User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 1

Immigration crime in Italy
Thanks for your edits: I find them reasonable. Please tell me, what does this mean, in plain language: "legal status... explains one-half to two-thirds of the observed differences in crime rates between legal and illegal immigrants"

I do not understand it. Zezen (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a gap in crime rate between legal and illegal immigrants. The authors show that much of the additional offending (one-half to two-thirds of the gap) that illegal immigrants do can be explained by the fact that they don't have legal status. The post-EU enlargement experiment shows that simply giving a group legal status reduces the crime rate.

You could draw an analogy from epidemiology. You have group A and B. Group A suffers from higher rates of illness X. Researchers then find that the differences in illness rates is because group A lives in a high-pollution area. Pollution explains one-half to two-thirds of the observed differences in illness X between group A and B. Had group A lived in group B's area, the illness rate would much lower. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, noob!
Don't start an edit war with me. Not everyone thinks Morsi's impeachment was a "coup." Stop reverting my edits, man! Zakawer (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the definition of a coup from the political science literature and finding support in coup datasets collected by political scientists, Egypt 2013 is uncontroversially a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snooganssnoogans, your edits seem biased. Please discuss on talk page first.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You should check the edits he's made on other pages where he's pushing his POV and notify senior editors (?) or the admins of it. He's compromising a bunch of wiki articles. I don't know how to fix all those edits and prevent future similar edits. Thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with started, please see Talk:List_of_coups_d%27état_and_coup_attempts_by_country. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Stats in football players' infoboxes
Hi, when you update the stats in football players' infoboxes please remember that you should also update the pcupdate (or club-update) parameter. This shows when the stats were last updated and prevents editors from accidentally updating the stats again. Thank you. --Jaellee (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Immigration page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=718759045 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F718759045%7CImmigration%5D%5D Ask for help])

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cod Wars into Iceland in the Cold War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. I wasn't aware of the attribution rule for using Wikipedia content on other Wikipedia articles Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Caution
Your recent editing history 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 article's 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&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. Please be more cautious at the Political positions of Donald Trump article. You have already broken the three-revert-rule at that article. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1:18 on May 22
 * 0:05 on May 22
 * 22:54 on May 21
 * 22:01 on May 21
 * 17:37 on May 21


 * Thanks for the caution. I wasn't aware it was a rule. I'll be more cautious from now on. Every edit was well-justified (and the page is highly active, which explains the number of reversals) but this is something I'll have to keep in mind. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'm going to try and spend some more time at this article, and look forward to editing with you some more.  Since you weren't familiar with the 3rr rule, I want to also mention WP:NPOV.  While you may personally think Trump is a no-good lying sonofabitch, and I may think he's a smart and qualified leader, the object of editing is to just be neutral and not try to slant things for him or against him.  Maybe you already knew that, but I thought it was worth mentioning just in case.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history 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 article's 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&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.CFredkin (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Just as the editor above argues, you might get blocked if you engage in edit wars. Also, please refrain from engaging in edit wars. Zakawer (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Vidreisn
It looks like you might be Icelandic. If so, I would like your input to a naming discussion regarding Vidreisn, now moved to Reconstruction (Iceland). I think it should have stayed under Vidreisn until there was an official English name.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike Pence image
This edit shows that you tried to make some changes to the image in the Earmarks section. You got the out of balance and you can see the results here. Unfortunately, it was not clear what you were trying to do at that time. I suspect you wanted to shorten the caption. I restored the original image and its caption.

I don't have a strong opinion on it but believe we don't need that image in the article as it's not related to any of the text in the area. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't remember having edited anything related to earmarks or a picture. I had no intention to edit it if I did. You're free to fix my edits related to the picture. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Foreign Policy Journal
Hello there! I noticed your recent edit removing the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal from List of international relations journals. I stumbled upon the article while sifting through lists of orphaned articles. You will not be surprised to hear that I have no background in international relations. Since it sounds like you do have more experience in this area, if you think the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal is not notable enough to have its own article, perhaps you might consider nominating it for deletion. Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit COMPLETELY?
can't deal with other opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

still no answer190.24.78.19 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Has this edit appropriately addressed your objections?
I supplied the citation you requested, restoring the original text and the addition you requested to the Tim Canova article, as follows. Does this meet your standards, or if not can you suggest an edit which would?"After Wikileaks released hacked Democratic National Committee emails that confirmed that some DNC staffers had conspired against the Bernie Sanders campaign, Representative Wasserman Schultz tendered her resignation as the head of the DNC, effective as of the close of the nomination convention in Philadelphia. Canova has asserted that he found his own name in about 70 emails in the WikiLeaks-DNC database. He claimed that DNC staff appeared to be acting in a partisan way to promote Wasserman Schultz’s own reelection effort and that she may have violated campaign finance laws." Thanks. Activist (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it, though with the exception that we should add a link to the end of every sentence. There is no harm in it, and my experience is that this page will get shuffled in the future (as editors add content or rewrite existing content), which makes it much more convenient to each sentence sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll change the period after "database" to a comma. Activist (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Kaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heartbeat International. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for the kind words. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein
SteveStrummer has been reported for edit-warring. I'm watching. 184.101.247.49 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to commend you for adding the polling data, putting that 7% in better perspective. I did correct the spelling in your edit, however. I'm not sure how to address you: Would it be by your first name, "Snoogans," (or would that be too familiar?), or your last, "snoogans?" (I'm also assuming you're not East Asian, with the convention there being "family name, given name," of course.) 06:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Snoogans works. I also go by Snooch or Snooch to the nooch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4TAL58-tKE Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. There are comments for you on the page, again. You are probably aware that consequent to your decision to ask for a full-page protect, I have asked for you to be banned from the thread. I mean no harm in doing so, I believe there is a consensus developing that the neutrality of the page is problematic, and I've done the research to see that you are the most active reverter of neutralizing content. Today's example of the gorilla that you insist on keeping is just symptomatic. I'm sorry, but I have felt the need to take a stand against what's happening on this page. Couldn't you just let others "defend" the page in your stead? SashiRolls (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The administrator who reviewed your full-protect request suggested filing a case here. Since this seems to be the endgame you are playing for anyway, I have gone forward with the complaint for the sake of what I perceive to be the wikipedia community and the current consensus on the page.SashiRolls (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A new version of the complaint has been added. SashiRolls (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hillary truthful in interview
Snoogans, hypothetically would you support adding the following to the email controversy section in Hillary's bio:

In an interview with Fox News in late July, Clinton stated “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.” PolitiFact awarded Clinton four "Pinocchios", its worst rating, for her statement saying "While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public."

