User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 11

The Battle at Lake Changjin
Can you lend an helping hand on this article? There’s been continued edit warring over the title of the film’s commissioning department on the main page (background information can be found here, )I’ve already reached out to the NPOV noticeboard to address this but the more eyes we can get on this the better Estnot (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

TDW
I didn't intend to ride over your corrective edit on The Daily Wire, but I had been working on the wording for that paragraph and felt I should deploy it anyway. I hope you don't mind. Platonk (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Snoo: I see they boomeranged onto the IP editor. Interesting thread; even more interesting reddit thread. Didn't know people were so blatant about WP trolling groups. Platonk (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You keep reverting my correct edits
Dear Snooganssnoogans,

You keep reverting my edits in SOCAR article, although there are plenty of undoubted facts. For example, the financial figures (references are to SOCAR.az official website) are outdated (2017). I've posted the updated figures for 2020 and my reference is exactly the same - to the official website SOCAR.az. There is no way, you could justify reverting this data. You have reverted ALL of my edits, not even discussing the details. I kindly ask you to let me know, which part of my edits EXACTLY you disagree with, so that we come to a consensus. It simply cannot be that everything I edited was wrong, because there are just a lot of updated figures and numbers with references to the same or similar sources, as there were previously. So it is simply impossible that everything I edited was wrong. Please specify each point, you disagree with and we'll come to a consensus.

Edits about SB 8
Snooganssnoogans: You reverted details that I added about SB 8 and the SB 8-related litigation on Jonathan F. Mitchell's page, all of which are accurate and appropriately sourced. Please tell me your objections and whether we can come to an agreement. Misdodubs (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Catherine Stefani
Question for you over at Talk:Catherine Stefani around landlord content. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'd like your input before making changes on edits that you made. PacificDepths (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan
Sorry, but you haven't answered my questions and removed my text again. I added references to all paragraphs. I also added about corruption, why you needed to change the article? And you deleted the awards section which had reliable sources. Please answer me. --leilahuseynova (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The content you added was sourced to the organization itself or to primary sources for obscure non-notable awards of unclear importance. This is the kind of content that WP:COI accounts add. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * okay, thank you --leilahuseynova (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Might I trouble you to add edit summaries, especially when you delete RS-supported text? It would be helpful. Thanks. Best. --2603:7000:2143:8500:BDEA:1BA8:E99E:5290 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

AAR Corp
On October 15,2021, I (have a COI) added this article and reference:

"In April 2021, AAR signed a multi-year agreement with United Airlines to provide heavy maintenance services in Rockford, Illinois. AAR plans to add up to 250 more aviation maintenance technician (AMT) jobs at the facility to meet increased demand from United. "

but you took it down calling it "mundane trivia and puffery." The agreement was well covered in local media.

I would also like to expand on the company's history. Would this be an acceptable source for Wikipedia for the company's history? -- Funding Universe (http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/aar-corp-history/) whose source material comes from International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 28. St. James Press, 1999.

Please respond.Fgbwashdc(talk)


 * Please stay off my talk page. I'm under no obligation to workshop the inclusion of content written by the PR department of a company. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Then please answer my questions when I put them on my talk page. Fgbwashdc(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Editorialising and unexplained removal of content
Please don't modify content based on your own synthesis of the source as you did here. You also reverted my two edits (see and ), that I deem uncontroversial, without explaining why, which is also not nice.

