User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 8

Hasan Piker AfD
I thought it was about time to take initiative on Hasan Piker. KidAd (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Do not delete my revisions of subject matter that you know nothing about. You are a wreckless editor who should not be editing anything that you have no clue about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.253.75 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are a wreckless editor That's an endorsement if I've ever seen one! --WMSR (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop Stalking Me
Just today, you have followed me to two cites to undo my edits. Please stop stalking me. You complain whenever I happen to edit any articles you claim ownership to, and accuse me of stalking even though I couldn't begin to undo every edit a professional Wikipedia editor like you performs every day. But you are again following me around to undo my edits. I should report you to. GlassBones (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and report me. My editing on those pages precede yours, so your stalking claim is nonsense (you on the other hand literally stalked me and were warned by admins for doing so). It's not my fault that most of your edits are bad and should be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm not going to report you to . It wouldn't do any good anyway.  It's clear that no Admin will do anything to the great and powerful professional editor Snoogy, except maybe having you do "voluntary sanctions". Despite your battleground mentality, biased edits, harassment of other editors, and other questionable behavior, you are obviously above reproach.  I am also aware of the train to the gulags. GlassBones (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Concealed carry in the United States
I noticed that you reverted my edits on the page for concealed carry in the United States. First off, what's a "lede?" If you're talking about the summary of the "effects on violent crime," then I can rewrite that in the aforementioned section. However, if, as you said, we shouldn't "mention specific studies," then that summary would have to be either rewritten or deleted entirely, since it mentions a specific study. Thanks. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans - you edited the above article at 21:18 hrs today, cut out a paragraph of text and then changed it to the exact opposite of what the source says. You said the study said "Subsequent research has indicated that right-to-carry laws either have no impact on violent crime or that they increase violent crime.". The study reference you removed states in the preamble "These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level". Why did you remove this reference and also make an unfounded comment to say the exact opposite? This is very concerning Apeholder (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this is one study and that body of the article literally contains dozens of studies? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I made an edit to the article. If you seriously and in good faith want the summary to accurately summarize the below section, then you'll find the edit satisfactory. Leave the issue be. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your summary is not an accurate reflection of the body of the article at all: nearly every study after the NAP review was published concludes that concealed carry either has no impact or that crime rates increase. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ironic of you to reference that very study when it disputes your assertations. Did you come up with a "comprehensive" list of studies on the subject, too? I find it pretty telling that you said, in your most recent edit summary on this matter, "why he is not allowed to..." Sounds pretty narcissistic. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's getting incredibly tiring trying to understand your strange comments: (1) "Ironic of you to reference that very study when it disputes your assertations." I added a reflist code so that the other editor's cite would stop screwing up my talk page. I am not the one adding the study. (2) "Did you come up with a "comprehensive" list of studies on the subject, too?" This is presumably in reference to my version of the lede actually summarizing the body, whereas your version of the lede was just a summary of your personal feelings on the subject, although I'm not actually sure what your point is. Snooganssnoogans (talk)

Snpgg is a lying RW hack who needs to stop editing or risk finding himself revealed and personally outed. If that gets the liar RW hurt, good. Your time of using this site for your politics and reverting stuff because it hurts yor feeling is over. Watch out, it might get you family hurt, too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B15D:6792:5807:E079:23FE:5719 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Follow up
Follow up from

