User talk:Thenightaway

Kelli Ward SB1469 Vote

Thank you for your feedback on my edit to the Kelli Ward page. Although I believe that the information about SB1469 cited is extremely reliable given that the source is the Arizona State Legislature's .gov website, I have found another source per your request. The signing of the appropriations bill is chronicled in the online newspaper and digital arm of The Arizona Republic's article titled "Ducey signs historically lean $9.1B Arizona budget" and published on March 12, 2015 (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/12/arizona-governor-ducey-signs-state-budget/70244574/).

Original Edit:

Ward voted to approve appropriations bill SB1469 on March 7, 2015 which removed all state funding for Maricopa Community College District and Pima Community College when it was signed into law by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on March 12, 2015.

Catwilsonaz (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am rapidly losing interest in the entire topic, but one thing that did occur to me recently was that the over-reliance on "azcentral" as the predominant source in the Kelli Ward article is a matter for concern. I have no particular stance on whether it is a reliable source or whether it is a neutral source, but basing most of the controversial material around it is not a good way to go. MPS1992 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see that as a problem. Azcentral.com is the largest newspaper in Arizona, and it's naturally going to be the source for most recent events in Arizona. NY Times is inevitably the source with the most in-depth coverage of local NY politics, and Washington Post had the most extensive coverage of Virginia politics. These are all obvious RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well. The New York Times is a newspaper of record, but "azcentral" does not seem to be anything near. There's a difference. MPS1992 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992:, The Arizona Republic is the largest and most prestigious paper in that state, certainly without peer as the regional "paper of record." There's nothing remotely comparable in Ward's legislative district or the congressional district in which she lives. Activist (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've had someone trying to log in on my Wikipedia account these past few days, but they were unable to hack the password. I have no clue who it is, but wonder if you might be having the same problem, as we have differed with some of the same editors. Thanks. Activist (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same problem but it appears as if a large number of editors had the same problem a few days ago, so it doesn't appear as if we were specifically targeted in that instance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurances, but I can't help but wonder if it's some paid editor boiler room we're in conflict with whatever they're being paid for. Let's hope that's not it. Activist (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit warring on Brexit

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war

I cannot believe the cheek - you repeatedly revert everything within minutes and accuse me of edit-warring. Your edits do not even make sense.

Right - how do we get this in arbitration?

Hogweard (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Gateway Pundit

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Edit Warring on Barbara Comstock

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.(OakTreeByWindow (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

Pruitt's domicile

You and I were simultaneously editing the housing section from the same source. I got an "edit conflict" message when I hit the "Publish changes" button, so went back, deleted my citation, kept some of my language and some of yours. I hope it's okay with you. I had made some other minor edits and may restore them in text above the changes we made. Thanks for your determined efforts to keep this article intelligible. Activist (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies

Your recent editing history at Center for Immigration Studies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Icesave dispute

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Icesave dispute . Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ubba abba (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for this absurd warning, week-old account. My edit was perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please mention the errors with content which you deleted in the edit summary in the future. Ubba abba (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring Enlargement of NATO

You only ever participate on that article anymore after I post something that is proven by facts that you don't like. Who are you to say what is unproven or "fringe nonsense"? I believe it is fringe nonsense that those in power allowed or forced those events to happen in the first place. Why silence those events?

There are neo-Nazis in power in Ukraine. Obama admitted on CNN to helping organize the coup in Ukraine. John McCain was on a stage supporting the neo-Nazi Svoboda party. The Soviet Union proposed to join NATO and it was rejected (you didn't even give a real reason as to why you deleted that). There are so many paragraphs in the article with no citation or just one citation, you have no issue with those, and I gave two citations for each of my points, besides the add on that the National Security Archive report contradicted what Gorbachev said, which was implied indirectly, I just made it conclusive and you deleted that too for no valid reason. I cited HuffPost, The Nation, NBC, the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the European Union, and none of it was good enough for you.

What kind of free encyclopedia is this?