Would you consider it appropriate to add both Clinton's statement and the interpretation? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: your recent post on Talk:Donald Trump
I don't like to mention sanctions, or indeed to mention users, on article talk, but I thought you might like to know that I have topic banned the user in question for ignoring the discretionary sanctions in force for the article. I think perhaps he doesn't understand them; but that's too bad, since his reverts tend to make it impossible for other people (who do abide by the sanctions) to revert him. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Baraka
Please refrain from editing the summary of Mr. Baraka's article. Careful reading of the paragraph (and the article) makes it clear that the "weasel words" you don't like in the original article (i.e. by the author) have their place in the description of the article.

Best wishes to you and thanks for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place, by encouraging honest editing.

SashiRolls (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC) In June 2014, Baraka pointed out contradictions in the traditional narrative that the West was going after Bashar al-Assad's regime because it was a brutal dictatorship, saying that this notion was "carefully cultivated by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media."[11]

The article as it was written originally made no sense at all. Any chance of recuperating what he's getting at needs to be the result of a fairly precise transcription and cannot rely on gross approximations that are not textually warranted. (There are other clearer citations, but I did not wish to delete a citation.) SashiRolls (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you added a reference to a Telesur article to highlight something presumably negative about Mr. Baraka and then complained when positive elements in the same article were used? Your claim that Telesur "is not a reliable secondary source. it's the Venezuelan state propaganda network." would seem to only hold for positive statements, but when you can cut 3 words out of a much longer sentence, it's ok?

Again, I appreciate your efforts, but let's try to remain balanced and not complain about an editor using the same article you did, huh?SashiRolls (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The "uncle tom" statement was once on the article but sourced a facebook post and was consequently removed. While Telesur is bad, they don't invent quotes from nothing, so it is sufficient for that. Most of Baraka's writings and coverage are on poor sources, so his wikipedia page will unfortunately have to rely on them until reliable secondary sources (such as Politico) start to cover him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your honesty concerning your bias. That you would consider a recently graduated free-lance journalist a more reputable source than the various foundations that have honored him seems strange to me, and I would ask you to reflect on this. Surely you would consider the UN Secretary General a reputable source, right?  "In 1998, Baraka was honored by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as one of 300 human rights defenders from around the world who were brought together at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."  SashiRolls (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable secondary source about Baraka getting invited by Annan, sure include it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's already cited (reference number 3). I have decided that the wikipedian who called for deleting the op-ed article from Politico ("What If the Green Party Stopped Being Kooky and Started Getting Real?") is correct.  If you wish to add it back, please do so only in a new section related to post-nomination op-eds.  I have also deleted the sentence from Telesur I added to provide balance, since without the "fringe views" attack it is unnecessary.  Let's let people make their own decisions and remain humble concerning someone whose achievements are clearly greater than our own (or at least my own).  The only remaining reference to Telesur is the one you yourself introduced.  You may do what you wish with that (but I gather you would prefer that it remain).  Before making any reverts concerning the introductory paragraph in writings, please seek consensus on the talk page.  Thanks! SashiRolls (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

About Jill Stein
Hello, You just erased what I had written, saying it was "elsewhere", could you tell me where is this "elsewhere", please! Thanks in advance. Claudi/Capsot (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is in section paragraph of the 'Foreign policy' subsection. Note that I only erased the content that was already covered. For the content that was not covered, I added it to that section with a slight re-write.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't seen this before! Take care and have a great Sunday! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, since you mentioned that you haven't spent much time looking at policies, my suggestion for one to prioritize reading would be the policy on achieving consensus through discussion. (Some of the things listed there you already do quite well, such as appealing to common sense and suggesting alternatives.) Scrolling down that page a bit, it lists all the different avenues you can follow when a good faith attempt to persuade an editor you consider problematic does not result in progress toward consensus. Those links will direct you to instructions for requesting page protection properly, but that is just one option among many. Scrolling down further you will find commentary on what defines "consensus" and how that might change over time. Some of your comments along the lines of "this issue has already been discussed and resolved so it can't be changed" strike me as in tension with this commentary, but you may disagree (and I may be misunderstanding your comments without fully understanding the context and history of the page). 71.13.175.226 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll give that a read. I've never experienced constant disruptive editing from an editor before, so I've never had to cite rules. Common sense and a mutual acceptance of what's reasonable tends to be enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Snooganssnoogans. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jill Stein.The discussion is about the topic Jill Stein. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.175.226 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

npa
Please do not attack other editors. 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. 174.19.243.30 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Warnings
Hello. I just wanted to leave a few warnings here concerning your behavior on the Jill Stein page.

First, a warning for your repeated personal attacks on the talk page.

Hello, I'm SashiRolls. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Next, a warning for your regular non-neutral edits on the same page (example given with your partial citation concerning NATO and partial citations concerning Ajamu Baraka.  Contrary to the warning, I would appreciate that you yourself provide the full citations.

Hello, I'm SashiRolls. 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 seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Finally, the most serious warning, is for your deliberate reintroduction of an article containing factual errors, after admitting the source was erroneous on the talk page your talk then your edit

Hello, I'm SashiRolls. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hoping these reminders will encourage you to adopt a more helpful collaborative demeanor. SashiRolls (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing that another user has already warned you, and seeing that you have just attacked twice more...

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SashiRolls (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
- MrX 13:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC) - MrX 13:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm largely unfamiliar with applying the rules of Wikipedia. Could you put in place discretionary sanctions for the Jill Stein page? It's become almost impossible to edit the page because of one editor's disruptive editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there's a template I can put on the talk page. As I mentioned to SashiRolls, the key to successfully editing political biographies of living people is to be very careful about adhering to our policies, use impeccable sources, seek consensus for major changes, and work collaboratively with everyone, including people with different ideological viewpoints. Best wishes. - MrX 14:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Call for disciplinary sanctions at Arbitration Enforcement
Your editing behavior has been mentioned at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. SashiRolls (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Haiti
Not sure why you're following me around, but since you've twice reverted historical content I added to the page Haiti-United States relations, I've asked you to rewrite it as you would prefer to see it on the talk page. There is no argument that these are reliable sources, and upon reading the articles there is no way you can argue that this is not pertinent to the page. Hoping you will show good faith in this matter. Best wishes. SashiRolls (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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&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.

