User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 7

Please consider prose
Snooganssnoogans, you are an experienced editor but edits like this are very questionable. [] You simply copied the exact same text from the lead into the body. The content is a single sentence that doesn't actually summarize the sources you have cited. On the talk page I suggested better ways to integrate the material but your reversion seemed more about being POINTY vs actually improving the article. That may not be your intent but please consider the optics of such an edit. Springee (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please remove this comment
Snooganssnoggans, this comment "incapable of distinguishing fact and fiction" is a personal attack.[] Please remove. Springee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stay off my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will take this as a request to limit talk page comments to required notifications only. If you continue to make personal attacks I will report them to ANI. Springee (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be civil
You have ignored my petition for striking out your unwarranted SPA-comment  I feel belittled by, and instead repeated that comment. Additionally you uttered an unwarranted and false suspicion about me having a conflict of interest. My impression is that these two things serve an attempt to damage my reputation and that you are attempting to bait me into retaliating with aggression. This constitutes uncivil behavior on your part. Please be civil. Xenagoras (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Abby Martin
You have now made by my count three reverts on this article within 24 hours and I will take it to the edit-warring noticeboard if you continue. TFD (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec's Page
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 a 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I have requested a consensus on the edits which you have repeatedly reverted to which violate the BLP neutrality policy for this page in order to prevent further vandalism.

Ihuntrocks (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ihuntrocks

3RR
Your recent editing history at Don Bacon (politician) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--MONGO (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Article
Thanks for attempting to shorten the Brexit article by removing lots of irrelevant, bloated content while I was away on vacation. That article was long overdue getting reviewed and made more concise and your deletions were most certainly needed. I don't plan to edit that article and was relieved when I returned from vacation to see someone had attempted to finally address the issues with its length. I think you need to do some more removal and shortening of that article and you seem to have a knack for getting rid of excessive content. Also, I notice you yet again have folks taking you to various notice boards with complaints of edit warring. Taking a vacation from Wikipedia really helps to get focused and all of us at times need to take a break once and a while. Glad to be back and great work on the Brexit article. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Explain-like-I'm-5 how to add archiving to a talk page?
If I see a talk page with ancient discussions clogging up the page, what should I add and where to make sure those old discussions get archived? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Use user:MiszaBot/config. Add to the top of the page with the templates. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification
Because you have declared that we should not discuss editing on your talk page I am notifying you that you are not to post on my talk page other than required warnings. If you choose to open your talk page to discussions with me I will reciprocate. Springee (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

It isn't a violation of BLP to include well-sourced information on a widely-reported aspect of the Ahmed Mohahamed
This is simple reporting on an important aspect of the incident that the national media ran with and got wrong. The almost instant worldwide outrage, fed by social and traditional media, was part of the incident, yet the outrage got a key fact wrong. These articles address that.

On the other hand, to leave out this part of the incident is to muddy up what happened. And right now, the article is quite a disjointed mess. Hard, straight facts about the important elements of an incident give its account a firm structure that makes it more intelligible to readers.

And there is also no actual accusation of fraud.

But if BLP is to be applied that broadly, then it's likely a BLP violation to even have an article on Ahmed Mohamed since the suspicions of the school officials and police, his arrest, and the dismissal of the lawsuit are all mentioned.

The revelation about the clock's origins was part of the developing story which was covered by mainstream news outlets. So are you then maintaining that it needs to be wholly censored and left out, or is there some version of this angle that you would accept?

Here's an article from 2015 from another writer at Artvoice which discusses the public response to DiPasquale's original piece. It could be incorporated into the article, perhaps under Opinions.