Re-reading your commitments above, it looks like #2 is the one that applies to this case. I think it might be reasonable to modify the middle bit of that one to read, "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 at least 1 day before restoring the status quo version." That would at the least make it easier for you to restore the status quo while discussion is ongoing (which is what should be up anyway). But that would still not wholly prevent the examples you cited earlier (SR makes an edit changing the status quo, you revert, SR reverts you 10 minutes later). In fact, removing your commitment entirely couldn't have prevented that. That is a shortcoming that is baked into 1RR as it is currently defined, and the only way I can stop that kind of gaming is with an additional sanction on the article itself or on SR. ~Awilley (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an improvement, but the "wait a few days" provision wasn't all that cumbersome. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Awilley, the problem is the clear inability of other editors to abide by BRD and consensus requirements (despite repeated warnings by multiple editors to do so), and a desire by the same editors to exploit my voluntary editing restrictions. Earlier today, I made additional edits to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (my first in 6 days). These edits were made in bits and pieces, so as to prevent a wholesale revert if anyone disagreed with part of the edits. SashiRolls of course reverted me in full less than 15 minutes later. In his revert, he restored newly added content by himself that multiple editors have expressed opposition to (while laughably saying that no one has "talked" about these changes – just check all the references to David Brock on the talk page – ctrlF shows "53" hits for "Brock"). He also restored an inaccurate summary of the findings of a study (a study that he himself has admitted to not even having read). So, the editor is (i) brazenly violating BRD and consensus requirements (for the umpteenth time) by restoring newly added content, and (2) in mind-numbingly tendentious and extremely annoying form, he is restoring his own inaccurate summary of a study that he himself has admitted to never having read. I cannot overstate how obnoxious it is to see this person inaccurately summarize a study that I read and I originally added to the article (and which the other person has not read) just because of his hatred and obsession with me, AND that there is nothing that can be done about this. And this behavior does not come from nowhere: the editor has been doing this for many years, see this from 2016 where this person stalked me to obscure articles, only to revert my additions of peer-reviewed studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After having already copped to not having access to the book, the editor now pretends to have it, as he adds whatever snippets he can find from the Google Books preview of the book. Upon hearing that they've inaccurately summarized a study which they cannot access, many editors might be inclined to restore the version written by the person who actually has access to the study. Then there are editors who respond to this by doubling-down and claiming that they do indeed have access to the book (as they desperately look for whatever pages are not blocked on the Google Books preview and then immediately insert the first tangentially related item they can find while leaving the inaccurate summary in place). This is because the goal is not to produce an encyclopedia but to settle scores with the editors that they have an obsession and hatred for. Cringey and bizarre but fully expected. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm getting a bit lost trying to review the lists of diffs above. Since you're more familiar with the context than I, could you do me a favor and give diffs in sets of 3 showing the ignoring BRD problem? Example: [SR adds new content] [Somebody removes the content] [SR immediately restores the content without discussion] ~Awilley (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Awilley:


 * On 31 Dec, SR adds content. Reverted on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”) Reverted by a second editor on 6 Jan. Restored two hours later.
 * On 2 Jan, SR adds content. Revert on 11 Jan Restored 30 min later (with edit summary “No consensus for these changes”)
 * On 2 Jan, SR adds content. Revert on 11 Jan. Restored 30 min later.
 * 3 Jan. Reverted on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”) Reverted on 11 Jan Restored 30 minutes later(with “no consensus for these changes” in the edit summary) Reverted by a second editor on 12 Jan. Restored two days later.
 * 3 Jan. Revert on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”) Reverted by a second editor on 5 Jan. Virtually the same text restored 2 hrs later.
 * 3 Jan. Reverted on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”)
 * On 19 Jan, SR adds content Revert. Twenty minutes later, SR restores the content.
 * On 18 Jan, SR adds content. 21 Jan, it gets reverted. Ten minutes later, the content was restored.
 * 12 Jan, SR was “warned” by an admin on the EW noticeboard for edit-warring. I explicitly complained about the BRD violations, which I considered a far more serious problem than 1RR. On the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders talk page, SR was repeatedly warned to stop with the BRD violations (just ctrlF “BRD”): on 5 January (by two editors), 7 January, 12 January (by two editors), 14 January, 15 January, 21 January. What makes a lot of this particularly galling is SR's calls on others to "discuss on TP" and "no consensus for these changes" when SR is restoring newly added content by himself, sometimes content that has already been discussed many times on the talk page and which no one has expressed agreement with SR for inclusion (all the David Brock content that he keeps edit-warring into the article, for example).