Your comment "i fail to understand why wikipedia should use a contentious dehumanizing term that racists love to use when a neutral alternative term exists" suggests that you are taking this too emotionally, should cool down, and perhaps distance yourself from the subject. Politrukki (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one engaging in original research. The cited source does not say that the Afghan refugees could obtain IDs without proving their identity (the text that you added). The cited source says they could obtain IDs "without some documentation typically required." Furthermore, I stand by my comment that Wikipedia articles should not use contentious terms that racists love to use ("illegal aliens") when perfectly acceptable non-contentious alternative terms are available ("illegal immigrants", "undocumented immigrants"), and it's beyond my understanding why someone passionately fights to include the contentious terms that racists love to use. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied on the article talk page. I didn't expect anyone to object the thing you object to. Still don't explain your wholesale revert. Politrukki (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Particulate pollution
Hello. It seems from the history (which has been reconstructed and may be inaccurate) that you removed content from Particulate pollution with. Was that intentional, or should the content be restored? Certes (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Revrting of user without explanation
|This edit was, on face value, a good faith edit. Why did you revert it without explanation? Is there something else going on here I cant see? Or did you forget to WP:AGF? Just a thought.&#32;Mako001 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your RfC on Talk:The Battle at Lake Changjin
As a heads up, I closed the RfC you had previously opened at Talk:The Battle at Lake Changjin. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Presidency of Donald Trump
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits to the lead of Presidency of Donald Trump without an explanation. I opened up a discussion on the talk page about it. Do you have anything to add to the discussion? I would like to go forward with adding back a few of the less contentious bits after the 24 hour window such as cleaning up the 1st paragraph and adding some explanation to the Kim Jong Un meetings. There has also been some discussion about about adding some information to summarize the administration's Covid response. I have taken some suggestions from other users and revised my suggested edit. Just want to get your input, if you have any. Thanks. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mash, there are no uncontentious bits of your edit. None of it is an improvement. I suggest you move on to other areas and post any proposals on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I think that there were parts of my edit that were an improvement and I have received feedback from other users as such. My goal was to not be contentious and to not remove or alter too much of what was already there unless I thought it was redundant, unnecessary for the lead, or was worded without a NPOV. I'm working to improve the edit I made with the specific suggestions that have been made on the talk page. In the future, I will look to make suggestions on the talk page first before making such large edits. My expectation was that if there were problems with my edit, they would be edited on top of what I did, and not be reverted along with everything else. MonsterMash51 (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh
How is this recentism? Even you are correct, I need more than a single word to figure out why. Something so important as a judge's judicial philosophy belongs in a biographical summary. Island Pelican (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Really, dude?
sure, ok:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin&curid=19097823&diff=1061403336&oldid=1061400948

Bonewah (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Jake Corman
Hello! I was curious about your rational behind keeping the paragraph in the lead regarding the 2020 election on the Jake Corman article. This paragraph is repeated in the body of the article, and the version that appears in the lead is completely unsourced. Furthermore, this paragraph is not very useful for summarizing the article as a whole, as it relies on a recency bias that covers only a relatively small portion of his political career. (I could also see a neutral point of view argument, but I think it is close enough to be fine granted the right citations are added). I reviewed the Manual of Style and fail to see how this paragraph should be included. Sorry to bring this issue to your page instead of the Talk section on the article, but it appears from the edit history that you in particular seem to be interested in keeping this portion of the lead, and I figured this would get a quicker response. I am assuming that your edits are done in good faith and will admit that I am not familiar with every aspect of editing, so a quick response explaining the rationale behind these edits would be greatly appreciated. --Metamorph985 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't appreciate the tone
I am just being bold and apologize if you feel the edits I added in, was not sufficient. However it's not fringe. Political trust in the government is confirmed by many large scale polls and conducted by research from The Diplomat and Harvard University. To use an ad hominem attack on me and aggressively attack me for adding in that edits. I don't appreciate it considering my edits are well sourced. Also Harvard researchers on the ground in China, confirms that increased living standards have helped build optimism. And government responsiveness is the big reason behind the high level of trust.

https://thediplomat.com/2013/06/government-for-the-people-in-china/

If you want to add in Bell's description of political meritocracy. I am cool with that but it is not fringe to add in that civilian trust in their government, is high.. it is highly relevant and well supported by multiple sources. WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop harassing editors and making false and unfounded accusations.
I'm not sure why you have this obsession or vendetta but just because someone disagrees with you on what should be in an article you have edited does not mean they are "canvassing" or have "affiliations" with others who agree with them. You continue to make posts on people's talk page (including pinging me) more than a month after the edits took place, move on, just because you made such unfounded accusations and assumed bad faith before does not mean you need to continue to do so. Xoltered (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Tree spiking is eco-terrorism
Tree spiking is defined legally as a form of eco-terrorism. Reliable Sources across the board state this. To not view Tree Spiking as a form of eco-terrorism is at best tendentious. While I doubt anything worthwhile will come of this, I'm still surprised that editors would respond this way. Viktory02 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Congestion pricing
Congestion pricing has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Todd Hunter
Hi I noticed that you you have reverted all of the edits regarding the redistricting process, and replaced them with partial information. Opinions aside, the subsequent edits contain new and relevant information. Could you please explain the reasoning for your edits/reversions? ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== There is currently a discussion at admin noticeboard regarding edit history. The thread is Multiple edit warring notices, non collaborative user, requesting review of user edit history and edits. The discussion is about the topic Edit History. Thank you. — EaziGH (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaziGH (talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of ANI Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basslonick1220 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