You have made 3RR in 24 hours and another shortly thereafter despite good faith efforts to respond to your (ideologically motivated) concerns. What you are reverting is extremely well documented with reliable sources. Your refusal to engage on the talk page is notable. SashiRolls (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't crossed 3RR in 24 hours, so as is custom, you're completely wrong again. You don't address the concerns at all on the talk page. If you want to add that content, get consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have made 5 reverts in 45 hours on that page alone. (Your other reversions on other pages in the last 48 hours (which I'm not involved on) can be seen in your history.)  NB:  " 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."  An email has been sent to the Arbitration committee mailing list concerning your consistent pattern of behavior. SashiRolls (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Incident noticeboard filing
For information, I have also filed a complaint on the Incident noticeboard here.SashiRolls (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverts on the Trump page
Whether the sources are scientific or not does not matter. Trump won the online polls, that is still worth mentioning. Just as it is worth mentioning that Hillary Clinton won all of the scientific polls. Both are useful and relevant pieces of information. In the future I would suggest that you discuss controversial edits on the Trump talk page rather than just ceaseless warring. NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Snooganssnoogans, I think we may need to report this user soon. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, highly disruptive and seemingly insincere Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Given all the complaints and warnings on your talk page, I doubt I have much to worry about. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Secrecy in trade agreements
Can you provide a reference or a link to another Wikipedia page for reverting the attempted deletion of "As with many trade agreements," preceding, "until being finalized, negotiations for the TPP were conducted with significant secrecy" in the Wikipedia article on the "Trans-Pacific Partnership"? I believe that leading qualifier is accurate, and I support your reversion. However, the concern expressed by the deletion deserves, I think, a response -- and I don't have time at the moment to search for a citation. I think there is at least one Wikipedia article that mentions that, but I don't have time to search for it right now. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton advocacy
You have violated 1RR on Political positions of Hillary Clinton: diff diff in order to suppress reliably sourced articles. (I notice that there is no banner on the page, though, so I've gone ahead and undone your advocacy-based reversion.) Though I suspect this warning may not do much to convince you to act in accordance with Wikipedia principles (building an enyclopedia not advocacy pushing), it is added here as evidence of your continuing pattern of behavior in case anyone should wish to see a more neutral Wikipedia not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The source you kept confirms the sources you censored (the first of which should be credited as they are the ones who did the investigative work and led to the subsequent investigative reporting which confirmed their work):

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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&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. SashiRolls (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. There is currently a discussion at WP:AN/EW regarding your violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. -- Elvey (t•c) 06:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Apropos the four votestacking pings at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=745566627#User:Snooganssnoogans_reported_by_User:Elvey_.28Result:_.29 Elvey (t•c) 00:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a vote, so there's no issue of stacking it. And it's not canvassing, because it was completely transparent at the 3RR page, so nobody was being misled. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Result of the complaint about Clinton Foundation at AN3
Please see this closure at AN3 which contains a warning for you, and a reminder the other party. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston: the disruptive behavior from this user continues. Would you be willing to look into (or delegate this oversight to another admin) this user's copyright violation, refusal to correct grammatical errors with concomitant incivility , and use of dead links to blog posts  to justify introducing POV in articles in post-1932 US politics?  Thanks.  I would appreciate that this continual pattern of behavior be addressed after months of abuse.  SashiRolls (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Unpublished analysis doesn't belong in articles
Personal analysis of a single survey, without any relevant paper to source is WP:OR. If you want to add information to articles make sure not to engage in original research, and for controversial statements please avoid primary sources. Distrait cognizance (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The use of TRIP surveys are not original research. The TRIP surveys are used on International Relations pages all over Wikipedia. The same applies to the IGM surveys of economists. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Re the "fact checkers"
If you can demonstrate some sort of overwhelming "expert consensus" that Ann Coulter et al. are wrong, then I will be happy to drop the matter. But if all you have is one source—The Washington Post—that is splitting hairs about barely perceptible differences between Trump's Koveleski impression and his "generic flustered" act—the main thrust of which is to cast doubt upon Coulter's contention that she can "prove" Trump's innocence, not to confidently prove Trump's intent—then I would say both interpretations belong with attribution. This isn't an exact science, and no-one can read Trump's mind.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammar error / copyright violation
Could you please check your grammar here ? (Your verbs don't agree with your subjects.) I would just fix it, except that after your copyright violation of a Clinton campaign press agent here I'm nervous about working on text you add to Wikipedia. I guess leaving you a note so you can correct on your own is the best solution. Thanks. SashiRolls (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop following me around and leaving crazed comments on my talk page. Leave me alone, you sociopath. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not following you around, just checking your participation in the project regularly for further vandalism type activities similar to the recent copyright violation. I recommend others do the same. SashiRolls (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You're batshit insane. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at this page. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Using the word "sociopath" to refer to other editors is not civil. Elvey (t•c) 00:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Snooganssnoogans, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Jill Stein has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * 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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * 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 can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. '' You are not taking our policies regarding copyright seriously. You're not new here, so you should know better. But, at Talk:Jill_Stein, you are totally unapologetic regarding your copyright violation: you even re-restored the copyrighted material which User:Namiba re removed, so I'm placing the long, more informative, formal warning template for new users here. I would like to hear that you agree with this comment: "I would remind those involved that copyright violations are a serious matter and should be removed or rectified immediately in cases where the violation is clear and the source can be pinpointed. In these cases, individuals should not wait to debate preferred wording, so much so that removing clear copyright violations is an exception to the three revert rule." by User:Timothyjosephwood. In other words, I'd like to hear that you are henceforth taking our policies regarding copyright seriously. '''You have repeatedly violated the discretionary sanctions on the Jill Stein article as well, and narrowly escaped with just a formal warning after I reported one of the violations at Admin Enforcement. Stop violating policy. '   Thank you. Elvey (t•c) 00:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
I've replied on the talk page. Password123 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Using dead links to promote POV
In this edit, you deleted a recent citation, fleshed out a very old one, and modified the following text: "The familial connection, and her previous stance, initially caused voters to doubt the sincerity of her support for LGBT causes. " to read "The familial connection, and her previous stances, has caused some voters to doubt the sincerity of her support for LGBT causes. .  I have asked you to explain this modification because the day you modified it, the reference for the claim you modified was a dead link, so you could not have made this change based on something in the 2012 blog piece at Expression 808.  I have asked you to comment on the talk page (Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard) but you have not done so. I would appreciate that you do so, because as it is it looks like you just changed the wikipedia text in order to insert POV without checking the 2012 source for the claim. Thank you for your help clearing up this behavioral issue. SashiRolls (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not and have never read that blog post. I changed the language because it read weird. Can you leave me alone, you sociopath? Wtf is wrong with you? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. Let me explain this to you so that you will understand.  When there are 13 words that are supported by a source, without reading that source you may NOT change the meaning of the sentence, to do so is to act in bad faith.  Calling me a sociopath, when I am concerned about how you are trying to make a living person look bad on her biography page is a bit rich...  Do you realize you have broken every single pillar of Wikipedia, except ignore all rules?  WP:5P1, WP:5P2, WP:5P3, WP:5P4.  Would you like to indicate that you are aware of your errors and intend to correct your behavior or do you need to be taken to AE? SashiRolls (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, take me to AE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 2
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Personal attack, 'sociopath'. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Per 'sociopath' above. I also take note that you were warned (without a block) for 1RR violationat Clinton Foundation per a previous AN3. See also 'batshit insane' higher up on your talk page. Sounds like you have trouble editing calmly on political topics. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls is chasing me around Wikipedia, reverting my edits on pages for ridiculous reasons and throwing all sorts of crazed comments at me on my talk page, talk pages of articles, the talk pages of other editors and in edit summaries. For example, in the last three weeks, the user has mentioned me in 17 different edits according to my alerts (and this is not counting edit summaries where the user repeatedly mentions me by name). If you look at my talk page, you can see that the user has been obsessed with me since the summer. The user has on numerous occasions accused me (along with numerous other editors) of being a shill. The user has taken his/he obsession to frightening levels (this is why everyone should edit anonymously), engaging in harassment over the last few weeks. I have absolutely no trouble editing calmly on political topics; what I do have a problem with is being stalked and harassed. That I am being sanctioned for calling out this unsavory behavior should serve as a lesson for other editors: edit anonymously, give in to harassment and/or stop editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * : Users such as and  should be able to confirm SashiRolls harassing and disruptive behavior towards me. That I'm being sanctioned for calling out this behavior is a travesty. I have no idea how to work AE and don't want to take the risk of malformed filings, so what am I supposed to do. Just take it while this unhinged individual intimidates and bullies me? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop. Please provide a diff of me calling you or anyone a "shill" if you are claiming that I have done so.   If you cannot do so, please have the kindness to note you are confusing what I have said with what others have said.  Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dig up examples of you suggesting that editors are paid shills. Other editors that you've had content disputes over can confirm that it is your modus operandi to suggest that those who don't accept your edits is a paid shill. It's absolutely shameless of you to claim otherwise here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for about a week, so I am just seeing this now for the first time. I'm sorry to see that tempers flared to this extent, and I hope that it has by now become water under the bridge. I do confirm that Snooganssnoogans has been the target of largely unjustified bullying. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Horner
Note that the next paragraph says that "some false stories net the Balkan adolescents a few thousand dollars per day", and this is attributed to a secondary researcher. I don't think we need to add that a specific fake news writer also claims to earn less than that. --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello, I'm Jab843. 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 Jeff_Sessions seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Also, we attempt to avoid duplication of information if possible. The cannabis was already covered in the social issues section, where it belongs based upon conventions. Please verify before you add information to an article. '' Jab843 (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for input
Hi, Snooganssnoogans! (Love the name.) Given you were an original participant in the discussion over at Talk:Hillary Clinton, would you mind adding further input to the new concern PackMecEng posed? Thanks. G EORGIAN Go Dogs 03:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
Hello! Rather than starting an edit war over the phrases "illegal aliens" vs "undocumented workers," I've started a discussion space on the article's Talk page. Feel free to join in. Joyous! | Talk 18:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks
hi there. I thanked you for this edit just to bring attention to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Bannon&diff=749456256&oldid=749455979 - WP:npov is a good read, it is hard to see any wikipedia policy and guidelines that would support your desired lead inclusion, or even in the body of the biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ed J blocked you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASnooganssnoogans, I would ban you Govindaharihari (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake news website and SYNTH problems
Started a talk page section about it, at Talk:Fake_news_website.