The examples above are just _some_ of the many many BRD violations by SR in the article. I did not bother to add the more complicated ones or the ones where it was hard to find the original edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that my ANI thread was closed as not actionable, which I frankly find insane. I provided diffs to clear personal attacks and edit warring, and cited related policy. The attacks continued after the thread was closed, and when I raised that issue, I was told I need to calm down. I do not understand why admins are letting this fly. --WMSR (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

COI
Hi Snooganssnoogans, I do not have any sort of affiliation with Douglas Murray. Simply trying to add more neutrality to the article, since I believe there are many negative remarks and very few positive ones, to balance it out. Thank you for your interest. KaraMcKinney (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on Conrad Black
I must say that you are repeatedly rewriting that statement on Trump releasing Black because of the book that the latter wrote. That might be true - I wouldn't put it past Trump - but, I have mentioned elsewhere, it is unproven, and will create an impression of bias if published here. You are creating the edit war, and the source you mention is not known for its friendliness to Trump (though quite rightly). Any Republicans reading the article will get ticked off, and so we cannot afford to be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.137.243 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not make that connection, but The Washington Post, a RS, does, and that connection is attributed to them. That's the proper way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg stop and synth?
Snoog, this edit appears to be SYNTH. There was just a talk page thread about how to deal with Stop and Frisk, and this was not one of the concerns that arose there. Maybe revert and come to talk?  SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no synth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * yes no yes no. It would help if you'd point me to my misunderstanding. I don't think you intentionally put synth in the article.  SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted for different reason. I can't find an article post-publishing of either study that confirms the findings cited. As it is, the article was an article about an article.   I don't doubt the finding, just would like better Sourcing.
 * Slywriter (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Curivity (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Naomi Seibt
Hi Snooganssnoogans. Sorry for editing here, but I'm not a regular user, and am not sure how to contact you directly. I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you over Naomi Seibt, but your wording is decidedly partisan at best. As I understand it, Wikipedea is supposed to be a fact-finding site, and not somewhere for editors to air their personal beliefs. Could we reach a compromise? How about "..is a German Youtuber who is known for her climate activism, where she stands against the consensus of anthropogenic climate change..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Livingstone (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Danielle Pletka
Hi,

I know you reverted the changes to her work history, but she never directly worked for Jesse Helms. Please see these screenshot records from Legistorm:

https://imgur.com/a/yFKtCna

She only worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - while Jesse Helms was the ranking member for a time period, she did not ever work directly for him. To say otherwise is incorrect.

Aleaiactm (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * We should stick to what reliable sources say. Not interpret what that primary source is saying. To say she worked for the "Senate Foreign Relations Committee" would also inaccurately suggest that she was a nonpartisan expert, which she was not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that she is, and no one who works on the Hill would do so either. On the Hill you either work for a member, general support staff, or a committee. Committee employment is very much political - when there is a new majority, there isn't a guarantee that you'll stay employed. It is not an interpretation of the primary source to say that she didn't work for Jesse Helms - it is a matter of Congressional record. If she worked for Helms's office there would be a record of such employment. She is part of the committee staff, please see this article on Congressional staff Aleaiactm (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes on March 2nd

This is the second time you have reverted changes to this page I've made after accusing me of a litany of things to which you have no proof. The first time, you were shown to be incorrect, and you are letting your biases get in the way of reasoned stewardship.

When you reverted my changes this is the note you left:


 * revert whitewashing by an obvious COI account. remove self-sourced content that is presented in a non-npov manner and puffery.

Let's take a look at each of these claims.

whitewashing
 * Excusing that the term usually infers a racial component (and race is not discussed on this page in question), how was anything whitewashed? There was no narrative content deleted whatsoever. About 95% of my edit was adding additional information. If this person crosses the threshold of notoriety for having a Wikipedia page, then the page might as well be done well, being fleshed out with content regarding what makes this person notable - in this case, their views on US foreign policy.

obvious COI account
 * You have offered no evidence as to how I am in conflict of interest beyond being an editor of a page of a person that you clearly have some kind of issue with.

remove self-sourced content
 * You should familiarize yourself with the Biographies_of_living_persons page. Per the page, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (emphasis carried over). While I did use the writings of the subject in my edits (which is allowed - and what I think you are confused about), none of the sources were self published by her or anyone else. They were all from reputable national outlets like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, The Daily Beast, and more. The type of sources Wikipedia encourages you to use because they have their own editorial standards. Again, you provided no insight into where you think I was using self-sourced content.

content that is presented in a non-npov manner and puffery
 * The only violation of this that I can find in the edits that I made is the use of the "prestigious" to describe an award the subject gave. Rather than deleting all of the edits, calling that out would have been fair and the word easily removed. Otherwise, you need to be specific as to where something is presented in a non-npov matter, and there are none of the types of adjectives described in the Puffery page.