GOP RFC
Howdy. In a day or so, I was gonna request closure at that Republican Party Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Assassination of Charles I of Sweden
Hello! Does your source say that Canute personally killed Charles? If not, perhaps the article text should be a bit less cut and dry on that. " ... by forces under ..." ?--SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says: "After Erik’s death, Karl Sverkersson was recognised as king, but was murdered in 1167 by Knut, son of Erik" (p. 671). Feel free to make the language in the WP article more circumspect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Butch Miller
Hello,

Just wondering why you are undoing my edits to this page, I've tried to be as unbiased as possible and leave the vast majority of your contributions alone. Surely there is a compromise we can come to on language we both think is fair and unbiased. Clrudi3169 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrudi3169 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please reconsider your Bradley Foundation revert
Hi, you reverted without providing any explanation; please see WP:REVEXP for why "summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting." My edit replaced a recently-added uncited redundant statement with existing text about the foundation's areas of funding (which was less relevant to the general History section.) 66.30.12.132 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The content relates to the history of the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions about edits to entry for Eric Metaxas
I am disputing the deletion of my edits to the page for author Eric Metaxas. I have made edits twice to his page, and within minutes those edits were reverted back to the original by you, Snooganssnoogans, and by user Melcous.

The truth is Mr. Metaxas IS a New York Times best-selling author of multiple books, which I listed, with citations. He IS NOT only "the author of three biographies," as the entry states previously and after my edits. My question is why are some authors cited as NYT best sellers and others not given that credit?

The Wikipedia entry of best-selling author Ibram X. Kendi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi, states: "A New York Times #1 Best Seller in 2020, How to Be an Antiracist is Kendi's most popular work thus far.[23] Professor Jeffrey C. Stewart called it the "most courageous book to date on the problem of race in the Western mind".[24]

Why is Eric Metaxas not given the same credit as a NYT best seller?

In your comments you stated the edits were "promotional" and "poorly sourced puffery." Yet similar content that is posted on Kendi's page is not censored. Why?

Further, Wikipedia uses the label "conservative" to describe Mr. Metaxas's talk show. Mr. Metaxas has a radio program; it is not a "conservative" radio program. Why label him "conservative"? Isn't that a subjective opinion rather than a fact, used to discredit the author?

Wikipedia does not label Nikole Hannah-Jones as a "progressive" or "liberal" journalist and author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikole_Hannah-Jones: Nikole Sheri Hannah-Jones (born April 9, 1976)[1][2] is an American investigative journalist, known for her coverage of civil rights in the United States. In April 2015, she became a staff writer for The New York Times. In 2017 she was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship and in 2020 she won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her work on The 1619 Project.

Wikipedia's entry about Jones is very promotional.

Elsewhere, the original Metaxas entry included only the negative aspects of a review written by a distinguished historian, yet that same review boasted plenty of positive material, which I included but has since been deleted.

Both entries for Kendi and Jones are highly complimentary.

How do Wikipedia editors justify these changes and inclusion of certain content for one individual and not another? Do you promote one author but not another? And isn't that censorship?