Good luck !

Sagecandor (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Snooganssnoogans. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Political Positions of Donald Trump Dispute Tag
Hello Snoogans,

You have removed the "neutrality of this content is under dispute tag" after it was up for only an hour and a half! The tag was placed in order to encourage discussion and resolve the issue without an edit war. Please self revert as the content is obviously still under dispute. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Julian Assange edit
Hi there, I see that you're involved in an edit war over a paragraph you attempted to add. Would you like to instead head over to Talk:Julian Assange and discuss the concerns that other editors (including myself) have raised with your addition? I think that would be more productive than edit-warring, personally. I don't know how keen you are to work through this issue in good faith with others who disagree, but I figure it's possible you might be (since your edits aren't just about this one topic, perhaps you are a normal Wikipedian who just got caught up in a bigger fight), so I thought I'd leave a message... Esn (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Too many citations for Political positions of Donald Trump
Don't you guys think there are too many citations for the statements:


 * "Trump's political positions, and his descriptions of his beliefs, have frequently changed" - 5 citations
 * "...families who pay no federal income taxes—the families most likely to be unable to afford child care—would not benefit from this plan." - 7 citations
 * Trump identifies himself as a "free trader," but has been widely described as a "protectionist". - 5 citations
 * "...viewing them as likely to start trade wars and harm consumers.[viewing them as likely to start trade wars and harm consumers." - 10 citations
 * "...and pledged to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court." - 7 citations
 * "What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" - 6 citations
 * "Trump has on several occasions asserted that crime is rising in the United States." - 6 citations

I think we should remove some of them. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sugary drinks tax
I'm curious as to why you reverted my correction of a vandal's defacement of the country name "Hungary" to the word "hungry", and suspecting that wires are crossed with respect to who was doing what in terms of rectifying the vandalism.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  21:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. Yes, the persistent vandalism confused me. I thought it was the vandal again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!
Hello, Snooganssnoogans! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Partnership
Consider this a friendly reminder, but 3RR and edit warring policies apply to everyone and you are also at the limit. -- ferret (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, thank you for the reminder. That's why I took my concerns over the other editor's editing to the talk page, instead of reverting him/her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks 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&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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats history and opposition lies
The sources cited are norwegian "main stream" (and thus Leftist) media. They are part of the opposition block that is openly hostile towards parties like SD. They have probably not bothered to check their own sources and just reprinted old propaganda lies about the party.

You also claim that "it reflects similar content from the Swedish version of the page". Which is a false claim.

Relevant section from the Swedish article: -"Sverigedemokraterna förbjöd 1996 bomberjackor och uniformsliknande klädsel vid sina möten."

Even google translate gets it ""Sweden Democrats banned in 1996 bombs jackets and uniform-like outfit at their meetings."" 'Bombs jacket' is the type of jacked skinheads wore: https://xbyn.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/img_0158-1.jpg

So as I said, a ban on supposed Nazi uniforms is a lie. SD held open meetings but unwanted skinheads showed up, so to keep them away they banned the skinhead 'uniform'.