-

Your role as an editor is not to throw invective and do wholesale reverts of the hard work other editors put in. That is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Rather, you should open a talk page and list what specific items you have an issue with that violate wikipedia guidelines so an understanding can be reached.

I am making my changes again, with the delete of the word prestigious. Do not wholesale revert them. If there are factual, structural, or Wikipedia based issues with my content, pull out what there are issues with and I am happy to have a discussion.

If you do not think you can do that, then please escalate this to someone to adjudicate.

Aleaiactm (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You have exclusively edited the page of this one person, and your edits are devoted to removing controversial information sourced to RS (such as Pletka's climate change denial nonsense) while adding trivial and obscure commentary and detailed information about her life which was exclusively sourced to herself and her organization. It's hard not to raise questions about your affiliation with the subject of the article given these patterns. But that's besides the main point, which is that the content you added simply does not belong in the Wikipedia article, because the article is not Pletka's personal website. There is nothing to indicate that her views expressed in these op-eds are notable enough to warrant mention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Marry julian
Im very excited to be here thankyou for the warm welcoming Marry julian (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem edits
Hi, you are adding references to a number of articles which are causing cite date errors as undefined/ed is not a valid date. Could you please revise these to use a valid date. Thanks Keith D (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

First warning: stop introducing mendacious summaries into the Iraq sanctions death article
Hello, I'm Zusammenbruch. Your recent edit(s) to the page on the Iraq sanctions death page appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. *It does not matter whether those edits are "long-standing" features of the page; if they are incorrect and represent a misreporting of research, they must be removed*. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source (that the *consensus* has changed on Iraq sanctions deaths; one paper is not "a consensus" and may not be described as such). This is your first warning. This will progress to me requesting administrative intervention if you do not cease. You unfortunately have the right to be a white supremacist in private, but you may not introduce errors into Wikipedia that stem from your misinformed beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusammenbruch (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

GlassBones Topic Ban
- I was told by that I since I have a topic ban I should ask someone prior to editing any Wikipedia article to determine if editing the article is a violation of the topic ban. Since I don't want to waste an Admin's time with my questions on this issue, since you are a long-time editor, and since you hold yourself out as an expert on what subjects fall within my topic ban, you seem like a good person to ask.

I intend to edit the Wikipedia article on the Battle of the Thames. In your expert opinion, would this be a violation of my topic ban in any way? Please advise. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

- I intend to edit the Wikipedia article on Central American migrant caravans. In your expert opinion, would this be a violation of my topic ban in any way? Please advise. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course it. And get off my talk page. Bother someone else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * - I assume you meant to write "of course it is". If that is the case, I'm not sure how an article about people walking from Central America into Mexico falls under post-1932 US politics but I accept your opinion.  Thank you.  And there is no need to be confrontational or less than cordial with me.  Indeed, you should be happy now that you got me topic banned.  I hope you have a nice day. GlassBones (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See User_pages Please respect Snoogans's wishes and stop posting to this talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. GlassBones (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Stalking
u|Snooganssnoogans - You haven't edited the Joe Biden article for at least the last several months, but you suddenly visited the Biden article 35 minutes after me to change my edits. You accuse me of stalking you whenever I visit a site you have previously edited (which, since you are so prolific, is virtually any post-1932 US politics article), yet you just happen to show up at the only site I have edited recently, just to change my edits. Seriously, why are you harassing me? You really need to get a life. GlassBones (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop commenting on my talk page. I've absolutely had it with this bizarre and creepy nonsense. The Joe Biden page is on my watchlist, as can be indicated by my past edits on the page. Since your edits are usually awful and your edit popped up on my watchlist, I of course checked what you added to the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Be nice, folks.SarumanTheBlack (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomiki Konst
Quit trolling. The photo is acceptable for use in the article, as it illustrates and shows the subject. One more revert and I'm reporting you to the ANI. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack the motives of other editors
Snoogans, the last big ANI you were involved with included a warning about attacking other editors. Please keep that in mind when casting aspersions. If you don't I will not hesitate to take the matter to ANI. If you are too busy to do edits correctly you shouldn't be making those edits. Springee (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will never stop calling out editors who remove the description "false" from the assertion that the Affordable Care Act created "death panels". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Gold standard
Re -- sure that a report of a US-specific opinion does not belong in the lead. It should sit under a US heading or should probably be removed altogether as it is mostly repeated in the Critics section. -- GhostInTheMachine (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2020 (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. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianpolitico (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Wikipedianpolitico (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring
I have edited multiple pages from across the ideological spectrum to ensure readers have the facts regarding the COVID-19 crisis and those responsible for responding to it – from Max Rose's National Guard deployment to Kelvin Droegemeier's presence on the WH COVID-19 Task Force. Yet, I have only had a problem and only met resistance on Elaine Chao's page.

