User talk:ModerateMikayla555

Welcome!
Hi, ModerateMike729. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you use to edit under the name "Factchecker atyourservice"
I notice that the editor Factchecker atyourservice was blocked two months before you created your account. Factchecker atyourservice also did edits that are similar to yours on the CIS page, such as repeatedly removing critiques of CIS reports, removing criticisms from pretty much the same scholars that you then wanted to remove,,wanting to add text noting that CIS has been favorably cited, and seeking to get rid of CIS founder John Tanton from the page. Factchecker atyourservice also edit-warred considerably (repeatedly removing the same content), did so in regular intervals (stopped for a few days, and then commenced again), and participated a lot on the talk page, which reminds me of your editing.

Apologies if I'm mistaken, but it's not unreasonable to ask given the similarities. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty serious accusation, and it's unequivocally not true.
 * Those aren't quite the same changes I've proposed anyway but to the degree there are similarities, rather than assuming I'm using a sockpuppet, consider that maybe it's because the CIS page in its current form is such a ridiculous hit job that it's not surprising multiple editors would want to make it more even-handed. Frankly, I never expected to spend so much time on this page when I created my account, as it's not an area where my interests really lie. But the amount of resistance to making the page even slightly more NPOV and encyclopedic has left me very concerned, and I feel an obligation to keep at it. ModerateMike729 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Rfc at Talk:Center for Immigration Studies
Please move your comments to the threaded discussion section, the support and oppose sections are not meant to also have threaded discussion. Thansk. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, will do ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Center for Immigration Studies. ''

This was not vandalism.

Thank you.'' Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We've had several vandals (mostly IPs) make similar edits in recent weeks, but it seems that one wasn't a vandal. Apologies. ModerateMike729 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
Hello, I'm Newslinger. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to American Immigration Council seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   07:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn
Hi Mike, You raised a couple of issues so here is some background so we can avoid an edit war. I am afraid that there is some reporting of Corbyn in the media that is casually and possibly deliberately misleading.

Mural
What happened was this: In 2012, a mural that had been painted on private property in East London, with the owner’s approval, was removed by the local council, following complaints from residents. Before it was removed, the artist, Mear One, posted an image of the artwork on Facebook with the message “Tomorrow they want to buff my mural Freedom of Expression. London Calling, Public art.” Corbyn then responded “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller [sic] destroyed Diego Viera’s [sic] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.”

You can see that Corbyn did not defend the mural explicitly. He just did not understand why it was being removed. He presumably had not heard about anti-semitism being an issue regarding the mural and did not notice the characterisation of two of the six bankers as being stereotypically Jewish from the small representation of the mural on a Faceboook post. His reference to a famous censorship of another mural could show sympathy or simply be providing information - it is ambiguous. In either event, it is not a defence. The criticism of him on this matter from Jewish organizations has been that he is not sufficiently sensitive to antisemitism, not that he recognized it on this occasion and defended it.

Irony
Here is the full text of what he said. [] You can see that he is speaking about a few individuals. The key passage is: " This was dutifully recorded by the, thankfully silent, Zionists who were in the audience on that occasion; and then came up and berated him afterwards for what he had said. They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either...So I think they needed two lessons which we can perhaps help them with."

You can see that, when he said they' he was talking about a few specific individuals. Particularly, the use of the past tense 'needed' means that he must have been meaning them rather than British Zionists generally. Moreover, there are no grounds for inferring the latter.

I accept that this has been widely misreported. Jontel (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jontel. While I certainly do see how there could be ambiguity in his comments, it's not our job as editors to determine what he really meant and analyze his intentions ourselves. Rather, we go off the most reliable secondary sources we have. And generally, they use language more reflective of my edits.See Times of Israel or The Guardian or BBC. I'd certainly welcome any edits that clarify his intentions, but they still need to be reliably sourced--even at times when we're frustrated with how the media did their job, which I can definitely sympathize with. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

1RR violation on Ilhan Omar
I think you've violated the WP:1RR restriction with: this, followed by this

That revert also got rid of a bunch of fairly common sense changes to wording and article structure that didn't appear to be disputed, and ignored ongoing discussions on the talk page. I think a self-revert is in order here. Nblund talk 21:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY
[This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=886187986&diffmode=source] sort of change would need extensive discussion. It's already had very, very extensive discussion (in various wording) over several years, including a massive RfC that ran at WP:VPPOL for something like 3 months. Many editors will not accept this change (or anything that amounts to it but in slightly different wording) because it has a history-rewriting effect, and often produces confusing output. Instead, we need to write around such issues with very careful prose that avoids pronouns to the extent possible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hank Johnson
In my comment on the Ilhan Omar RfC, I mentioned Hank Johnson's gaffe about Guam capsizing as a widely covered story that was still too trivial to add the the lead paragraph of Johnson's bio. You then proceeded to add this detail to Hank Johnson's lead paragraph. If you sincerely believe that Johnson's comments belong in the lead, please follow WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page. If you just want to illustrate a point about Ilhan Omar, use the talk page of that article and refrain from making disruptive edits to an unrelated page. See (WP:POINTY) Nblund talk 17:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the comment about Hank Johnson after he appeared in a House Judiciary hearing yesterday. Feel free to check the timing and you'll see I'm right. I had no idea about your comment, nor do I pay enough attention to your edits to notice. I'll gladly start a discussion in the talk page, but you've repeatedly assumed bad faith with regard to my edits and it's getting tiresome. This is doubly true as a trans WoC editor who faces this stuff more than your average editor for a slew of reasons. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion. I'm not assuming anything anything in my comment, however, and you're inevitably going to get pushback from editors when you go in to a contentious topic area and repeatedly cross or approach the line toward edit warring. A politely worded user page note is a fairly standard way to deal with these issues. Nblund talk 17:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, your note was fine. I'm just sensitive to such things given past experiences.

March 2019
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Morris Dees. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. None of the "sources" you have purported to use are remotely acceptable sources for defamatory claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You yourself have said that we accept the American Spectator as a source despite its right-leaning bias. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The source in question is not published by The American Spectator, and is an opinion column sourced only to "Cockburn," which... is who? It appears to be anonymous, which would make it entirely unacceptable for any reason on Wikipedia. You may wish to review WP:RSOPINION, which explicitly states that opinion columns may not be used to support statements of fact. You may also wish to review WP:BLPGOSSIP. If and when the allegation in question is published in mainstream reliable sources, and not merely partisan blogs and columns, then it would be appropriate to include. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll hold off on re-adding the content for now. Given Dees' sudden prominence in the news with his firing from the splc, I'll be on the lookout to see if reliable sources start to mention that content, and I'll be sure to add it if and when they do. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources cover it (as they have his firing, which I have, as you can see, zero objection to discussing in his biography as it is clearly relevant and well-sourced), then I will have no objection to that either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Colcom
Would it help if we added Colcom's response to the SPLC designations to the article? Another newspaper article came out about the issue a couple weeks ago, and Colcom actually had a response this time: (see John Rohe's comments near the end of the article). Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for the suggestion. I certainly think that's an improvement. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Immigration Policy Center
I have removed the tag from Immigration Policy Center, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Phil Bridger (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks bridgy ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Another 3RR violation
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 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.


 * Today, you violated 3RR again. Despite having been warned about it yesterday by at least two editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

COI noticeboard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Center_for_Immigration_Studies Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * lol

July 2019
I believe Darryl. Jensen used the same wifi network as me a year ago? I don't know the connection to the other account. And neither of us have any COI's..
 * Huon, I asked another CU to look at this and they confirmed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)