Psalm84 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether "ArtVoice" is a reliable source in this matter is doubtful; the personal opinion blog of a weekly newspaper's "System Administrator" is, at best, questionable as a source for claims about a living person. The article already discusses the origins of the clock and there's no reason to add more detail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Although the AN/I thread about you has been closed as "no consensus" I'm placing this modified sanction under my own authority. Part of the reason for doing this is that many of the diffs listed at AN/I happened so soon after my latest warning about edit warring and specifically edit warring on BLPs. (For example:   and   ) I'm sympathetic to your concerns about patrolling articles about fringy subjects against drive-by POV pushing, and for that reason I've included an exemption in the sanction for reverting edits by IP editors and accounts that have been indefinitely blocked. Note that reverting vandalism and clear BLP violations also does not count towards 1RR. If you have suggestions on how this exemption might be tweaked to accommodate your work against fringe pushers, I'm open to modifying it. But it needs to be a bright-line rule. You won't get extra reverts against people just because you judge them to be fringe pushers, and I don't want you being hauled off to noticeboards for borderline cases. Also note that this is for American Politics and BLPs, so it covers articles about people that might be outside the scope of American Politics like Eva Bartlett. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~Awilley (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Appeal this immediately, Snog. There's no consensus for this and this is an appalling decision. Toa Nidhiki05 00:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Discretionary sanctions do not require an explicit consensus and are designed to let individual admins, with discretion, take carefully considered but unilateral actions. If I had seen the diffs like the ones above and there hadn't been an AN/I thread I likely would have taken the same or similar action. As it was I let the thread run its course, not wanting to interfere, and took action after it closed with no consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It comes off as incredibly poor form. You not only ignored what the community has said, you added an additional restriction nobody talked about. I'm sorry, nothing about this seems carefully considered at all, and I hope you're willing to step up personally and prevent some of the garbage agenda editing Snog deals with on a daily basis. Toa Nidhiki05 00:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * not sure why you skipped the AE request step to apply this by fiat, but as mentioned at AN/I, the optics, indeed, seem a bit poor form. El_C 01:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you opted not to respond. Oh well. Anyway, as the admin who closed the AN3 report where this editing restriction proposal was originally advanced and the one who thereby told participants that this proposal should probably not be decided by a single admin, by fiat — only to then have you just go ahead and do exactly that (also doubling the duration proposed and expanding its scope). In light of that, I hope you could see why I felt the optics here were subpar. I still think these issues need to either undergo a community decision on AN/I (which is still ongoing), or failing that, an AE request where a quorum of admins gets to participate. El_C 06:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, it wasn't opting not to respond, but prioritizing where to respond first in a situation made messier by the AN/I thread starting back up. On why I skipped WP:AE community decision step, the reason is this: I had just finished watching a 3-day community decision with input from 50+ editors grind to a stalemate. I had a pretty good idea of where the community stood. Why would I want to then drag those same editors through a second similarly divisive multi-day community process at WP:AE, wasting tens of hours of contributor time, when I am fully capable of addressing the problem myself? If I can use an hour of two of my time to save a group of editors 20 hours of time that could be spent editing articles, I consider that to be a good deal. ~Awilley (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * because then other admins can participate in the result stage — that's why. You're basically using AE as supervote to close what seems like a no consensus discussion at AN/I. El_C 17:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Awilley, that response of yours reads very self-serving and convenient, without addressing the core issues of community and AE processes. Your words appear either disingenuous or so naive that you need to take an extended leave of absence from these American Politics articles. Similarly, your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA. And finally, I don't think anybody believes your claim that it would be easy for Admins to spot POV pushers and address them with Discretionary Sanctions. I'm not talking about Trump-related articles, but rather the broader politics-related area that sees most of Snoogs activity. If your claim were true, I presume we would already have seen you or others in action cleaning things up.  SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Awilley is not ignoring the will of the community. I think there must be some mix-up as to which discussion was closed. The discussion as to whether Snoog should be subject to a 1RR restriction is open and in favor of Support. The discussion as to an AP2 topic ban was closed. Awilley's actions are appropriate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1RR discussion had been closed and then re-opened shortly before I placed my own restriction. There are diffs in the first AN/I subthread that was opened about me. ~Awilley (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, 27 supporting and 23 opposing =/= "in favor of Support" because community decisions are not straight up and down votes. And any reasonable closer is going to take a hard look at the newish nature of some of the accounts supporting. When that discussion is closed, it will almost certainly be again as "no consensus". Grandpallama (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Also consider that an "Oppose" voter is a vandalism-only IP, and that quite a few Oppose votes are made without rationale or with rationale not in accordance with policy (e.g. the edit warring is OK because it's deserved.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * quite a few Oppose votes are made without rationale or with rationale not in accordance with policy I'd make a similar observation about a good number of the Support votes, but I think my point is still that the state is mostly that of "no consensus". Grandpallama (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Response