Even after modifying my submission to her page multiple times to satisfy concerns expressed – to merely note that Chao is a member of the WH Task Force and that Chao, as news outlets have reported, objectively announced COVID-related funding – you continue to undo all changes. Your latest edit included no explanation whatsoever. Wikipedianpolitico (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your reluctance to respond to the above in talk is quite telling. Is Chao not objectively a member of the WH COVID-19 task force? Did news reports not indicate that Chao announced the foregoing funding? Why are you trying to hide facts critical to holding public leaders accountable? Wikipedianpolitico (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Diamond And Silk
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Diamond and Silk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRehm8814 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted your edit on One America News Network
Please do not remove Disputed-Discussion Tags from articles without consensus. Please discuss on the Talk page for One America News Network first. Aeonx (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

One America News Network
I've created an RFC to get consensus on the One America News Network 'far-right' descriptor and settle this. I don't believe you (nor other editors) involved are behaving reasonably to properly discuss and close the disputel so I see the RFC process as a way forward. Aeonx (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no political agenda.
So I removed the word unsubstantiated from one of your posts, because 'unsubstantiated' is a biased term. If you want to debunk someones online article, citing another opposing article is not enough proof. In the areas of politics, it is not your job to decide whether a person's opinions are right or wrong, only to faithfully report what they are. I've read some of Victor Hanson's online article, so when I went to learn more about him on Wikipedia, I was surprised to find a biased description of his views. Hanson is probably wrong about the COVID19, but until all the facts come out, now is not time to be calling someones opinions unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:91FB:F000:4CDC:F6C3:61B1:210A (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey
104.245.146.51, an anonymous IP address from Canada, has done literally nothing other than to reverse Egypt-related edits, mainly mine, not unlike you. Are you Canadian? Is that IP address you, or is it someone else? Zakawer (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your undoing of my revision on Vladirmir Putin
Hello. I had added information about Russian collusion to assist Bernie Sander's campaign to become Democratic nominee. The information was widely reported and I referenced the Washington Examiner. Can you explain why you undid my revision? Your explanation, "undue in lead", is not very telling. Mozad655 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That Russia tried to assist the Sanders campaign in 2020 is obviously not one of the most notable things in Putin's bio. By restoring the content to the lead, you've egregiously violated WP:BRD and should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree, but please understand that it was never my decision that alleged Russian collusion, be included as "notable" or appropriate in Putin's bio. Prior to my edits, the section already emphasized alleged Russian collusion in Trumps favor. I merely added adjacent information about Russian collusion in favor of the Sanders campaign. Mozad655 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Successfully aiding a US presidential candidate into office is infinitely more important than unsuccessfully boosting the candidacy of a primary candidate. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you not agree that the magnitude of the alleged crime is the same, irrespective of whether or not the effort was successful? Mozad655 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That has absolutely nothing to do with whether something should be in the lead or not. Important aspects of a bio go into the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree with your perception of "importance". It is as relevant, that Russia allegedly meddled in the US elections in 2016, as it is in 2020. Feel free to create a section on the talk page if you want to argue this with other editors. I personally find both mentions of alleged Russian collusion, to be trivial, in the great scheme of Vladimir Putin's bio. Many more much more important policies have come out of Kremlin than claimed meddling, the scale and importance of which is entirely undisclosed or unknown. Mozad655 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So you're not only violating WP:BRD but admitting that you're adding content that you don't think should be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tildes
In this, you seem to have hit the tilde key five times instead of four. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

