User talk:Let us eat lettuce

Let us eat lettuce, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Let us eat lettuce! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox

User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

DS alert US politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

comment

you posted at my talk page, but since the thread is already started here, I'll reply here. This is in accord with WP:MULTI. My answer to your question whether you "should cease and desist" is that any sanctions our admins impose are meant to prevent future problems. See WP:Blocking policy. We initially assume editors are both capable and willing to learn from mistakes. So sanctions start off small and for short periods. Persistent problems can lead to more severe and/or longer sanctions. And for the few who are unable or unwilling to change, admins might impose bans of various scopes, of which topic bans might be the most common. So, in answer to your question, I think you can choose to read all the guideline and policy related material that has been shared with you and try to edit accordingly, or you can choose not to and see what happens. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheSandDoctor was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. tendentiously resubmitting a WP:POLEMIC after repeated declines. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi, I was looking at the sandbox and saw your work on the attempted impeachment of the current US president ad was wondering how it is a coup d'état. I also worried that your article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to articles having a nuetral point of view. Thanks The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So, I hope to develop this... I have added more, so help out if u canLet us eat lettuce (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Have added additional info to support the coup d'état narrative. I have attempted to evolve this beyond the essay status into wiki format. meeting resistance... all factual w/ citations.....

@The Editor's Apprentice: The proper place for these comments is on Let us eat lettuce's talk page, where I have moved these. Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 12:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A few words of advice

If you can really write stuff about "the liberal biased news media" and believe that "there is no violation of neutral point of view" then it is doubtful that you have sufficient ability to see the nature of your own editing to contribute to Wikipedia. That may well be your own sincerely held point of view, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a neutral point of view. I strongly advise you to accept that posting content to advocate a point of view, as you have done, is contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether you like that policy or not. (There are Wikipedia policies that I personally don't agree with, but I accept that they are policies.) If you continue to refuse to accept Wikipedia policies then it is likely that before long you will be blocked from editing by an administrator, so please do start accepting them. Also, there is no place in Wikipedia for posting content on the basis that "it is speculated". Finally, I strongly advise you that if you keep on re-submitting the same draft without addressing the issue that led to its repeatedly being rejected before, then you will almost certainly be blocked from editing, to prevent you from wasting the time of volunteers who review it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

There are indeed attempts to remove Donald Trump from office by impeachment. It is a misuse of language, and a serious misuse of language, to refer to impeachment attempts as an attempt at a coup d'etat. Both impeachment and the 25th Amendment are constitutional mechanisms, and their use is not a coup d'etat. In fact, these are mechanisms that were introduced, in 1789 and in 1967, to remove a President from office by lawful means rather than by coup d'etat. Are you implying that the impeachment efforts are extra-constitutional, or are you referring to an actual coup d'etat, perhaps by General Dunford? Who are you saying would replace Mr. Trump in a coup d'etat? I don't think that Michael Pence would participate in a violation of constitutional principles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As to rioting, I do not think that the rioting was intended to remove Mr. Trump from office, but to protest (illegally). Not every illegal or violent protest is treasonous. They may be only illegal and violent. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Language such as "biased media" and "political feeding frenzy" should not be in the voice of Wikipedia. If someone has used these phrases, quote them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

edits made were in attempts to adhere to wiki policies WP:NPOV,WP:SYNTH. Maybe, undoing the legitimate scrubbing could be disruptive editing?? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

housekeeping

I think you made a comment before logging in, and the server was showing me your IP address. I think I fixed that correctly but would you look at this please? Can you verify that the comment was made by you? If not, I'll put it back to show the IP address instead of your user name. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I made edits to talk page of Trump resistance wiki under title: Removed a.k.a. censored Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Good faith

OK... you're taking swings at others( e.g., equating reverts with censorship). Please read WP:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Principles especially the part about behavioral standards. You're on notice about DS, and so the relatively speedy sanctions procedures at AE are in play. See the DS alert I gave you a few days ago in an earlier thread, and click-and-read the links therein.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

taking swings at others? just replied to explain the edits. no malice intended... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize my edits on wiki will not be WP:Assume good faith. Too bad. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal commentary in articles

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to You Are What You Eat (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 149.254.49.45 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Was going to warn you myself, but the IP beat me to it. Don't do it again, and please source all article additions with reliable sources. Thank you. SkyWarrior 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No bias, found the added data and film posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvXHSDgv4g8 Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean the video description? Because that is not a reliable source and thus cannot be used to back up your edits. SkyWarrior 22:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

okay. that's alright. seemed legit, but not reliable sources. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

the opening statement says "attempts to capture". I suggest that the NYT article confirms the film actually does capture the scene and my new edits were meant to show this. peace http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F0DEFDD1E31E034BC4D51DFBF668383679EDE Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"attempts to capture" NPOV Let us eat lettuce (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Failure to engage in consensus decision making is one of the explicitly listed signs of disruptive editing

FYI please read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. You keep adding problematic material at Trump resistance, I keep reverting with explanations in the edit summaries, and you should try to start a talk page thread (see WP:BRD) instead of disruptively repeating the cycle ad nauseum. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. You have been told repeatedly of the need to edit neutrally and to avoid making personal comments. If you honestly can't see that statements such as "Trump Derangement Syndrome set in and manifest itself in the continued efforts to respond negatively to every Trump initiative, every Trump policy, and every Trump idea" express opinions, then you have such a lack of ability to understand the difference between objective and subjective reporting that you are probably not going to be able to start contributing in the neutral way required. If, on the other hand, you understand perfectly well that such statements express opinions, but put them in because you believe those opinions are right, then you are here to use Wikipedia to promote a point of view. You really need to change your approach very quickly if you are not to be blocked: you have had plenty of warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, understand. The article clearly does state the content added to wiki. you may have missed this in the article.... Trump Derangement Syndrome Let us eat lettuce (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

considering the content of the 2 cited articles, I thought I did edit neutrally and to avoid making personal comments Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Loretta Lynch

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

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Let us eat lettuce, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to United States presidential election, 2016 have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your addition to United States presidential election, 2016 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa I hope appearance does not equal proof of violation... The content was faithfully edited. btw, Is the article really under review for inclusion? or just elimination? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Password Reset

Wiki

Hi, my wiki user name is User:Let us eat lettuce. I forgot my password or my password has expired, and cannot use the reset because I have no associated email address in my preferences. Can I have a temp password sent to my IP 72.228.136.47 talk? 72.228.136.47 (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)