 * So the straw that broke the camel's back was when I restored a peer-reviewed study by one of the leading experts on the subject when another editor was changing the text so that it no longer adhered to what the study was saying (and did so without any consensus or any attempt to discuss the subject)? This is Christmas Eve for most of the 'support' voters in the noticeboard discussion who now have carte blanche to stalk me around and revert me (some already do: for some of these users, a large share of their last 50 edits is just reverting me), knowing I'm completely crippled to actually resolve any disputes without spending countless hours starting pointless discussion threads like "The NY Times is a RS" and "Why are we not adhering to the language of a peer-reviewed study by the leading expert in the field?" Many of these pages do not have active and attentive veteran editors who pay attention, meaning that the talk pages for articles where users are scrubbing peer-reviewed research from the encyclopedia will contain one comment by me, and maybe one comment by the fringe POV pusher if we're lucky (and no resolution). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "You won't get extra reverts against people just because you judge them to be fringe pushers." This is precisely why this won't work, and this shows so clearly that you have no familiarity at all with what patrolling hundreds of intensely controversial pages is like in practice:


 * There is in many cases no clear distinction between fringe POV pushers and what you would consider normal editors... an illustrative example: the neonazi sockpuppet whom I reverted multiple times, and whom Levivich cited as an example of my problematic behavior. If your restriction had been in place, I would reverted the guy once, he would have reverted me back, I would have started a talk page thread about it, and nothing would have come off it: the neonazi would have gotten what he wanted and been free to edit more across Wikipedia. In fact, knowing that I have 1RR, I might not have bothered reverting him or patrolling the page in the first place, because there are clear tradeoffs in terms of time that I can actually spend patrolling pages if I also have start countless "Please restore this peer-reviewed study" discussion threads on other articles and if I have to do in-depth analyses of every editor who adds crap to the encyclopedia before I can revert them. I also know that if I had brought this user to you, you would have either ignored it or told me to eff off... or like Levivich, used the case as an excuse to sanction me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is furthermore no clear distinction by fringe POV pushers and those you would consider veteran editors. For example, many of the 'support' votes in that thread are by people who reject science (numerous editors who reject the scientific consensus on climate change, who are on record stating that scientists are biased against conservatives, and who state in RfCs that peer-reviewed research and expert assessments in top journals is unreliable), who hold that sources such as the Washington Post are not RS, and who subscribe to a wide range of falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the world, and edit accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The end result is that it'll be impossible to patrol pages in any reasonably effective way. Just in the last few days, I've reverted likely-COI accounts on two low-volume pages (one of whom I had to bust as a COI, the other I just regularly revert without bothering to seek external help). The unbusted COI account has reverted me again on the latter page, but due to your restriction, I'm not allowed to revert this user again... instead I have to go through the bureaucracy to make sure this editor is stopped. This is the daily life of patrolling hundreds of controversial pages. I can bring this editor to your attention right now, but am I seriously going to bother doing so for the next hundred COI accounts and neonazi sockpuppets? Of course not, there are only 24 hrs in a day and I cannot spend all my time on talk pages and noticeboards asking others for external aid when a simple revert used to do the trick. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Snoogans, I think you're conflating the sanction I threatened with the sanction I imposed. There is no discussion requirement. You don't have to start hundreds of talkpage threads to say the NYTimes is a reliable source. Nor does it prohibit you from asking for page protection, reporting socks, or the like. ~Awilley (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a substantive response to any of the points I've made, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what I wrote and what it entails to patrol controversial politics pages. Of course, there is an implicit discussion requirement (unless you somehow think every act of bad editing gets resolved with one revert). Where did I give you the impression that I believed I was not allowed to go external boards for aid? Did I not explicitly write that I could do that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's hard to have a substantive discussion if we're not on the same page on what the sanction actually is. Now that's out of the way, let's get to the main point. You seem to be under the impression that your ability to revert up to 3RR is all that is standing between order and chaos on hundreds of articles. I'm saying that there are editors who are able to edit in highly controversial areas without edit warring. And the ability to do that will be a valuable skill for you to learn. And please let's not pretend that you're only reverting socks and trolls. In 5 of the 6 diffs above you were reverting veteran editors with tens of thousands of edits. Of course using talk pages will be necessary from time to time. That is literally part of what it takes to edit Wikipedia. On the issue of reverting NeoNazi sockpuppets and COI accounts, that's something I've already indicated I'm willing to work with you on. Can you think of a 1RR exemption that would allow you to revert the majority of sockpuppets? Do you need a pocket admin to semi-protect or pending-changes protect pages that are plagued by persistent sock-puppetry? Is there some sort of voluntary commitment you're willing to make that will fix the problems people brought up in the AN/I thread? Something that will stop the edit warring, namecalling, unwillingness to compromise an inch? ~Awilley (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this voluntary commitment:
 * (1) when I add new content (or alter existing content) and it gets reverted by a regular editor, I will start a talk page discussion and wait a few days before making the first restoration. If it gets reverted again after I restore it, I will not restore it again, unless it gets support in a RfC or through external dispute resolution. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (2) when a regular editor removes or alters long-standing text, I revert this user once. If the user restores the content again, I start a talk page discussion (even if the other editor is violating BRD) and will wait a few days before restoring the status quo version. If the other editor re-adds the content into the article at that point, I start a RfC about the content, but I'm allowed to make sure that the status quo version is maintained until the new content gets approved in the RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think we're about 75% there. I don't like the last sentence of #2. There are a lot of dispute resolution techniques you should exhaust before jumping to RfC. (WP:3O is one, BRD and its variants are another, partial reverts are another, boring old Compromise is another.) I would prefer if you replaced the last sentence with something along the lines of "If the user restores...I will continue trying to resolve the dispute on talk, may try to preserve the Status Quo, but will avoid reverting the same content more than once per day." Same goes for the RfC allusion in #1. Lastly, I would very much like to see a #3 saying that you will make an honest effort to understand the concerns of your opponent and will try to resolve those concerns with alternate wordings that are still in line with the sources and NPOV. ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. I need you to put it into your words, not to make you grovel, but so you own it. Also, even though you're under a lot of pressure, I do want this to be voluntary in the sense that it's not something people can haul you off to AN/I or WP:AE for violating. (If they do, point to this diff.) This isn't to get you tripped up and sanctioned for technical violations. It's not formal. The only threat is if you renege in a big way over a long term I'll probably be back here again. I'll plan on logging on tomorrow, striking the template above, and leaving a note at AN/I apologizing for the disruption of the still-ongoing community process. ~Awilley (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) when I add new content (or alter existing content) and it gets reverted by a regular editor, I will start a talk page discussion per BRD and wait a few days before making the first restoration or partial revert. If it gets reverted again after I restore it, I will not restore it again, unless it gets resolved in WP:3O, a RfC or with external noticeboard discussion (e.g. BLP, NPOV, RS noticeboards). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (2) when a regular editor removes or alters long-standing text, I revert this user once. If the user restores the content again, I will start a talk page discussion (even if the other editor is violating BRD), attempt to resolve it through discussion and will wait a few days before restoring the status quo version. If the other editor re-adds the content into the article at that point, I will again try to resolve the dispute on the talk page, seek 3O/RfC/external noticeboard discussion about the content, but I'm allowed to revert the content once a day to maintain the status quo version of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (3) I will make an honest effort to understand the concerns of other editors, and ask how those concerns can be reflected in the text without undermining the content of the sources and NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll strike the sanction now. By the way, I don't know if you've seen Springee's comments on my talk page here. They are 100% correct, and I think it's important enough that it would make a good #4. But I'm not going to force you because we had a deal. But at a minimum it would be a good idea to make a private commitment to use edit summaries and talk pages to explain and educate, focusing on content rather than the individual. Write it on a post-it note and stick above your monitor or whatever. As I said below, your current style is self-defeating: it's helping to destroy what should be a collaborative atmosphere, and creating new "enemies" to hound you. ~Awilley (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've started removing articles from my watchlist that I consider low-priority (unimportant in the grand scheme of things). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, what is there to be done about editors, such as this one, who are singularly obsessed with reverting me, and who create new accounts in order to do it more prolifically? How on Earth can I edit under 1RR if my editing is cancelled out by these stalker editors? This is what I regularly experience when I edit (in just the last few days: COIs, neonazi sockpuppets, stalkers) whereas other editors don't - are you aware that this is what it's like when you patrol hundreds of controversial pages and happen to be good at it? Just a few minutes ago, this editor restored the neonazi sockpuppet's edit. If I were to revert him, Levivich would cite it as an example of my sustained long-term edit-warring on that page. If I were to revert this stalker twice, I'd be violating your sanction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - I did not create any new account in order to revert you more prolifically; that is ridiculous. Like I stated, I couldn't get into my BattleshipGray account, so I changed my user name to GlassBones.  This is not a secret; I have been very up-front about it.  As for stalking you and reverting you - please be serious.  You edit here for hours and hours nearly every day, whereas I edit Wikipedia only once in a while.  I could never begin to revert all your edits, even if I wanted to (which I don't).  Now, on my user talk page, I have a warning from an administrator to stop hounding you.  This is just another example of your bullying tactics against editors who do not share your point of view and who revert your edits.GlassBones (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Snoogans, 9 minutes after you brought up the edit somebody reverted it. You're not alone here. As for stalkers wikihounders, that kind of behavior is easy for admins to see and sanction. I'll go warn the editor you pointed out now. If they continue I'll block them. I think you'll be surprised in the coming days when regular editors, including the people who normally oppose you, are sympathetic of your 1RR, less likely to take advantage of it and more likely to revert on your behalf. As for attracting new stalkers, you'll attract fewer if you stop being so abrasive in edit summaries, and fewer still if you learn to WP:Write for the enemy. Somebody on the AN/I thread said something to the effect of you're trying to do the right things, but in the wrong way. The high-conflict approach is self-defeating. ~Awilley (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason it was reverted is because people are paying attention to this drama right now. The editor that I highlighted would not have been warned under any other circumstance. I've brought multiple wikihounding cases to admins, and they never go anywhere unless the stalkers stalk me into a different topic area than American Politics (as the editor Winkelvi did). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins have done a terrible job keeping far right POV pushers in check on Wikipedia. If we could count on admin support to deal with extreme right perspectives in AP2 affected articles, there'd be less need to give Snoog leeway. As it is though... Promising admins would deal with wikihounders rings hollow considering recent history. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Snoogs, sorry about what happened. You are a bold and passionate editor and you have made and have a lot of friends, whether you realize it or not, and you are someone who makes a difference on Wikipedia. If all of this seems a little overwhelming, take a wikibreak like I did for a month. When you come back from it Wikipedia will seem a lot friendlier and it really helps to get focused. You can always work with me on articles. As you know, I do not edit war ever with anyone. It's more productive to work with or through others on talk pages and you may be surprised how much can be accomplished. All of us, at one time or another, have to work on improving our social skills, me included. Hope you stick around, Wikipedia would not be the same without you. I am continually impressed with the quality of many of your edits and your use of peer reviewed studies. Not many people could have waded through that Brexit article and shortened it, but you seem to have a knack for tackling complex subjects. Keep your chin up brother, and for the next year avoid the (undo) button on the edit summaries. -) Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. I know where Snoogans is coming from and it's an important service. I know Snoogans does a lot of work in this area. However, I feel the sanctions are appropriate (given my negative experience with Snoogans).