endorcements???
I read your "endorcements", and i must say... i think i love you. Scaledish ! Talkish ? Statish. 01:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

John Solomon
While I assume your revert was made in good faith, it was not appropriate. The lead of his article references his awards for journalism and that is what he is. It belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B16E:698A:3D52:9287:7ED4:8282 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I take it back. Clearly your edit was not made in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B16E:698A:3D52:9287:7ED4:8282 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance at Andrea Palm
Hello. I recently created a page for Andrea Palm, Secretary of the Wisconsin DHS. I would greatly appreciate your input and contribution on the page. Thanks, KidAd (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Subramanian Swamy
Your recent editing history at Subramanian_Swamy 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. Amazingcaptain (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WalkAway
First off, I'm honored to finally meet you. Your reputation preceeds you, and your no nonsense campaign to purge wikipedia of right wing bullshit deserves nothing but respect. That being said, i noticed your revert of my edit on the WalkAway campaign, and I'm a bit confused by your reasoning. I said the campaign is right wing, which it is by it's very nature, and astroturfed, which is evident by most of the sources cited. All i really did was complete a sentence in the lede which felt incomplete, with information that's already referenced in the article, and that everybody on the discussion page already reached a consensus on. Admittedly i didn't add the references, but that's because I'm not entirely sure how they work. I don't believe the edit needs to be reverted because of what's essentially a formatting error. Admittedly I'm opposed to the article existing in the first place, as it gives the campaign too much credit. I maintain that it should be a subsection under Russian web brigades the way it initially was. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susan Collins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ratcliffe ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Susan_Collins check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Susan_Collins?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warning on Robert O'Brien
Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Robert_C._O%27Brien_(attorney), may be confused with vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stope (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Stope (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing properly sourced content
Hi: We haven’t “met” before here, so nice to meet you. A friendly comment/question: I noticed after making some standard edits on the page of Jason Altmire that you immediately returned to that page to remove them, then subsequently made what appear to be multiple disruptive edits (WP:DE). It appears you removed extensive material that was relevant and properly sourced. It seems your edits were made in an attempt to discredit the subject by removing many properly sourced accomplishments and adding unnecessarily negative language. It is obvious you have a personal beef with Altmire, which has colored your edits. In a quick review, I found multiple examples where properly sourced material was removed, including Obama’s role in superdelegate campaign, Altmire’s amendment on public lands, his law on small business, and his post-Congress role as chairman of the political reform committee, among others. This type of massive deletion of legitimate information of a political subject concerns me as it taints the non-biased stance of WikiPedia. As an example, changing his role as chairman of a significant national reform committee to dismissively saying “he was on a committee” strikes one as petty and with clear intent to discredit.

Question: Would you be willing to allow a revert to the original text of the areas you removed that are properly sourced? Just because you don’t like those facts doesn’t mean they aren’t true and relevant. It seems to not do so would be operating in bad faith. EdwardsCluaser (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)EdwardsCluaser


 * The content in question was all puffery of one sort of another on a page that has had endemic conflict-of-interest editing by accounts that systematically remove info that may be construed as negative and insert lots of poorly sourced content that can be construed as positive. If there's new content that you want to include, then you need to seek consensus for it on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! It was certainly not “all puffery.” Perhaps some was but not all. I don’t know the history of the page, but sourced facts about a subject’s record aren’t “puffery.” I think the legitimate sourced material should remain. I don’t know what your beef is with this subject, but it is flagrant disruptive editing to remove sourced material relevant to a subject’s political career.