Edit-warring on Liberty University

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

D&S

What you are calling a reliable source for the claim that D&S "falsely" reported Facebook censorship is from an opinion piece, which is not considered a reliable source - even though it's at the CNN website (a reliable source). We cannot say in Wikipedia voice that they intentionally made false statements, that is a BLP violation. Please don't restore it or edit war over it, okay? If you want, I'd be happy to discuss it on the article talk page. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two sources cited and neither of them are opinion pieces. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The CNN column is an opinion piece. You claim that the sources are being distorted, however, they are not - we simply cannot say in a BLP in Wikipedia's voice what you keep readding. The wording is completely POV and non-neutral. This is an encyclopedia, not a new source nor is it a opinion column. Yet, what you keep readding is making claims that are not NPOV and not encyclopedia in tone. Please take this to the article talk page where I will be starting an informal and unofficial RfC on the content you insist belongs in the article, as sourced and as written. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The CNN piece is not an op-ed. It's an article by a senior news reporter. It carries none of the labels for "opinion" (e.g. [1]) or "analysis" (e.g. [2]) nor does the article read like an opinion piece. There's nothing about the article that in any way suggests it's an op-ed. Please explain yourself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Every inch of it reads like an opinion piece. Senior editors write opinion pieces all the time. FYI: I don't need to explain anything about myself to you. Please see WP:FOC. If you want to discuss the article content that is now disputed, please do so at the article talk page. WP:BRD may not be policy, but it is a very strong suggestion for conduct and resolving challenges to content. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank god that your "feels" are not how we determine what's a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Diamond and Silk. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You should thank me that I reverted your edits. Your edits not only distorted the content of RS (violating WP:BLP) but you also falsely claimed that two news stories were op-eds. Having been corrected on your falsehoods and having had your BLP violations fixed, you come here instead with this warning. Not good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

You have been mentioned at AN/I. – Lionel^(talk) 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW.– Lionel^(talk) 02:28, 27 April 2018 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Diamond_and_Silk. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This is just the current example, but I have seen several similar statements in my brief time looking at pages you seem to frequent. "If you're incapable of reading sources and adhering to them, get off Wikipedia." is less than ideal. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will make a concerted effort to be nicer and less abrasive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit for Kirstjen Nielsen

Sorry about not putting a sorce I was going too but for some reason it would not let me use the sorce even know it’s from Fox News which is a reliable news sorce so I left it unsourced temporarily until I could find another news sorce to use.In hines sight it was probably not best to leave it unsorced. Colored (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Candace Owens

Do you have a better source for your edit on Candace Owens? It seems to me that she had a website that let people comment on a wide variety of subjects (per your source) and that the person commenting on it (Bernstein) does not seem to have a good track record of verifying his sources.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Liberty University

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Regarding this: (1) Policy states we don't name editors in talk page headers; (2) policy also states we don't personally attack editors in talk page headers, just as we don't personally attack editors, period. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Which policies prohibit naming editors in talk page headers and rightfully describing absurd edits as "absurd"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, did you ever edit the Liberty University article or talk page before I got involved on those pages? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist for some time. Attempt at a Red Herring noted. The policies are out there, look them up if you must/need. Stop playing games. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird. You add articles to your watchlist that you don't edit? Did you add the article to your watchlist before or after I began to edit it? Before or after you sought to canvass Lionelt to find something sanctionable about me when you were losing a content dispute? Before or after your frivolous sanction report against me (related to the same content dispute that you had long lost)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I find it weird how the same cast of editors show up in content disputes on pages that they've never edited before to interject on behalf of whomever I am having a disagreement with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"You add articles to your watchlist that you don't edit?" I add articles to my watchlist that I am interested in. As I imagine many Wikipedia editors do. Next? "Did you add the article to your watchlist before or after I began to edit it?" I added it weeks ago. I have no idea when you started to edit it because I don't care about what articles you edit. Next? "Before or after you sought to canvass Lionelt to find something sanctionable about me when you were losing a content dispute?" I didn't canvass Lionelt nor was I trying to find something "santionable" in regard to you. Next? "Before or after your frivolous sanction report against me (related to the same content dispute that you had long lost)?" It wasn't a "sanction report" (whatever that is), and there is no winning or losing in Wikipedia. I'm sorry you're so upset by all of this, however, you did violate policy with the talk page header you created. That was the sole purpose of the warning I placed here on your talk page. I hope you have learned something from this and won't repeat the same error(s) and violation of policy. Sincerely,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please link to the policy that I'm supposed to have violated? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you go: [3] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring FrontPage