Alwaysgrateful (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)AlwaysGratefulAlwaysgrateful (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please reconsider your revert on Elections in Cuba
As apparent in the article's talk page, the political neutrality is disputed. Most of the sources are in the interests of the wealthy, who own the majority of western media, and have an obvious bias against the government of cuba. - Hcoder3104 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Elections in Cuba
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Hcoder3104 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If you continue your revisions, you will be reported per WP:EDITWAR. Hcoder3104 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Synth
Hello! I know we can bicker, but on your recent Lee Zeldin reversion of mine, you linked to WP.SYNTH, which is a blank page. Could you direct me to what you were trying to link to? Cheers.GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:53, 14 February 2022 (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. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the AN thread where we learn Snoogans has "an obvious right-wing political bias", isn't it? Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

"Baseless"
Snoogans, as an experienced editor you should know that injecting your own synth into an article is not OK. You added a claim with your large edit here. challenged that edit though they didn't offer a reason why. Given the number of political edits you make you should know better than to inject views that aren't in the source. Springee (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited source: "There is no credible evidence that he has Alzheimer’s disease." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not what you added to the article. You said the claim that Biden has cognitive decline is baseless.  That is a far more expansive claim vs he has not been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.  If any of this content is DUE vs just RECENT is another question that could be raised. Springee (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Continues to Delete Information on Political Candidates
This user continues to delete sourced information on political candidates with no explanation. It seems as though they are removing information which may go against their own political beliefs. Any sourced, factual information which contributes to the overall page and makes readers more knowledgable should remain on the page unless a strong, valid reason is given. The page I am referring to is Jake Corman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlmicek (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Statistic reverted
I'm sorry, but your opinions require more than reverting a valid statistic (while I'm still preparing a second source, no less). I've now reverted your errant revert and carried on. If you don't like sourced stats—take it to TALK.JAnnora2 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit made the UAE appear to be gender-equal and a democracy when the country is neither. It's an authoritarian regime with considerable and systemic gender discrimination. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, which, I note, you sprinkle liberally on this platform. Unless you'd like to show me the Snooganssnoogan-approved stats only policy, as mentioned, take it to the United Arab Emirates TALK page.JAnnora2 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad bin salman
Do not change anything on that topic, the picture was reverted from the 2019 version and most of the content in that page is against him, Wikipedia should be a natural site without being bias whether it was pro-KSA or anti-KSA Aziz bm (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalizing
You shouldn’t be in Wikipedia in the first place, you’re using your political agenda against middle eastern countries and using the terms “ (repression/authoritarian/oppressed) in a website where all articles should be objective. You also moved the page from women in Saudi Arabia to women’s right in Saudi Arabia and reverted all the biased information. You will be reported for your behaviors Aziz bm (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on the article about Hanson?
That phrase is quite obviously not built in an objective and intellectually honest fashion. Dominique Pulancur (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

billy rautenbach
Hi Snooganssnoogans, did you see that Contri20 continues to revert on Billy Rautenbach after his 32h block? all my changes from a week ago are long lost in the edit warring. He needs to be reported on the admin board if he isnt found to be a sock of infoboat.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism
Hello, you should not really abuse your editorial credentials and trim accurate and referenced contributions by other editors made in line with Wikipedia standards from the pages of the individuals you have racial personal prejudices or dislikes for. There is no place for bullying and abuse on Wikipedia - it is unacceptable. Contrubute, do not vandalise. --83.167.213.21 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2022 (CET)

Wikipedia:Go ahead, vandalize
You are removing and retracting sourced content unreasonably from multiple pages to support your political motives. Please abide by Wikipedia policies and refrain from editing them without a valid reason and abide by WP:POINT and WP:NPOV.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia unfavorable to the truth on Joseph Ladapo
It would seem the fake news editors here are busy trying to spin the truth and the cited article itself by misrepresenting it in this BLP. I have tried a few times to correct this article from the fake news editors with this edit in (In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation "healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC" in Florida.) It just doesn't say what the pro vaccine editors want it to say... Hmm that would seem to be a violation of Wikipedia's rules and quite frankly intellectual dishonesty. Wiki is supposed to rely on creditable sources and taking and quoting the headline of the cited sources obviously cannot be allowed by the pro vaccine folks who wish to perpetrate fake news. And to that, I must ask why?

Editors here refuse to allow the word "healthy" to be included here and I must ask why? The cited source says "healthy children" and whenever those two words appear, it is immediately edited to delete the word "healthy" and carry water for the fake news editors.