EdwardsCluaser (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw that you reverted the article back to your original content removal. I disagree with your contention that the material you removed is not worthy of inclusion in an article about the career of this public figure. It all seems relevant, which is in most cases validated by the contemporary RS coverage those items received. Your seem more interested in discrediting the subject than accurately portraying his career. So, I’ve filed a request for dispute resolution. I’ll accept whatever they decide and hope you’ll do the same. Again, no hard feelings, I just think you’re going way overboard on this one. EdwardsCluaser (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Dispute Resolution

In response to the specific questions you raised in your most recent revert, I researched the issues and came across the following answers addressing your concerns, listed in the order you posted them:

The post office bill became embroiled in a larger national dispute over Carson’s environmental legacy. The original article you deleted said the bill “encountered opposition,” which is unquestionably true. It received 53 no votes in the House before a hold was placed upon it in the Senate, and RS opposition to the bill appeared in newspapers around the country. A quick google search showed opinion articles published in RS newspapers in Minnesota, Florida, and Washington, DC, and positive reference to the bill in a Pennsylvania paper.

The “former coach“ is a highly prominent figure and the speech was DUE enough to receive it’s own article in a national publication. The wording and placement of this mention within the article doesn’t puff its significance or exaggerate its importance.

On the Obama endorsement issue, I suspect the delicate wording of your question reveals that you already know the answer to this one. The HRC book you yourself referenced contains lengthy discussion of Obama’s conversations with Altmire, all of which can be found in a cursory google search of the book. At your suggestion, adding pages 17-20 on the references makes sense as that’s where this information appears in great detail. But you must already know this because that’s exactly the section that also sources the Hillary Clinton information you cite. The dispute resolution volunteer may want to consider this point when considering whether you edits convey good faith and neutral point of view WP:NPOV.

On the reform report, the original post didn’t seem to unnecessarily add inflated titles and buzzwords as you suggest. It merely stated the fact the Altmire was co-chair of this national commission, which is evident in the source, the report itself. It also mentioned that several high-level officials were on the commission, which addresses your view that there was nobody with expertise. That said, your edit here is not too egregious, although it illustrates the NPOV violations and pettiness with which you made some of your deletions.

On Oklahoma, this was my addition. An out-of-state committee chairman holding an on-location hearing in the hub of oil and gas country to highlight energy costs seems relevant, as does the participation of the future Governor.

Finally, the environmental bill. The original post you deleted contained substantial cited verification of Altmire’s involvement, including the New York Times, and a cursory google search reveals more, especially in official government documents. You are likely correct that the exact phrase “broke a stalemate” isn’t used, but the importance of the amendment is clear in the mentions it received. A wholesale deletion doesn’t seem appropriate here, although a rewording might help address your concerns.

In reading your additions to the article, I would also highlight for the resolution arbiter the addition of bold headings under “Early career” which are unnecessary, out of step with standard Wikipedia article headings, and obviously intended to cast the subject in a negative light in line the points made by the editor several times in the article. Same for the additional paragraph added to the lede. These also being into question the non-NPOV motivations of the editor.

Again, I do not wish to drag this out further. I’ve researched and addressed your concerns and will accept whatever rulings the despite arbiter makes on these points.

EdwardsCluaser (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
I see you continue to edit war and add unsourced content to Police use of deadly force in the United States. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