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FrontPage Magazine. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – Lionel^(talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Liberty University can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing.

This warning regards your continued inappropriate exchanges with editors at WP:NPA. Along with the original talk page header and personal attacks at the talk page, harassment has now become an issue in this section. Four editors have asked you to tone it down, but your personal attacks have now escalated and have taken on the appearance of harassing anyone there who opposes your opinions. Please stop immediately. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

News spam

Would be great if you could slow down on the headline news spam. As an encyclopedia we're looking for academic sources. Just food for thought.--Moxy (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I will absolutely not stop adding text derived from high-quality news reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed? What we are looking for is academic sources not headliner news spam with useless daily details. This keeps coming up Time and Time and Time and Time again. At some point you will have to address the community's concerns of WP:Notnews as a whole instead of arguing on talk page after talk page. Got to admit you must be frustrated with everyone reverting you all the time because of unude weight and questionable sources. --Moxy (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two points that I'll make. The first doesn't really apply to you, so I'll split this up:

For some reason, most of the editors who cite WP:NOTNEWS and question the RS status of obvious RS in debates with me tend to do so exclusively when it concerns news reporting that reflects poorly on the article subject (e.g. a pundit promotes hoaxes, a pundit lies). Some of the same editors who argue that CNN, Politico etc. are not good sources also tend to frequently endorse sources that promote hoaxes, falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Some of the same editors who dispute that news outlets are RS also remove my edits when I add academic content and they themselves add unsourced or poorly sourced text. That's what's frustrating when I see editors citing WP:NOTNEWS and questioning the RS status of obvious RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My edits rely on high-quality sourcing and have long-term encyclopedic value, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Your disregard for news sources has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Stripping, say, the Scott Pruitt page (an article you've complained about) of all contemporary news reporting would effectively destroy that page permanently. Nobody would or ever could rewrite the text again as accurately with "academic content". There are countless pages on Wikipedia on figures who were prominent 5, 10, 15 years ago, yet we know nothing about because nobody edited their Wikipedia pages contemporaneously with high-quality sources - those pages are horrendous and could never be rewritten today (for a large number of reasons). Stripping articles of contemporaneous news articles would also make Wikipedia irrelevant to all but history buffs and science buffs - many readers want to know about, say, Scott Pruitt today, but only history buffs would want to learn about him 25 yrs from now. And those history buffs will be lucky that some editors did the time-consuming work of documenting his actions contemporaneously, so that a comprehensive picture of him is available. The desire for "academic content" is also extremely misplaced, given that the academic content also relies on the very same news reporting that we use. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reporting versus journalism is the problem.... providing reporting sources that only cover a paragraph on today's updates isn't the same as journalistic news that researchers can use . Here is a link I usually post for our students editor's on assignment.... to show them not to use Headline News versus academic and journalistic sources. It's not always about where the source comes from but it's content and does that belong in Wikipedia and how much weight should be given.-Moxy (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing more intrinsically valuable about "journalism" than "reporting" (as defined there). Both can be perfectly encyclopedic. And for what its worth, the journalism that's included in the Scott Pruitt article (one that you've complained about) is of the absolute highest caliber. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The article you mentioned above I thought every content and Source should be kept and moved to a new page over deletion. Perhaps if you understood what other think about newspapers and there reliability it would help you in your arguments..... as in which newspapers are best for certain topics.... you have to convince conservatives editors at a conservative article that the source is right (no pun intended) and liberal article watchers will demand perceived liberal sources. This chart is a good guide. Note how sources like Buzz feed hold zero weight from any perspective. Although everyone agrees about no bias in Wikipedia each topic and article holds his own bias because of those who are watching over it. Hard to argue with sources from Harvard vs buzz feed. --Moxy (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a strange view of WP:RS policy. I use RS, not sources that appeal to different factions or the public. Your "guide" to reliability is rubbish, and has nothing whatsoever to do with reliability. Academic sources are (per WP:RS policy usually the best sources), so of course a Harvard University Press book will generally be better than Buzzfeed News, BBC News and the Washington Post. Observers who dispute that Buzzfeed News is a WP:RS have been living under a rock and do not realize that Buzzfeed News has grown massively in recent years, has won Pulitzers, have Pulitzer winners on staff and is a highly regarded journalistic outfit - what the people said in a 2014 poll has no relevance whatsoever to Buzzfeed News' RS status. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not only does your hatred for news sources have no foundation in Wikipedia policy, but your suggestion that I should refuse to add text that relies on sourcing that conservatives or liberals dislike is a plain violation of WP:NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I am just not explaining this well as your replies seem way off base. Perhaps I should have written those policies better. Good luck on your daily headline news spamming.--Moxy (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You did just fine, Moxy. I see exactly what you are saying, you didn't write it in code and you hit the mark with your comparisons to reporting vs. journalism. I have no idea your age, but you sound like you're old enough to remember (like me) when news was true journalism. Today, we have younger folks who have known nothing but People Magazine or BuzzFeed or The Wrap and biased online sources that come up wanting in the way of journalism. It's not your fault that SS responds with comments like, "There's nothing more intrinsically valuable about "journalism" than "reporting"...You have a strange view of WP:RS policy". So many Wikipedia editors have fallen into the trap of ignorance about reliable sources because they have bought the lie that since Wikipedia has declared certain sources "reliable", they are undeniably reliable. They forget that sources declared reliable were named such via consensus. Consensus that came from a group of Wikipedia editors who are not journalists or have no idea what real journalism looks like and likely have a bias - many of which are probably online-news only readers that get their information from their Facebook "newsfeed". The Wrap is a Hollywood newsblog, but it's been declared a reliable source by Wikipedia - ridiculous. Vox is incredibly biased, but it's been declared a reliable source by Wikipedia - equally ridiculous. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. What's more, "reliable sources" doesn't even truly mean "reliable" and it certainly doesn't mean what's being written about by those sources is true. Never forget, Wikipedia's standard is "verifiability over truth". As far as the Pulitzer claim re: Buzzfeed? I'm pretty sure that Buzzfeed has never won a Pulitzer (I'm willing to say I might be wrong about that). They have Pulitzer writers on staff - yes - but good god - even the Pulitzer doesn't mean much anymore, and certainly not what it used to. Keep teaching your students what journalism really is. And be sure to tell them that Wikipedia is still not allowed to be used by colleges for sourcing because it is not a reliable source. A non-reliable source declaring what is a reliable source and the "editors" of the non-reliable source saying "We stick with reliable sources!" That's rich, isn't it?  :-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please tell us children who get our news from Facebook feeds more about how journalism worked in the good old days? And what happened with the Pulitzer? Be as specific as you can. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans you stated "My edits rely on high-quality sourcing and have long-term encyclopedic value" I know you don't truly believe that. You do the opposite of adding long term encylopedic value and using high quality sources. You should actually listen to the advice being given to you and stop rule breaking. The newspam you spread is worthless. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Context: I added an in-depth NY Times / ProPublica investigative piece to Liberty University and AlaskanNativeRU promptly removed it. AlaskanNativeRU then in quick secession proceeded to cite a site known for pushing birther conspiracy theories and argued himself that evolution "was just a theory". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And now the truth: Snooganssnoogans attempted to rewrite the entire article about an established University based on one source. And continued to add other newspam about Donald Trump in the article. While completely ignoring any real long-term encyclopedic additions. As many others already pointed out there's no getting through to you and I definitely don't have any more time to put into this. Just found it amusing this is not a single case issue and we both know you're not here to contribute any high quality long term enclyopedic edits onto Wiki. Just click bait sensational newspam. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