The woman pictured wearing the nazi uniform were a member but expressed extreme opinions and was thus thrown out. She later joined another party and was then photographed wearing the nazi uniform at one of that party's meetings.Drakoniam (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Date formatting
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Presidency of Donald Trump, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the part of the Manual of Style regarding date formatting. SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi Snoogansnoogans, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you should not engage in edit warring or delete NPOV and POV tags without reaching consensus, as you did previously on the entry for Ben Swann. For example, I agree with your assessment that President Morsi's ouster in Egypt constituted a "coup," however you should not have engaged in edit warring to assert your claims. --Jacobwsl (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Foreign policy of Donald Trump page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=763835121 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F763835121%7CForeign policy of Donald Trump%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reference errors on 7 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Immigration to the United States page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764179601 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F764179601%7CImmigration to the United States%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Gatestone Institute. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Eperoton (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

February 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Presidency of Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits to this article continuously place Trump in a negative light, instead of neutrally presenting issues involving Trump. SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Einar Sveinsson
Hello Snooganssnoogans,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Einar Sveinsson for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dr Strauss  talk  14:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Congressional voting statistics
Because the statistics that you provided regarding the voting records of various members of congress will become outdated rapidly, it would be helpful to include the session of congress that is being referred to and the point within the session that these statistics are valid. 5 years from now, someone reading this would not know what session of congress is being referred to, and at what point of the session the statistics given was valid.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good points. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

SQF
Thanks for your recent edit on Stop-and-frisk in New York City. Even a 10% reduction wouldn't be much to write home about. But a policy that reduces crime by 10% a year for 5 years! (Where can we find that?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sebastian Gorka‎
Your recent editing history 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&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. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again you are edit-warring and refusing to discuss your edits on the talk page beyond a perfunctory level. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Agenda pushing ilk
I would ask you stop pushing your agenda, but I know that wont work having delt with your ilk. You are a scourage to the project. Cheers!--Malerooster (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That "a" appears to have taken flight and landed in the next counaty. SPECIFICO  talk  18:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was fine with this user calling me names and following me to US politics pages, but this user is now following me to academic pages and reverting content that he/she has (i) never read, (ii) doesn't understand and (iii) has no interest in (there is at least no evidence of the user editing the page before I did so today). The user's harassment is now making it difficult for me to edit, as I'm going to have to deal with someone following me around and reverting anything I add without reason. Not only is the user doing Wikipedia a disservice by removing content without merit, but also deterring users from editing. This was the edit that the user removed from the page for Federalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federalism&type=revision&diff=769840879&oldid=769770638 . The content that the user removed with the justification "rm non notable recently added material from overview" was a brief literature review on the emergence of federal systems from an award-winning book from one of the top academic presses (Co-Winner of the 2007 Best Book Award, European Politics and Society Section of the American Political Science Association, Winner of the 2004 Gabriel Almond Award for Best Dissertation in Comparative Politics, American Political Science Association Winner of the 2003 Ernst B. Haas Prize for Best Dissertation in European Politics, American Political Science Association) by a Harvard political scientist. Can somebody please tell this user that this is not OK behavior? Pinging users that I have seen being involved in disciplining proceedings for this user before: User:SPECIFICO User:Softlavender User:MelanieN User:Guy_Macon User:GELongstreet User:Malerooster . I can't be dealing with this user indiscriminately reverting my contributions on academic pages. There is nothing precious about my contributions to those pages, but I'd like the content to be tweaked or reverted on its merits, not out of spite. That said, I literally can't remember the last that somebody reverted an edit of mine on an academic page that contained a citation to a peer-reviewed publication, except that time when a now-banned user was harassing me in just the same way that Malerooster is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, the way to address the content-related actions of other editors is: Discuss neutrally on article-talk, use WP:DR if needed, and report edit-warring at WP:ANEW (or WP:DS violations at WP:AE). The way to address personal-related or behavior-related actions of other editors is: Discuss on their usertalk, and if no resolution is achieved at usertalk, report at ANI if your hands are clean. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Modify Hannity language
Hello Sno........s In light of the concerns about the modifiers in your proposed language in the Hannity RfC, do you think it would be a good idea to withdraw that and propose language that simply states that Mr. Hannity promotes conspiracy theories and repeats false narratives? Per the discussion at BLPN and in the RfC comments, it seems as if this would gain consensus and imporve the article. SPECIFICO talk  19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! I think simply stating that Hannity "periodically promotes conspiracy theories and falsehoods" would be alright in the lede. "False narratives" is weasel-word-ish. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. My concern is that the RfC and BLPN threads are getting hung up on the longer version including the adverbs. I think if you made a new proposal along the lines of what you've written here, it will have quick consensus.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV Pushing in Conservative Articles. v/r - TP 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw this discussion and think it would help if you move/remove yourself all such voting info from leads of the articles. Having such info somewhere in the body of the pages would arguably be OK, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I followed your suggestion. Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you intend to heed the concerns of the editors at ANI, you might want to let them know. SPECIFICO  talk  20:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DS notice
Politrukki (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain to me how adding quotes by Mark Levin, which are reliably sourced, is a BLP violation? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You restored content "deleted on good-faith BLP objections" without obtaining consensus. If you have read WP:BLP, you should know that that was a no-no. I have commented on the content issue on the article's talk page. Politrukki (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Sweden
I removed the Trump passage, because it delivers disinformation, gives an incorrect summary of the cited article, and violates neutrality. Crime rates have risen in Sweden since 2005 and even the cited article says this, and as to the question whether this rise is due to immigration, that is a matter of debate (see discussion page). The article is an opinion piece by Reuters journalists, and if the journalist in question supports this or that interpretation of given statistics, interpretation of one person cannot be cited as if it were a fact. Please read the articles first, before claiming that they say this or that, and understand what the status of article cited is. I would also point out that the very fact that the article immediately reacts to the recent Trump incident makes it dubious and obviously politically motivated. --Raži (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. The Reuters reporting mirrors that of PolitiFact and Factcheck.org on the same issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks lead
There is no consensus on the way the lead was written the way it was. We can discuss this further on that talk page. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 19:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks 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&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. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 19:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. TheBD2000 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Immigration and Crime
Your recent editing history 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&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. --Raži (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I accidentally violated 3RR. So, I removed my last edit, even though it was actually an undoing of a quasi-vandalist edit. Just to point out that if you have in mind to instruct the editors to block me, that shouldn't be correct any more. --Raži (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You unedited this


 * Those with immigrant background are overrepresented in Swedish crime statistics. However, a 2013 research showed that from 50-75% of the gap between immigrant and native children diminishes when controlling for socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment, poverty, exclusion language, and other skills.

to this


 * Those with immigrant background are overrepresented in Swedish crime statistics but research shows that the difference between immigrants and natives largely disappears when controlling for socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment, poverty, exclusion language, and other skills.

