident others will understand and agree. I was effectively reverting myself. You gave me the opportunity. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

named refs
If you name a ref when you cite it the first time like then the next time you want to cite the same thing, you can just add and it will reference the same source. This prevents the same source from appearing multiple times in the reflist.

(This is re: this edit).

In other words, I think you misinterpreted his edit summary. "this source is already cited", at least in this context, didn't mean we shouldn't cite it multiple times but that we don't need to whole citation multiple times. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As to the first part, thanks. I'm really lost as to how references work. I just found refill the other day. As to the second part, well he reverted me as opposed to doing it your way. So I don't see how that was constructive, if you think he simply means I should have used different wiki markup or whatever. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Now I got it. I apologize on the WaPo link. I didn't realize you just changed the tag, I thought you removed it entirely from being cited on that sentence. That was a noobie mistake on my part.  thanks for the clarification. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Once you know about named references and basic templates, refs are fairly straightforward (if cumbersome) for all but the most complex tasks. When to use what reference for which purpose, however, is another story, especially when a subject deals with controversial themes. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Curtis Modkins
I had to change Hue Jackson's page when it was reported in the media that it was a "done deal" with the 49ers and obviously he's coaching the Browns now. He has been offered the job and has not verbally or physically agreed to any terms on a contract. I know it's more than likely that he is going to be the new OC, but he is not officially on the staff. And if you are even a follower of the NFL, you know crazy things happen and nothing is certain. Ninerempiire (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning but it's clear lots of people disagree. You can't just keep reverting everybody. You've already passed the limit of 3. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Social Justice
Greetings. This comment is in regards to your latest edit to this article. Please, look at the article's Talk Page before re-adding the wikilink. We should reach a consensus before you should re-attempt it. Cheers, Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * People will fight over anything. What a silly thing to go to war for. A see also link. Anyway, thank you. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2016 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)