click bait ....the links we provide should help expand readers research capabilities...not help the press make money by adding click bait links. There's a book call "the decline of Journalism" that goes into much more detail. -Moxy (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your still debating sources.... perhaps this chart is better.--Moxy (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why you're sending me links to random and contradictory assessments of reliability in media. Stop spamming this nonsense to my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC):

competency?.--Moxy (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

I like the outcome--hopefully it will stick. Next time, please consider making use of the article talk page in parallel with the reverts. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

reliable secondary sources

Please have a look at this : P. Roth's letter

Wikipedia is so darn silly sometimes. Editors seem so hidebound by rules that they let common sense go out the window. Roseohioresident (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Liberty University. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard to this edit [4] where you have, once again, cast aspersions on an editor, falsely claiming they have stalked you on Wikipedia. Accusations of WP:STALK are serious here. If you think you have a case, then bring it to a noticeboard with some real evidence. Otherwise, stop with the claims and accusations that other editors are stalking you. Such accusations only make the heated editing environment at political (and other) articles more tense and cause disruption. If choose not to do the right thing and this behavior doesn't stop, you may find yourself at a noticeboard soon. Please don't let it get to that point. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Liberty University. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Warning is in regard to this edit. That's two at the same article page in as many days. This warning, however, is a level 4 (final warning). I hope you are done with such errors in judgement. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liberty University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You're edit warring now - not at 3RR, but edit warring behavior nonetheless and just as aggressive as well as disruptive. [5], [6]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans, you were just warned about personal attacks, and the next day you posted this. Consider this your final warning about personal attacks on other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In an attempt to keep content out of an article, MarkBassett claimed to have googled things and found no results consistent with the article content. I googled the same thing, read the first results of each search and found that the results perfectly matched the content in the article. Are we not expected to call out deception of this sort? Is it OK when editors frivolously revert reliably sourced text, falsely claim that text can't be supported by reliable sources, force editors to waste their time collecting multiple reliable sources in support of obviously accurate text, and consequently run away never to be seen again rather than say "my bad, the text is actually reliably sourced"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You began your response to him by saying What a load of bollocks. How deceptive and shameless can you be? The fact that you are here defending this kind of talk, or denying that it is a personal attack, is worrisome. It suggests that you don’t even recognize personal attacks when you do them. Accept my warning that the next time you do this you are likely to be blocked. I am an involved administrator at this and similar articles, so I do not carry out admin actions related to it. But I can document problems and leave it to uninvolved administrators to decide whether to take action. In this case I am warning you that IMO action is likely if you do this kind of thing again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I recognize that the behavior in this instance is problematic and commit not to repeat it. I perceived the transgressions of the other editor to be so extreme that I let my emotions get the better of me. In the future, I will diligently address concerns raised in content disputes (as I've always done) without impugning the motivations and competencies of other editors (as I've not always done). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, with all due respect and appreciation for your efforts on the politics articles... To the extent you consider yourself involved in any situation, it's not only difficult for you to take impartial Admin actions, but it is most likely impossible for you to create an impartial document to pass on privately to an uninvolved Admin colleague without incorporating the same personal elements that cause you to recuse yourself from direct Admin action. Your colleague might unavoidably rely on your advice and judgment in ways that would color the colleague's own assessment of the situation, vitiating your recusal. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My only comments on the situation are public, here. Someone can take note of them if they wish. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. I misunderstood. There's also plenty of evidence for Admins of the situations that drove Snooganssnoogans to overreact and they'll require a fairly thorough investigation by any Admin who volunteers to take on the responsibility. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The wording is being discussed in the "Widely-accepted narratives" is not NPOV, and neither is describing Sandy Hook as a "high-profile controversy" in the section of talk. Please make your defense for the wording that goes beyond Ben's reporting as well as the claims of the sourced material for the statement. Has Ben done anything besides questioned the number of shooters? If so provide source and be specific. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Liberty University. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Warning is in regard to this [7] edit summary. Also, be mindful of not biting the newbies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• One more revert from either you, Snooganssnoogans, or AlaskanNativeRU will result in an appearance at the administrator's notice board. Quit acting like four year olds and discuss it like two grown adults. Corky 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