Any one want to chime in and answer the question?: 2600:1700:7610:41E0:D54A:165:F3E5:33C2 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Hello, I'm Volten001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Ruben Vardanyan (businessman) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Volten 001 talk 13:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Please do not revert another editor, and leave no edit summary to explain your edits. Thank you.'' Magnolia677 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive edit summary
I have my own fair share of passive-aggressive edit summaries on pages that I feel are dominated by public relations interests of one form or another, but it is still important to ultimately assume good faith. What is this edit summary, after all, other than a bad-faith assumption that I had the desire to make a "brazen misrepresentation"? I was shortening it for a more due mention tacked to the end of the On Contact/RT section for Chris Hedges, as having these blurbs for every recent event can really pile up with a writer as prolific as Hedges. In the same edit where I did that-thing-you-have-issue-with, you can see I cut out (what I view as) undue descriptions of Hedges' environmental views/activism for reasons I elaborated in the talk page (though they were restored). What is your issue? Do you think I veer into promotional territory with my edits? Can you just come out and say what you mean without directing more passive-aggressive statements my way? Mewnst (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert question
Quick question: when you reverted |this edit, you said that the source was a "press release, not rs". What's RS? Also, could you please point me to the policy that press releases are forbidden as sources? Given this is Rep. Bacon's own press release on his policy stance, it seems like a valid source.

I'll un-revert it for the moment, but please let me know if you have a policy in mind that forbids this.

Catleeball (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ladapo article
Please refrain from removing sourced information that threatens the integrity of Joseph Lapado as your recent edit shows. The source states "healthy" children and you are vandalizing the article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That was Not Vandalism Your Edit Was unsourced (tags: possible unreferenced addition to BLP) that what the tags said on the edit Summary. And it falls on you to provide an reliable source or it will be challenged and removed. Chip3004 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep repeating untruths and you will begin to believe the baloney friend. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:10E0:895E:7FA7:7405 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision Edits
Hello Snoogans, I just wanted to ask what was the justification for undoing my revision to the Claremont Institute page? I included the necessary citations to my revision as well. Here is the revision in question: The Claremont Institute offers the following fellowships each year: Publius, Lincoln, John Marshall, and Speechwriters. According to Claremont Institute president Ryan Williams[4], the Institute is a think tank fomenting a “counterrevolution” to recover civic education through teaching, writing, and litigation. Its mission to restore the natural law and natural rights principles of the Declaration of Independence, the “ingenious political science of the Constitution,” and the “popular constitutionalism and reverence necessary for the maintenance of free government” to “their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.”

I'm just looking for an explanation for why this revision was undone and what I can do in the future to ensure future revisions are not undone. I would say that my revision is an objective quote from the Institute's President which added in key information about the mission of the institute as well as the Fellowships that they offer.

I appreciate your response and help on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePursuitOf (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST
-- Environment of New York City Task Force - Wil540 art (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Undone revision
Hello, Snooganssnoogans! I would like to kindly ask what made you consider my edits to Andrei Skoch’s activities in charity as “selfsourced puffery? You swiped out the edits on his charity twice and left only the info on controversial facts about this figure. The charity work I have described in the article is supported by independent sources and reflects Skoch’s notability. Namely, the Russian Forbes mentions him among one of the most active Russian philanthropists (See: https://www.forbes.ru/forbeslife-photogallery/242052-reyting-rossiyskih-mecenatov-na-kogo-milliardery-tratyat-lichnye).

I would be grateful if you could refrain from removing significant facts supported by reliable sources, thank you in advance! OnIPliOn (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC).