Snoogans, we're all human and research shows doing things on a screen directly reduces your mental health. I know I had some skirmishes with you, but I know you're human (as we all are) and it's probably not healthy to edit controversial pages ad nauseum. It wears at you. In case you think I'm "concern trolling"; no, I think I will take a break myself too.

Part of making Wikipedia really good is having people with multiple viewpoints work together to synthesize the various sources out there. I'm telling you that you are needed here and look forward to having you back.DonCucos (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * LOL i thought snoogans was banned not restricted to one edit. Still dude/ma'am/etc, just take a week off or something. It'll be here when you get back.DonCucos (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

NED
Good revert, but I think the article needs work, NED is not exactly what it says it is. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Keith Ablow
An IP editor who has been inserting POV content over and over again is asking for BRD review of their content. Please feel free to join in the discussion on the article talk page. I have notified the IP editor that they need to get consensus from other editors before reinserting the challenged content into the article. So far, an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address (both from Calgary Canada) have been repeatedly inserting POV text into the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion == This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the White Helmets. 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. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War)".The discussion is about the topic White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Harshmustard (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Fox
Are you Ok if i revise the wording or should i just drop it? regards Alain Alainlambert (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jihad Watch; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2019 (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.

Dinesh is not a conspiracy theorist
Dinesh is not a conspiracy theorist, he has well documented material for all of his claims, this page is obviously under constant criticism and is frequently changed or ”corrected” With false information from people who have a political agenda. If you want to say that some people think he is a conspiracy theorist, then that is fine, but do not put it on this page like it is a fact when Kevin cruiswith false information from people who have a political agenda. If you want to say that some people think he is a conspiracy theorist, then that is fine, but do not put it on this page like it is a fact when Kevin Cruz hasn’t been able to debunk him. Conservatarian Athiest (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

One America News Network Edits
Hi,

I reverted your OANN edits, because you needed to provide better support for those claims and they seemed to appear politically charged. While I can sympathize with your feelings about OANN, any edits must meet Wikipedia standards. Thank you!