secondary source

Regarding your most recent revert at Scott Pruitt; would you see the United States Office of Government Ethics as a secondary source, or only a non-governmental reference? X1\ (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A letter by congressmen is a primary source. Reporting by news outlets on the letter would be an example of secondary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

And OGE ... ? X1\ (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It would depend on what the OGE says, but I'd generally not rely solely on a government report for a claim (it would preferable to have reliable news outlets or expert commentary put the report in context). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll do more searching when time is available. X1\ (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

?

Hey there. Sorry if it seems there was a edit war. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I am just trying to add some positive information about what he has done, not just what he's against. Let's work together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florida188 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Prager page

Hello Snooganssnoogans, could you weigh in on the Dennis Prager page? Certain "editors" are forbidding The Atlantic as a source and deleting wily-nily, even though TA is used as a source all throughout Wikipedia.Localemediamonitor (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the Atlantic can be RS at best, but should be attributed at worst. You can also call for input from the RS noticeboard. I don't think I should intervene in the content dispute, as it could be interpreted as canvassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've always found The Atlantic magazine to be reliable, though they had a problem maybe five years ago with a promotional piece looking like news or editorial opinion. It's been around for 161 years and was voted "Magazine of the Year" two years ago by the American Society of Magazine Editors. They have a good piece this month by Natasha Bertrand. Last year I got on Prager's "Prager U." mailing list somehow, and it nearly took an act of congress to get off, and he was circulating an unending stream of nonsense. Activist (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Bill Posey Environment and Energy

I would like to work with you to make this section reflect the article more closely.

Edit I would like to make: At a May 2018 hearing in the Science, Space and Technology Committee, Posey introduced the now disproved, outlier position that climate scientists believed that the Earth was cooling in the 1970s. At the hearing, Posey also expressed skepticism that humans contributed to climate change, asking how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. Posey also asked at the hearing whether warming would be being beneficial for habitats and to people. Posey also stating "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee."

Please let me know what you think (Bketnick (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)).

Sources

No, I don't think this text is an improvement. It's fine as it already is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

At the very least I would like to clarify the "good in the end" statement and add the direct quote as it contextualizes and clarifies the issue position in the source and it is a direct quote of the congressman. You've been protective of this section, I'd like to make sure you wouldn't feel this is inappropriate or incorrect. Bketnick (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Race and Crime

The article was published by a Public Defender's Office. I it qualifies as a secondary source. The primary sources would have been the various arrest reports, plea forms, etc. that the article was based on. In my edit I linked to the PDF. Here is the same thing from the 12 Circuit Public Defender's website. http://www.jud12.flcourts.org/News/Final-Response-Bias-on-the-Beach Is it all right with you if I re-add the edit? Emperor001 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a primary source. It's as far as I can tell a report published by one of the courthouses that were implicated. This needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources (e.g. media coverage, expert commentary) that will put this report in context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken. It was not published by the courthouse itself (the judges implicated). It was published by the 12th Circuit Public Defender's Office (a separate agency from the judge's chambers and they were reviewing judges from the 19th Circuit). As I stated before the primary sources involved were the various arrest reports, plea agreements, etc. that led to the sentences. An outside Public Defender's Office reviewed the information and pointed out several flaws in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune's methodology. Because they were assessing true primary sources and commenting on judges from another circuit it looks like a secondary source to me. Emperor001 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just came across this publication in the Florida Bar News. https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2FDIVCOM%2FJN%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2FArticles%2F77E3DE69B89C9D8F852581320065AA76 Granted it is written by a judge from the 12th Circuit. Even so, I believe it is appropriate for the article to reference responses to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune's article. Emperor001 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Another thought I had that may satisfy your concerns: under Wikipedia policy primary sources may be used with caution, so we can qualify the wording by saying, "judges and public defenders responded that..." which is a fair statement of what these sources say, no different than statements by an accused criminal denying allegations and Wikipedia citing that denial until a news report picking up on it (and I don't see the Sarasota Herald-Tribune posting responses that undermine its article). Emperor001 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

