User talk:Lostinnh

Welcome!
Hi Lostinnh! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks!  Isaidnoway (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, don't use bare URL's as references, liked you did at Reggie Lewis. See Help:Referencing for beginners.01:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello Lostinnh! Your additions to Sadiq Khan have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 03:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I find it quite interesting that I never received all these rules before this time about editing on Wikipedia, even though I have made other additions to several other pages, some of which were copy and pasted from articles. Why is that? Now that I made additions to two muslim politicians pages, both are taken down due to some very strict rules that am sure are not adhered to in most of your pages. Selective rule adherence I might suspect. Isn't this really about politics or protecting muslim minorities? I find it hard to believe I am the first to try to add the true and factual content I did to both Khans and Yusafs pages. Why not add it yourself?
 * Lastly, your threats of blocking me from editing are pathetic and laughable. You need me, and people like me, much more than I need this occasional hobby. This started for me by correcting the endless grammatical errors of your writers/editors, and more recently, adding some content. I did not mind learning what a "bare URL" was and improved in that area. Not sure I will or want to jump thru your selective "hoops" of editing, as I am sure you randomly enforce it. You folks at Wiki need to do a better job to rid the well-deserved label of liberal bias. Lostinnh (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for your edits! Editors like you are indeed very important to Wikipedia, and I guarantee that you will not be blocked from editing unless you repeatedly and seriously violate our policies. I do have a question, though: what other pages have you added copyrighted material to? These need to be removed immediately. Copyright is a serious issue that can affect the legal integrity of Wikipedia. You can learn more about it from the links I added up above.
 * I assure you that I am not intending any political bias--the pages I check are merely random. I didn't mean that anything you added was false or malicious. All of your additions that I removed were from excellent, reliable sources, so feel free to add them in your own words. Cheers! Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Humza Yousaf has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 18:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

May 2024
Hello there. As a fairly new editor you may not know, but generally, if a change you make to an article is not accepted by others, the thing to do is to start a discussion on that article's talk page. (I.e. as per WP:BRD. ) It was unexpected to see you repeat your change. I'd understood from your edit summary that you wasn't aware of any credible poll showing majority conservative support for GND until Fox News launched their attacks. Maybe you didn't see my edit summary, but I'd linked you to an overview of a highly credible study demonstrating the early majority support, which also agreed with your vox poll that it had crumbled by March 2019.

Theres other valid reasons for your content removal. Our GND article is quite long, and it's already well known to those with an interest in climate politics that conservatives will often support climate mitigation initiatives, but are also vulnerable to having their minds changed by pro polluter power plays. There's hundreds of studies and polls from around the world showing this. So Im going to let your change stand. But Id feel I was neglecting my duty as a veteran editor if I didn't advise you that we don't normally like to see edit warring here on Wikipedia. All this said, it's good to see folk like yourself around. I hope you continue to enjoy our editing hobby! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you not putting back the misinformation that I took down. I'll be leaving information below showing you how the study that Libs used in that article you referenced and for a book, is completely untrustworthy and flawed. Yes, I'm new to this editing experience and learning its protocols can be a challenge but this is a mild avocation for me.
 * From the May 13, 2019 article from Standard Pacific entitled "Did Fox News Quash Republican..." and a study within it done by Yale U and Geore Mason U was cited as the reference for conservatives being FOR the GND before Fox News trashed it. These two paragraphs will illustrate how flawed, sophomoric and biased the study was. It states: "Participants were categorized as liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, or conservative Republicans. In both surveys, they were asked whether they had heard "nothing at all," "a little," or "a lot" about the Green New Deal, and whether they "strongly support," "somewhat support," "somewhat oppose," or "strongly oppose" it." It also states that 82% of the respondents, a huge majority, had never heard of the GND. There doesn't seem to be a problem with these two simple questions; political affiliation and whether they've heard about a new idea called, "The Green New Deal".
 * It goes on to state: "The December survey included a one-paragraph description of the proposal, which was still brand new (82 percent of participants knew nothing about it). It noted that the plan "would generate 100 percent of the nation's electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years, upgrade the nation's energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, invest in 'green' technology research and development, and provide training for jobs in the new 'green' economy." This is where the flaw comes in. No where in this one, quick paragraph question does it talk about the ECONOMIC part of the GND, which is its biggest part. That was dishonest on part of the researchers at Yale and GMU. Why would any reasonable person, liberal or conservative, object to clean renewable sources of energy, upgrading the national grid, making transportation cleaner, investing in something called "Green Technology" and train people to do these jobs? Does not sound unreasonable.
 * However, had they told the over 1300 people in the poll, no matter the political stripe, that the GND also includes "universal healthcare, free college, guaranteed employment for every citizen, promote economic equity, free daycare, "housing equality", guarantees to "nature...and healthy food", more and better paying union jobs," the studys' results would have been very different. Again, they were dishonest in their description of what GND is. One conservative think tank puts the cost of the GND at $93 TRILLION.
 * Here is one last piece to disprove the Yale/GMU study: From Investopedia, "What is the New Green Deal", by Deborah D'Souza, updated Feb 12, 2024: "On March 26, 2019, lawmakers in the Senate voted 57-0 against advancing the resolution, with 43 out of 47 Democrats voting "present" to avoid a formal position." This shows that even the majority of DEMOCRATS are NOT willing to stand up for this very controversial and socialist piece of legislation in early 2019. Are those Dems Fox News watchers? Why would vote against a popular idea among liberals? The researchers of the Yale GMU study say support devolved by "Republicans" from December of 2018 to April 2019 but say nothing about Democrats support for GND. Where is the support from Democrats? Not ONE voted in favor of the GND resolution. AOC and Markey introduced the GND resolution in April of 2019 and its still not been passed. Why not? The Dems controlled both the US house and US Senate from 2020 until 2022. Dems fear the political fallout from this unpopular idea. One conservative think tank puts the cost of the GND at $93 trillion. Lostinnh (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bit of a stretch to say Dems controlled the Senate from 2020 to 2022. Even after Jan 2021 when they theoretically had a 1 vote majority, that was never the case in the context of climate change, due to the presence of a certain "Democrat" Senator with a considerable but largely undisclosed interest in fossil fuel production. That said, parts of your analyses are convincing, thanks for taking the time to explain. And again, happy editing! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bit of a stretch to say Dems controlled the Senate from 2020 to 2022. Even after Jan 2021 when they theoretically had a 1 vote majority, that was never the case in the context of climate change, due to the presence of a certain "Democrat" Senator with a considerable but largely undisclosed interest in fossil fuel production. That said, parts of your analyses are convincing, thanks for taking the time to explain. And again, happy editing! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)