WikiWriter5045 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take this to the talk page. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Iron law of oligarchy
I've removed your contribution in this edit. I'm not an academic and cannot argue this on its merits but, per WP:BURDEN, this assertion should not be made in Wikipedia's unsupported editorial voice. Perhaps this should have been a revert to the earlier content which did cite support rather than a removal. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''Tone it down, please. Seriously.'' CompactSpacez (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you provided a diff and a excerpt, the rest of us could follow along. El_C 00:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CompactSpacez, perhaps best known for this, has been prolifically editing on Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination), mainly arguing that, because Kyle Kulinski is outside of the political mainstream and likely not notable, the deletion of his page is a politically-motivated smear. (See: here). He called people who disagree with him old: the "ok boomer" argument". He questioned why notability must be supported by billionaire-owned "corporate" media companies, and then called his dissenters old again: . Everything else is Whataboutism, and I'd like to point out that I am under 40 by quite a bit. KidAd (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Susan Wojcicki thing was a bit of a joke. I received a warning for that, and did not do it again. It was understood that the edit would be reverted. It was a protest, so to speak, against YouTube's draconian policies against creators. But anyways, it was 2 years ago. It's unfortunate, though, that this new tactic of digging through people's social media history to find ammunition for smearing is being used by Wikipedia editors. It makes this website worse for everyone. As for your other points, note that while I am of course critical of boomers, I must say that millennials need to be held responsible for making "whataboutism" a common parlance. This is just a semantic trick used to justify hypocrisy and selective censorship. The standards need to be the same across the board; you can't have different standards for your political opponents, like Kyle. CompactSpacez (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, do not assume who my opponents are based on some perceived political ideology. KidAd (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a reprehensible edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Howdy. The sub-section title in the Kyle Kulinski AFD is (rightly or wrongly) making it appear as though my vote is somehow tainted. That's why I don't want my vote placed underneath that sub-title. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't imply that at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To me it does. Therefore, an amendment should be added to it, so as to explain that otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sub-section title is the amendment to the section. KidAd (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It current named suggests that all editors under it, have been influenced from outside Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * CompactSpacez, since as you say some Wikipedia editors will dig through social media history to find smears against other editors, what makes you think they won't do the same to the Kyle Kulinski article? TFD (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comey memos and obstruction of justice
Hi Snoogans. I have a small amount of content about James Baker's testimony to add to the Dismissal of James Comey article, and I'm not sure where to put it. Right now I'm considering starting a short section.

In the process of trying to understand this, I have noticed this section "Comey memos and obstruction of justice", which you apparently imported from another article on 22:58, May 22, 2017. That heading is still unchanged, after all this time, which is rather amazing.

I'm wondering if that heading is accurate, as it only mentions Comey's memos twice, and only the latter ("legal jeopardy over his withholding the memos") is somewhat relevant to the heading. Therefore, I think the section should be renamed. What would be a more accurate heading? Or...should that heading just be dropped, since the content seems to be similar to the section right above it? Other options are dividing all that commentary further, with subheadings for general commentary and commentary by lawyers/legal scholars.

What do you think? (Please ping me when you reply here.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, I think it would be fine to drop the header. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll do that. Please keep an eye on that article and help improve whatever I add. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the Politico analysis
I had written the Politico analysis with Warren and Buttigieg mentioned, but it seems someone deleted it. So, thanks. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits
Thanks for those edits, they made the page better. Sorry for the revert btw, I missed some of the stuff that you did since I was tired. In hindsight, the edits are great. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You are a conspiracy theorist
What is your problem? How dare you accuse me of socket puppetry just because I made some edits that don’t align with your politics. You said I made negative edits to the Peter Strzok page? That is laughable. Go thru my post history (I know you’ve got the time to do it) I made ONE small edit where I literally changed only word on the Peter Strzok page. I changed the euphemism you wrote “Strzok was released from the fbi” to the proper term “Strzok was fired from the fbi”. I know this is going to be hard for you to believe, but some editors actually have a life outside Wikipedia. We don’t devote every waking hour ruining this wonderful project like you do. So if I’m not editing, that’s bc I’m out there living, not bc I’m using another account to edit..

Don’t you ever message or write on my page again or I’ll report you for stalking me.

cc

Dy3o2 (talk)


 * I wholeheartedly understand the pain that you had unexpectedly endured. I understand your confrontation and agree that Snooganssnoogans' unsubstantiated accusation was rash, uncalled for, and possibly even defamatory. If there is one thing I would like to advise you, however, it is taking a look at WP:BAIT. I also strongly encourage you to consider WP:THREATEN, as I find your hostility extremely troubling.