Do not attack editors in your article talk page comments
Snoongans, you are an experienced editor. Attacking editors in talk page comments, as you did here, is a violation of wp:CIVIL. Springee (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have had my share of arguments with Springee, but accusations are never a constructive answer. It's better to step away and come back to discuss when things are calm. DN (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

PI
Hello, I'm working on the article for Pearl Initiative. You reverted a good amount of my edits citing puffery. The activities I have written about are all factual and supported by independent sources. 197.61.12.51 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, at least if you'd revert my edits, I do expect a response. 197.61.12.51 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What can I say? This edit treats Wikipedia as a webhost for your organization's documents, and this indeed removed puffery. Sorry, but if that also needs explaining, I encourage you to study what encyclopedias do and what "neutral writing" means. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem pretty frustrated when all I'm asking is explanation. And that's not my organization. I wish. But how is writing about the organization publications in a Wikipedia article about the organization considered spammy? Isn't that relevant to the article? And how is writing about what the organization actually does considered puffery? 197.61.12.51 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's usually the edit warrior who shows frustration. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely didn't mean to edit war. It's just they went ahead and reverted me for a second time without responding on talk page. Now, can you please answer my questions? I assure you this is going to be a whole lot better if you treat me in good faith. 197.61.12.51 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an example of an organization that has their publications listed: China Medical Board. Does Wikipedia have a policy on content that doesn't permit individuals and organizations to have their bibliography listed?197.61.12.51 (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have researched this further and there seems to be no policy on content that would disallow the listing of individuals and companies bibliography. 197.61.12.51 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Revisions on Human rights in the United Arab Emirates
Hi,

Can we please discuss cycles of reverts, and the reasons behind them, can we dissect the changes individually instead of a simple revert.

WP:OR applies when an editor add their spin on things, which is clearly not the case. I am citing the law that backs all the edits, and there's no whitewashing involved as previous reports and abuses are still there for the sake of fairness.

WP:NPOV and WP:GF and let's take our time with this please.

Vyvagaba (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You removed a massive amount of reliably sourced content on the basis that your own interpretation of primary source documents contradicts and supersedes the RS content. That's not how things work. If your claims are accurate, they should be reported by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The "massive" amount of content is outdated. Please specify each case of OR in every change, the edits basically contradict what's written on the page. RS are not required for "a political decision", from a "reputably published" primary source, using a "descriptive statement of facts". Please explain why this does not apply... Vyvagaba (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Marc Elrich page
You are adding in comments about housing that are under dispute, or claimed exclusively by political opponents. This does not maintain the political neutrality of the page. If you cannot agree on a politically neutral discussion, the section should be removed altogether given that the claims are under heavy dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inna12724 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:3O
Re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Post_Millennial#Soccer: WP:3O says "Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the other editor's Talk page." Done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Pls note
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phedhima (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Lamia bint Majid Al Saud
hello! thanks for vetting this page and being wary of puffery. However, I've reinstated the awards section, which is quite standard for biographies. I've moved the Boards section material to the talk page, in case its useful for future editors. Many thanks for your work. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lajmmoore There is nothing notable about the awards – they are purely promotional. Nor should the subject be exalted as a "United Nations Goodwill Ambassador" in the first sentence. That other WP pages are written up by PR teams and contain outrageous puffery does not justify bringing down the quality of all WP pages. Thenightaway (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of FAR
An article which you have contributed to, Hillary Clinton, has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –– FormalDude   talk   06:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft of an article on an Austrian political scientist
Dear colleague, I have seen that you take an active interest in writing good Wikipedia articles on political scientists. Would you please have a look at this particular article on an Austrian political scientist, whose Festschrift is forthcoming with Springer in 2023? Regards Austrian political observer (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC) The draft is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arno_Tausch

Leyla Aliyeva
hello colleague. why did you undo this edit? Atakhanli (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Kristin Richardson Jordan
Hi, you wrote that the One45 Harlem lot is "vacant," which is false. There are currently buildings on the lot, but none of them are housing. Since Kristin Richardson Jordan blocked all the housing, the lot will be turned into a truck depot. Dlite90 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am requesting you to stop destroying my edits
With all respect to the edits you make, I request you to also respect my edits / research and efforts. You mentioned "we are not giving entire paragraphs to some reports published by this company because moroccoworldnews.com reports on them." When you say, "we are not...." - I request you to let me know what you mean by that - do you mean you own Wikipedia? I am an equal contributor to this voluntary encyclopedia and there is no ownership of articles. You can always write to me on my talk page. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Copy within
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bernard Looney. The discussion is about the topic Bernard Looney. Thank you. --Arturo at BP (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)