formatting

Just did special:diff/846883784, is that what you mean by threading, indents? Emphasizing larger paragraphs for replies is something I'll try to remember. It's a delicate art I guess because if a paragraph gets too long it's also hard for some to read, but you're not the first to point out I overdo that. I've even caught myself doing 2-sentence paragraphs before. Part of it is an optical illusion when you edit in a narrow textbox, it looks larger (more wordwrap and lines) on my screen than it ends up looking on others' wider screens. ScratchMarshall (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletions from lede

You had deleted considerable content from the Scott Pruitt article's lede, but didn't move any of the text or citations to the article. Were you going to do that? Also, Inhofe told Laura Ingraham that Pruitt should probably resign, but after meeting with him, he reversed himself. Inhofe is Pruitt's long time friend, ally and mentor. The issue of the Rose Bowl tickets acquired via lobbyists, does not yet appear on the article's laundry list of controversies. I deleted Curbelo's photo from the article, and some of the remaining photos might be deleted as well, I thought. Activist (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I assumed they were in the article. Feel free to restore. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll take care of it later today. Activist (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018--Personal attacks

You attacked Patapsco913 when you wrote "Your reading comprehension is atrocious to say the least."

You used the same insult with me here: "you need to work on your reading comprehension"

It is important to comment on content--not your fellow editors WP:NPA. Especially at articles under DS where incivility is an actionable offense. – Lionel^(talk) 07:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

California Proposition 187

I have no horse in the race, I just noticed it when you mentioned it on MelanieN's page so I thought I would add the link you mentioned there as well. I do not plan on continuing at the prop 187 article though. I did not end up participating in the NPOVN discuss before and to be honest doubt I would if you reposted it. But I would certainly be interested to see the outcome. Do you think things have changed enough to warrant a new RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You beat me to it!

Cheers soibangla (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Kudlow&diff=848119349&oldid=847236222

Steve King

Hey. I just wanted to let you know that my edit to Steve King was unintentional. I was trying to fix a ref problem where a cite web had a 1 instead of a | following it. I think what happened was that I was editing a previous version when I made that edit so way more got changed than I meant for it to. I'm sorry for the mistake, I wasn't trying to be deceptive, it was my error. Thanks for the swift revert. I am beyond embarrassed. Alexander Levian (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Liberty University, you may be blocked from editing. You know better than to add such personal, POV commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump

Did you notice that you restored a version that actually does not consistently keep similar content together and, in my opinion, makes it harder to follow the chain of events? Richard 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Your recent editing history at Casualties of the Iraq War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

NBER papers

Hi, you're doing a great job adding all these relevant NBER working papers, but may I suggest that you add their DOI instead of URL? Just to make the external links more "future proof." --bender235 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will definitely do it. Argh, I can't believe I never thought of it before. I usually add DOIs for journal articles, but never thought to do it for NBER papers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert

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 edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

I'm notifying all editors involved in the discussion at Talk:Liberty University. –dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Korny O'Near

Korny O'Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after being warned about edit warring here,[8] is now edit warring on a new page.[9][10][11][12]

He is also engaging in the same WP:IDHT behavior on the talk page. Talk:Franchesca Ramsey#Deleting background information, again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)