Now, the layout of those citations is misleading, since as far I didn't miss anything (I checked out all the sources) only one of the sources is a criminological article actually deals with the question of socio-economic factors and none of the others even mentioned the question (except for one citation in one article from a politician that has no relevance and is actually factually false). And it was done with children in Stockholm area and showed that 50 to 75 % of the gap many be explained by controlling SE factors. In short, the claim that SE-factors explain the whole is OR and has to be corrected. Furthermore, references should not be laid out in a misleading manner.

I would also add that there was absolutely no OR in the article prior to your recent edit. Now, I know there was OR at one point, and I also did some edits that were, if not OR, at least close to it. However, that's been corrected. There's no SYNTH, only juxtaposition: SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition.. Now, if you call something SYNTH, you should be able to lay out the precise reasons why it is, pointing out where exactly the SYNTH occurred and why it must be regarded as such. What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_presumed So, if you think there's OR, go to the discussion page and lay out your arguments. Just calling a duck duck doesn't make it a duck.

Now, I am a rather inexperienced wikipedist, and for that reason I made some errors as far as my editing style was concerned, but learn the rules and follow them. I suggest you do the same. It's your editing style which is now the more disruptive one, and, of us two, it seems to be only you who appears to be adding OR to the article as was the case in your recent edit as I showed. --Raži (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Navarro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon Chang. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring on Brigitte Gabriel
Your recent editing history 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&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. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring on Michel Chossudovsky
You need to start participating in the discussion, rather than edit war. Respond to the IP, and the rest of us, for that matter, there. El_C 17:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:BRD?
I don't normally go around citing this particular essay, but surely you must realize that it is commonplace for major, undiscussed changes that are disputed by others to be quickly reverted followed by a demand for explanation as to why the changes are warranted? The rationale is not obvious. Please say a few words about why changes are needed. Fact checker _ at your service 18:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Just a suggestion, you should find a way to discuss content disputes without cursing, accusing the other person of lying, or calling them shameful, etc.

I don't waste my own time filing admin cases for personal attacks, but others will waste no time in doing so.

More importantly, all the hysterics do nothing to advance your argument. Fact checker _ at your service 20:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my language.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Placing editors' names in section headings is usually a no no unless of course you are thanking them. You might want to remove any such instances. Doug Weller  talk 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Keep your edit summary civil. TheBD2000 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, when editing the page Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, a message pops up: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

Are you an exception to this rule or did you forget this rule when you undid my edit? --Donovan O&#39;Cooley (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger Stone Article -- "lie" vs "falsehood"
I started some conversation on the "Talk" section of that page. I'm hopeful we can find a compromise. Liberte et paix (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Foreign policy of Donald Trump
If I get reverted, chances are I made a mistake. Problem is, this edit summary doesn't help me understand what I did wrong. Since I'd like the explanation in the article's edit history, I'd appreciate it if you would add a null edit with a summary that starts, "My previous edit summary was cut off. It should have said..." Because I won't BS you: I'm skeptical you read the text I deemed unacceptable, considered my reason for removing it, reviewed the transcript that was used as a source, decided my work needed to be undone, and concluded that the only explanation I was owed was the word "quote," all in the span of three minutes. City O f Silver  02:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your revert seems to have violated active remedies. I suggest you self-revert and – if you feel that the content has its place in the article – head to Talk:Foreign policy of Donald Trump and use your silver tongue. Politrukki (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) IP user makes an edit:
 * 2) Another user challenges it with a partial revert:
 * 3) You reinstate the challenged part of the first edit without obtaining consensus on the talk page:
 * How long does it take for you to self-revert? Or present your arguments so we can perhaps move towards ending this needless dispute? Politrukki (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patrick Cummins (fighter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oblivion (song). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MY reading comprehension problems? Lolz
UNDUE doesn't say anything about how long leads should be. It especially doesn't say, we must make the lead short even if it means writing misleading prose that distorts the sources it cites.

More generally there is no justification whatsoever for restoring source misrepresentation just because it results in a shorter word count. That's silly. Even if there were a valid reason to keep the lead short just for the sake of being short, the solution would be to remove any issues that can't be clearly explained in a small space.

Stop edit warring and don't make edits that aren't justified by any policy. Fact checker _ at your service 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greg Gianforte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring on Gatestone Institute
Your recent editing history at Gatestone Institute 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&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. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Snooganassnoogans, why do you keep editing Gatestone's Wikipedia page? I am trying to be as reasonable as possible with the edits, but you seem intent on portraying it in a wholly negative light?
 * Don't be ridiculous. You're edits have been overwhelmingly rejected on the talk page, with otherwise sympathetic editors contacting you to tell you to stop it. You don't even bother to argue for your edits in a substantive manner, and don't follow Wiki policy in the slightest. The text that you add is original research and you keep removing reliably sourced for no other reason than you just don't like it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, please engage me. Which specific edits do you have a problem with? You are edit warrning Gatestone's page without any explanation. Gregcollins11

Dear Snooganssnoogans, what is your specific problem with the previous edits on Gatestone's page? I am happy to come to a consensus. Please articulate your concerns. Gregcollins11

Snooganssnoogans, you just undid my edit. Please engage me. I am happy to come to a consensus. What are you afraid of? Gregcollins11

DYK for Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

while you're pointlessly edit warring please self revert your improper edit removing org's self-description
shouldn't have removed it, everybody else agrees you shouldn't have removed it, please self revert Fact checker _ at your service  15:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * oh also remove the author list, which you also shouldn't have removed. Fact checker _ at your service  16:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead in Sean Hannity

 * Before I were to just revert the edit, I didn't want to get into an edit war. Instead, I'd like to talk it out as best as possible.


 * On your last revert, you stated, "he did not "entertain" those notions, he promoted them." Here it's just a simple vocabulary dispute, as a change in word determines the meaning of the passage. My basis for the word relies in the Politico source within the Barack Obama citizenship paragraph:


 * Though Hannity did not claim Tuesday that the president was born outside the country, on his prime-time TV show the host has repeatedly entertained the debunked notion that Obama was born in Kenya, and he joined Donald Trump in calling for the president to release his long-form birth certificate in 2011.


 * Now to be honest this part actually wasn't what I was most concerned about. Perhaps what I find most concerning is the pejorative connotations of "...for promoting Hillary Clinton conspiracy theories and unfounded voter fraud claims in the 2016 presidential election." While this statement is backed by the sources, it's written like a hit piece you'd see in a newspaper commentary section. (I.e. Sean Hannity, who was notorious for promoting Hillary Clinton conspiracy theories and unfounded voter fraud claims in the 2016 presidential election, has refused to deny such debunked notions to this date.) While these statements are technically correct, it sounds sensationalistic and is not the best way to present information for a lead section.