≈== National Football League addition ==

Hey Snog, long time no see! Just letting you know why I reverted your addition to National Football League (a page I renovated to GA a while back, so am somewhat engaged in watching). This is definitely a worthwhile subject, should be a key part of History of the National Football League, but I don't think the volume of content added is proportionate. What you added is roughly equal to content describing the first few decades of the league. I think this might also have value on American football as well. I'm open to a smaller section here - maybe one on the league policy of having the national anthem before games - but the volume of material is too much. Let me know on the talk page if you want to try and develop this further. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no prior experience with the page. I will start a talk page discussion where editors can discuss in what form and size the content should be included on the main article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No-knock warrant
Re, please be careful to read and reflect what the source actually says, and not reference it blindly to falsely back up a mistaken belief. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Canvasing
Snoogans, you should know that notifications such as this one [] may be problematic per WP:CAN. Can you make the case that this is a neutral project and a natural place to notify? Springee (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A RfC on racism is exactly up Wikiproject:Discrimination's alley. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it neutral? Looking at the long list of projects on the Reagan talk page I don't see project discrimination.  I do see Portal:Conservatism but you didn't notify them.  Why not?  Springee (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alerting Project Conservatism would be canvassing (just as it would be canvassing to alert Wikiproject Socialism), as there are good reasons that editors with a conservative persuasion happen to use it. Such concerns have been raised here and other boards. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But you are certain notifying Project Discrimination is going to be totally neutral. Springee (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Something to add here
An article in The Grayzone says you are "always pushing a centrist, neoliberal perspective." CowHouse (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Ronald Reagan. Thank you.  Calidum   20:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will never stop speaking out against racial bias on Wikipedia. Calling racist slurs "utterly irrelevant" is astonishing and shameful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2020 (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. Please note, I am only doing this notification as required by AN, I am asking for a self-review of my actions related to the above and only because I'm mentioned you I have to notify you to be legit, I am not asking for any AN action towards you or others. --M asem (t) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Reported
I have reported you for a number of issues:

I am leaving a notification here as required.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

black lives matter page
Snooganssnoogans Snooganssnoogans

i have an idea for the blm wikipeage which is to deleate the sub-subsection policy demands and in its place to create a subsection called "specific issues" whare each of the sub-subsections will talk about each of the issues in as much detail as nessesary. i think that the 1 paragraph thats on the wikipage now dosent do the topic justice. your thoughts?

example: subsections 1)police brutality 2) black survailance 3)lack of resources in black communities 4)black survailance  ect.


 * I don't have a problem with that. Out of time constraints, I haven't been able to edit the BLM page as much as I'd like. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Soros
The Secret Order of Rosicrucian Operatives and Spies?Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please tell me where I can sign up to get my check. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

JakeDapper
I see they've been continuing to edit disruptively and I warned them on their talk (they blanked you and 's messages, so a heads-up to both of you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No-go area edit warring
Your recent editing history at No-go area 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. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did u edit out the revision about the nogo for France? IC89 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How about just relax ok?
You get really wound up over this and it gets everybody else wound up.....this all leads to a type of discussion we don't want here. So just relax ok? Editing here IS tedious at times. (I just followed up on a talk board to something that sat there for 2 years.) Relax.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Do not ever comment on my talk page again. I do not take kindly to editors who think it's fine to call blacks "monkeys", and who erect the most arbitrary BS goalposts and then when even those arbitrary BS goalposts are met decide that there should be new goalposts. It's incredibly disrespectful, deeply embarrassing and an extraordinary example of wasting other editors' time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was "fine" to call black people anything. I was just questioning whether the intent there was racism. (Ironically enough, another editor (without realizing it) supported my point by indicating such a term could be used on a non-racial basis.) If you want to be this hostile all the time.....that's your choice. But I think you are making the situation that much harder. And by the way: you sure have seen fit to comment on my talk page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No-go area edit warring
Your recent editing history at No-go area 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. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did u edit out the revision about the nogo for France? IC89 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How about just relax ok?
You get really wound up over this and it gets everybody else wound up.....this all leads to a type of discussion we don't want here. So just relax ok? Editing here IS tedious at times. (I just followed up on a talk board to something that sat there for 2 years.) Relax.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Do not ever comment on my talk page again. I do not take kindly to editors who think it's fine to call blacks "monkeys", and who erect the most arbitrary BS goalposts and then when even those arbitrary BS goalposts are met decide that there should be new goalposts. It's incredibly disrespectful, deeply embarrassing and an extraordinary example of wasting other editors' time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was "fine" to call black people anything. I was just questioning whether the intent there was racism. (Ironically enough, another editor (without realizing it) supported my point by indicating such a term could be used on a non-racial basis.) If you want to be this hostile all the time.....that's your choice. But I think you are making the situation that much harder. And by the way: you sure have seen fit to comment on my talk page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)