 * As for you, Snooganssnoogans, please, please, please consider the consequences of your actions. This is not the first time you have been involved in some editing controversy. If you have suspicion of an editor breaking the guidelines, you need overwhelming evidence to support it, or else you will risk angering them and stirring up trouble. Mere accusation is always destructive, and *writing to both of you* let us make that the last time that this kind of problem will ever happen, shall we?  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 08:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. This user is a bully and this is not the first time he has harassed me. Dy3o2 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It stinks what they did and I do not condone it, but what good does it do to confront the user yourself and not take preventative measures such as a dispute resolution? If trouble is what they want, then that is what they will receive, and we are supposed to prevent that. Again, you have a right to be angry, but I take issue with the uncivil tone of your intentions to report them for hounding, which is a serious charge. I recommend again that a cleverer approach to handling the solution be taken instead.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 19:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat revert
Why did you revert my edit on Bellingcat with no explanation? What I added was literally a fact and to keep it the way you insist on keeping implies, no states, that the funding was limited and only in the past. This is simply not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellingcat&action=history Apeholder (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Does it receive continues funding from all those sources? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For the nth time, YES IT DOES. This is on their website - please note the use of the word CURRENTLY... why are you even arguing this??
 * https://www.bellingcat.com/about/:


 * ''Funding and Partnerships
 * Bellingcat currently receives grants from the following organisations:
 * Porticus
 * Adessium
 * The National Endowment for Democracy
 * Pax for Peace
 * Open Society Foundations
 * The Dutch Postcode Lottery''
 * Apeholder (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Digital News Initiative is not on the list. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Then we shall add that as a separate sentence. It's not difficult to do. I will make this edit, please do not waste both our time by doing what you do best and reverting it Apeholder (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have already stated that I don't think we should phrase any funding as being contemporaneous, because it's unfeasible to regularly check and interpret primary sources to determine what funding is past and what is current, and we should be writing for the long-term. You've been repeatedly warned to stop edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

thank you
I want to thank you for your hard work. People read wikipedia and thanks to you they now will now know trump is a liar and complete evil. You're exposing him and can keep him from winning reelection. I personally think Biden will do an excellent job carrying on Obama's legacy. This is what we need. Keep up the good work. 172.58.206.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Links
Hi, I won’t be around much the rest of the day/week (travelling) but I wanted to stop by and just leave a note that linking to profiles on other websites is considered a violation of the harassment policy and is usually suppressable. Please be more careful in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * TonyBallioni, this includes linking to comments made by a Wikipedia editor under their own username on an anti-Wikipedia website where they themselves openly acknowledge that they are a particular Wikipedia editor? If I write an op-ed as "Snooganssnoogans" where I push falsehoods and conspiracy theories about specific editors, would other editors be guilty of "outing" if they rightfully complain that I'm engaging in off-wiki harassment and link to said op-ed? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit of wordiness since I want to be clear: do not link to any profile on another website unless the person involved has explicitly made the link on-wiki themselves. This includes links to people commenting on Wikipedia-related forums under the same username. Unless they’ve made the link, don’t connect the accounts.As to your hypothetical: unless you linked to said op-ed yourself, we’d suppress. The correct course of action if you think someone is engaging in off-site harassment that is sanctionable is to email the Arbitration Committee with evidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Glenn Beck known for promoting conspiracy theories?:
Who wulda thunk it! 🙄--  Deep fried  okra    23:38, 10 January 2020 (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. MONGO (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Jo Nova page: rapid and persistent reversion or attempted edits by you and possible sock pupper 'slywriter'
The Jo Nova entry appears to have been vandalised by 'Climate Change' activists who have inserted the offensive and demeaning personal insult "climate change denier" and also arbitrarily, wrongly and slanderously described Jo Nova as a promoter of "pseudoscience". You and a potential sock puppet by the name of "slywriter" have been very quick (within half an hour every time) to repeatedly undo all attempts by several editors at removing that blatant vandalism, which to me suggests some level of overt sympathy with or complicity in it. If you do not desist, I will refer this matter to the Administrators and request that action be taken.