 * All I'm looking for is a good way to present Sean Hannity. I'm not looking here to spread any falsehoods or anything factually inaccurate here, nor am I here to deny anything factual here.  I'd just like to see the article be written well and balanced. Regarding Wikileaks, and "...from hostile to supportive," it's just about simplicity.  The emphasis is on the switch itself, not how he switched, because that can be found in the body.  But that's a simple issue, one I'm not too worried about.


 * Let's discuss this so that we can find a solution to a problem we're both trying to solve.


 * Thanks for understanding,


 * The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Infobox, and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I agree with User:Snooganssnoogans in restoring the original language here. You say "All I'm looking for is a good way to present Sean Hannity." Actually our goal is not a "good" way to present him, it's an "accurate" way to present him. That has to be based on Reliable Sources. And those sources (plus his own words, but we try not to use primary sources) show that he was clearly a promoter of these issues, not just a passive mentioner of them. (BTW another term for "technically correct" is "correct".) I'll be glad to discuss this further with you - for example do you think we need additional sources in the article to support this language? --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oops, I was thinking this was the article's talk page; I didn't notice that this was Snoogans' talk page. The article talk page would have been a better place is OK to discuss it but I guess either is OK. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mi casa es su casa. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW Snoogans - could I request you to include the publication date in your reference citations? I just deleted "and after" from your sentence that Hannity promoted these theories "during and after the campaign" - because none of the references were from after the election. But to verify that, I had to click on every link, because they didn't include the publication dates. That's just one of many reasons why it's very valuable to readers to show the publication date in the reference citation. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input Administratrix Melanie. Considering your experience, you'd know better than I would on NPOV (which was simply what I was trying to accomplish), so I can accept that.  And I'm happy to see a problem solved, not continued.


 * Best Regards,


 * The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooo, "Administratrix", I like that! 0;-D We can still tweak the wording or remove individual sentences if you think they violate neutrality. The article's talk page would be the place to discuss that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greg Gianforte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Ok, thanks for the info.. Sorry about that. Yours, Quis separabit?  22:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
I wasn't sure where to start a discussion about the US repesentative articles so I started it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics ~ GB fan 14:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * IN your rush to add text which is still being contested and debated, you entered a serious factual mistake -- Tom MacArthur voted not to repeal Obamacare (http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/13/nj-congressman-macarthur-votes-no-repeal-obamacare/96560146/). You know what you agreed to here. Quis separabit?  14:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out and trying to fix what you believed to be an error (good faith), but you're the one introducing errors to the Wikipedia article. That's a January 2017 vote on the first motion to repeal Obamacare: his wikipedia article correctly noted that he voted against repealing ACA in Jan 2017. He did vote to repeal Obamacare and pass AHCA in May 2017; he is in fact the architect of the amendment that allowed the bill to pass the House ("MacArthur amendment") but that text has now been deleted from the article despite being the subject of national news coverage for the last three weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

discrimination based on skin color
Hello, you keep removing my edits from this page saying that they are not relevant to the topic. I don't see how you can feel that way because the topic of skin bleaching ties into the subject of colorism. Thanks for your help but you should farther your research before anymore spontaneous edits. Asimon2 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)A. Simon
 * The article is not about skin-bleaching. There is already a skin whitening article, add to that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which: . Drmies (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A long-standing interest to provide "balance" to articles... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, that I'm not feeling oppressed like other decent white people. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I'm going to respond at the student's talk page. On a side note, their comment about research was inappropriate but make sure that you do not WP:BITE the newbies. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. David A (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia
Reminder: BLP also applies to edit summaries. --Neil N  talk to me 17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, didn't know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
You are invited to join the discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. v/r - TP 02:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize that you are frustrated, however you should fix your AE statement: remove all bold and make it shorter and clear. Here is the point: some of your edits could be reasonably seen as "non-neutral", however you fixed them later. It is highly unusual for this place that someone would fix their edits after criticism. It is more common to receive reply: "you are fool yourself" . My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm unsure how much I should respond to and how thoroughly, but I trimmed it for clarity. . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should make it even shorter, and most importantly, respond to request by Sanstein. Did you? You tell: "I regularly revert vandalism and unproductive edits to GOP politicians’ pages, many of which seek to attack them. Just some examples", and you give this diff. First of all, that was not vandalism. Secondly, you removed criticism of Clinton. You must do a much better job to justify your statement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill
Please don't engage in WP:Citation overkill.

It's nice to add sourced info.

It makes Wikipedia articles look silly and stupid to have more than 3 cites at ends of sentences.

Certainly a string of 7 cites looks really weird.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I edit a lot on controversial topics and my experience has been that it never hurts to have a lot of RS cited when the notability of the text and precision of the language will inevitably be contested. On the Seth Rich page, that type of editing has been helpful in preventing disputes from emerging and quickly settling whatever disputes did occur (see, for example, the discussion on the talk page about mentioning the Russia-Trump revelations). One solution would be to merge the footnotes into a single footnote, but I'm not skilled enough at editing to know how to do that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

you should get blocked by making a severe WP:PERSONAL attack like that, calling me a bullshit article runing voiceover

 * wait...........you went against No personal attacks by calling me a bullshit (BS) article runing voiceover while i tried to assumme WP:GOODFAITH (hoping you were happy) not any "wikivoice" just me being polite to YOU! YOU! what did i do wrong? how did i "ruin" this article by removing Contentious or orignial research material Ukrainetz1 (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sean Hannity. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Take it to the talk page, please. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Your revert rationale
Your revert rationale "illegal can be used for "immigration" but not "immigrants"" isn't consistent w/ longstanding article title Illegal immigrant population of the United States. --IHTS (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO, that's a convenient, cheap, popular dodge to avoid real engagement. (The fact that article title, a way more substantial issue re use of the term "illegal immigrant", is longstanding, carries undeniable weight, more than your picking off indivudual sentence phrases in a separate article. Your issue s/b handled at that article title, if you really believe it is a good argument. The simple link of a guideline is not replacement for thought & judgment. But it gets you what you want for the moment, right?) --IHTS (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * From WP:OSE:
 * In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. For example, harmonizing file names of a set of images is a valid rationale for renaming files (to a lesser degree, this applies to article titles as well, although article naming is more complex). Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments related to existing notability policies and guidelines in deletion discussions, and also to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. (For a similar issue, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) --IHTS (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your discriminate reversal of my good-faith efforts to remove political bias
Hello. I worked hard to make | four improvements to Mark Levin which you | reversed discriminately and in total without considering the merits of each edit. I have created a section for each of three edits on the Talk page to discuss my changes:


 * Talk:Mark_Levin
 * Talk:Mark_Levin
 * Talk:Mark_Levin

Should you wish to comment on any of my proposed changes, you should do so and provide support for your arguments. Doorzki (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not going to read through blocks of text and read and watch a bunch of youtube videos and rubbish sources (the blaze, heat street, right scoop) to figure out what text belongs and which doesn't. That you don't seem to understand Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources and original research in the first place makes this seem like a huge waste of time. That you're removing reliably sourced content and replacing it with rubbish sources is another bad sign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I removed sources related to non-germane topics and added right-wing sources to balance left-wing sources (Media Matters, Washington Post, etc). It is important for Wikipedia to maintain NPOV. If you feel it to be outside your interest to review authoritative source materials rather than relying on editorial content to form your knowledge of a topic, you are not required to engage in any such effort to better Wikipedia (or your own understanding of the world). However, you should refrain from interfering with the work of individuals who want to take the time to form an honest and definitive understanding of a topic because Wikipedia is not meant to be a left-wing blog, but an effort to create an encyclopedic work. Laziness is not an option. Doorzki (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I came to this page to discuss an issue with this editor, but was frankly flabbergasted by your hyperbolic and disparaging mischaracterization of the Washington Post as "left wing." I've had my problems with the Post's views, on occasion, but the paper has won an extraordinary number of awards for excellence in reporting during its existence, 47 Pulitzer Prizes alone, including six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008. It certainly did a disservice to its own reputation for objectivity by allowing itself to become a cheering section for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2002-03, but in my estimation that was an aberration."In 'Buying the War' on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting George W. Bush's ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations. According to author and journalist Greg Mitchell, 'By the Post's own admission, in the months before the war, it ran more than 140 stories on its front page promoting the war, while contrary information 'got lost,' as one Post staffer told Kurtz.'" I'm not sure how helpful it is as well, characterizing another editor's work as "laziness." I would think an apology to the editor would be in order. Activist (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Awwwwwwwwww poor baby, were you "flabbergasted" that I called out the Amazon Washington Post for being a left-wing newspaper?? Awwwwwwwwwww . . . It must be so hard to be so sensitive. [digital-hug] [digital-hug] [digital-hug] Sorry if I didn't provide a "trigger warning." Hope you can find the strength to continue making Wikipedia an ideologically pure left-wing source of propaganda. [digital-hug] [digital-hug] [digital-hug] Doorzki (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Doubling down on insults to another editor, launching personal attacks, is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. It is not at all helpful. Please try to restrain yourself. Activist (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm so very sorry, sugar-pie. [digital-hug] [digital-hug] [digital-hug] I so do hope this whole project and exagerate shtick you're doing here doesn't carry over to your relationships in real life because that would def not help with your sensitivity issues. [digital-hug] [digital-hug] [digital-hug] Doorzki (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:No personal attacks Activist (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you messed up the link. Next time, when you want to link to a page, put double square brackets around the text. Then you will get something nice like this: No personal attacks. You also messed up the indentation and I fixed that for you. You're welcome!! :-) :-) :-) Sorry in advance if I just mansplained. [digital-hug] [digital-hug] [digital-hug] Doorzki (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks Doorzki (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Intercept
Hi, please study my edit and provide more explanation for your reversion - note that I was reverting WP:OR myself; the article's statement was not supported by its citation, and I added a citation supporting my change. Thanks, 209.6.209.51 (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RE Kris Kobach
You need to stop edit warring before you get yourself, and possibly others, blocked. Quis separabit? 21:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The vandalism committed on Wikipedia by Snooganssnoogans and his multiple accounts must stop. Doorzki (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , its best not to make such accusations without proper proof. Snooganssnoogans does not vandalise Wikipedia, but given their behavior of adding value judgments of conservatives in Wikipedia's voice, they should be reminded of WP:NPOV. Cjhard (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And while you're at it, Doorzki, please don't leave edit summaries like this: . --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I deleted your edit request on the Refugee talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Refugee&diff=794264944&oldid=784656868) It is better to put the content in a subpage to your user page (e.g User:Snooganssnoogans/RefugeeEdits) and then link to it in discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Gun-slave
I am a 3rd party observer, but what IS the gun-slave hypothesis? I do not see it mentioned in the article. If you want to add your source and the information, I would recommend explaining what is is. And do not state that it 'confirmed' the hypothesis, but rather that it supported it. Thanks! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ  00:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it was in response to this comment, your recent addition was much more helpful. Thank you! Happy editing ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  00:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I edited it before the comment but thank you for the suggestion. There's nothing that bothers me more than a blanket removal of a study. It's the kind of content that Wikipedia editors should desperately strive to keep and encourage more of. I admit that my first edit was hasty and could be developed more, but it still annoys to no end to see it removed without any attempt to improve it. To say that studies confirm or reject hypotheses is perfectly acceptable language, and does not imply that anything has been "settled". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Political activism on George Borjas?
Dear Snoogans, drawing from your edits of this page, I observe two things: An obvious conclusion to reconcile the two observations is that you are a political activist who wants to push the impression on Wikipedia that an expert who made sceptic remarks on immigration cannot be trusted. Can you please tell me where this line of thought would be wrong? I hope it is. --Merkasso (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In the introduction, you try to add as much emphasis on the matter that Borjas is critical of immigration as possible.
 * 2) You add all kinds of details in the controversies section (sometimes disregarding context) which are of subordinate importance. In effect, the controversies section is now by far the longest section of the entire article. About as long as "Personal life", "academic career" and "work" together.
 * Most coverage of Borjas in reliable news outlets is as an immigration skeptic or that his research demonstrates the harms of immigration. The three incidents in the controversy section are reliably sourced, and would be highly notable for any academic. Go back to EJMR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sebastian Gorka
Dear Snooganssnoogans. There is an open debate on the bio of Mr Gorka. If You are interested in it, please join in.--Ltbuni (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Arpaio lede & editorial policy
Hi, SS: I noticed that the cite mentioning the pardon in the lede, added very quickly after it was announced, was lacking the names of the New Times reporters, so I added them to the cite. Wondering who omitted their names, I noticed your comment in the history about the need for a trim of the lede. Should the cite be in the body, rather than the lede? Also, I noticed you mentioned "law professors," + lower case "flake" in the edit description. I assumed you were commenting on the reliability of a quote author, rather than referring to Jeff, until I opened your edit. :-) The race between him and Kelli "chemtrails" should be very interesting. Jeff's uncle Jake was the legislative power fifteen years ago behind getting approval for the corrupt development of a for-profit prison in Mohave county, where she's from, though I don't know if Jake was getting a piece of the action or just figured "all bidness is good bidness." Activist (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)