Real Scientist b (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, not a sock. Nice try though. Now provide sources for your changes or knock yourself silly with the Admins.  Doesn't matter to me.
 * Slywriter (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

your 'undos' of my edit of the Jo Nova entry in Wikepedia
Your smug, smarmy demand for 'sources' is not relevant to this issue, as you well know. My edit made no changes to any factual content, but merely deleted/replaced some blatantly opinionated and offensive wording and phrases that have apparently been inserted into the article by some 'climate change' acivist(s) to personally attack Ms Codling - a personal attack that no reputable scientific/encyclopaedic publication would allow - and merely reverting the article to something like its previously neutral wording. The Wikepedia system is clearly too easy to subvert and abuse. An edit 'undo' can be achieved with a simple single click of a mouse button, with no justification at all from the person doing that. Any group of two or more people who are pushing some personal, political or philosophical agenda can gang-up on any individual by simply taking it in turns to quickly 'undo' any edit that that individual makes. If that individual can be baited into 'undoing' their 'undos' more than three times in a twenty-four hour period, that individual will be banned. As you are also well aware. One person could also use several 'sock puppets' to achieve the same result. Let me cast this hypothetical at you: a 'climate change' activist vandalises an entry about a prominent 'climate change' skeptic and alters its wording from a fair and neutral description to one that is derogatory, insulting, and in places possibly libellous. That entry is then closely monitored by other 'climate change' stooges who take it in turns to quickly 'undo' any attempt to remove that vandalism, knowing that any individual who 'undoes' their handiwork more than three times in one day will be banned and thus silenced. The Wikepedia administration apparently wants to shirk all responsibility for what goes on in here. Their attitude of "just sort it out amongst yourselves" is all very well in an ideal world, where everyone participates honestly and in good faith. But with gangs of bullies and thugs who know that they can just 'undo' anyone's edits and ignore their victims' complaints with impunity, 'discussion' will achieve nothing. The process of taking any issue to a higher authority looks to be so awkward, time comsuming and futile, that most people with a complaint will just give up, shut up and go away. And with that the bullies and thugs win. There is really bugger-all that any individual can do about that. As for my particular complaint, from what I've seen here so far, the expression "pissing into the wind" comes to mind. Okay, you win. I have better things to do with my time. After seeing how you people operate I will just assign a 'probably bullshit' label to any potentially contentious information sourced from Wikepedia. I'll leave it at that.

Real Scientist b (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Iran-Contra Page
I started I new section (in talk) discussing some changes I think are warranted in the article. If you take issue with what I have proposed, please say so now because I don't want to start some sort of edit war. To be clear, I do not wish to delete this info......however some of the conclusions drawn are inappropriate (as per NPOV & OR). Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Help at Abby Phillip
I am in need of some assistance at Abby Phillip. After her appearance co-moderating last night's CNN debate, her page has become a target from IPs editing in tendentious content. They appear to be the same type of folks who vandalized and generally clouded the Kulinski AFD. I requested page protection, but an extra pair of eyes would be appreciated! Thanks, KidAd (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zusammenbruch (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I restored the long-standing version of the lead once, whereas you are edit-warring new and blatantly non-npov changes into the lead and have referred to the lead as neonazi propaganda. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Why did you revert my edit to the article about illegal immigration and crime? All illegal immigrants have broken U.S. law by entering and/or remaining in the United States illegally.  That statement is truthful, and clearly relevant to the article, albeit contrary to your point of view.  Please undo your revert.  Thanks.  GlassBones (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring aggressive header titles again
Look, WP:FOC is policy. I'm getting pretty sick of your abuse. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 00:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly told you stay away from my talk page. And no one is buying your "not me, but you!" nonsense about being harassed. You have an extensive record of harassing me, and a simple search of my username shows you ranting about me over periods of years on off-wiki sites. In the last few days alone, you've insulted me as being "unemployed" and have suggested that I'm working for hire for David Brock In the last 18 months alone, you've been blocked twice for personal insults and harassment towards me. Admins have explicitly warned you for engaging in a "strategy to harass" me by following me around to obscure articles and removing content added by me. What's my supposed "abuse" of you? Last time, you made this accusation, you claimed it was harassment when I used the word "brazen" (as in a "brazen BRD violation"). This is getting incredibly incredibly tiring. How many years am I going to have to put with this editor? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Vigeland AfD
Hello Snoog. I can see that you're still a bit busy with Media coverage of Bernie Sanders and Sashi. Do you want me to nominate Emma Vigeland for deletion? I predict a fairly brief discussion. KidAd (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you think it should be deleted, you could try WP:PROD, but given the speedy deletion request was contested, I think that's highly unlikely to be successful. If you're correct that AfD will "obviously delete", going the AfD route requires really minimal effort.  If you're convinced the sources don't go to notability, AfD is the place to make the argument, but given they could plausibly do so (they're not self-published or anything - they may be too short to establish notability, I don't know, but that's why a discussion is had).  Given a G4 deletion would be straightforwardly overturned at DRV, going straight to AfD is just going where you'd end up anyhow. Wily D  06:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The AfD is up. KidAd (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)