User talk:Thenightaway

personal ~

I just added a note in Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen in the '8 April 2019: Restore family separations' to lede section ~ I tried to revert what i said about you being political ~my bad ): and User:Escape Orbit put it back (Undid revision 891892846 by Mitchellhobbs (talk) don't blank conversations) I just wanted others to know that I apologized to you. that's why I added the note in the '8 April 2019: Restore family separations to lede' section ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

McGovern

Why did you undo my changes to McGovern article? These were good changes that made the article clearer - regardless of the positions one might hold about him. I think whether or not somebody likes him, the wiki article should make it clear what his opinions are. Instead of expressing one's own opinions on the matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.115.200 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to WikiLeaks. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Correlation does not imply causation. This repeated WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:STONEWALL, and WP:BIAS is horrific. Once more, correlation does not imply causation. Aviartm (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Stop removing stuff on Kamala Harris' page merely because you do not agree with it. Removal of objectively true facts comes off as partisan. My edit was neutral as I presented both sides and made it clear she did not "lie". See WP:NPOV. I cited the matter from multiple sources, so it was clearly noteworthy and made sure the clarification from both her and the Breakfast Club podcast were mentioned because almost everywhere else ignores. Capriaf

Your edit introduced two faux controversies. The content does not belong on her Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, the marijuana and Snoop Dogg was not a controversy, nor was it false. It was miscommunication between the two parties and I was making it clear that was the case because other sites leave out that part. I worded it in a similar fashion to the matter regarding her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin. Now let it be in there as it complies with WP:NPOV and you're WP:CHERRYPICKING. Capriaf.

84percent

The "Stalking" section was removed from this user's talk page. I don't know if that's improper or not. I had also commented there. I'm sure they'll stalk me over here too. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello, I'm Victor Schmidt. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Wall Street Journal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. And please also note that Edit warring is not permitted Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The content is sourced in the body of the article[1] and is entirely consistent with WP:LEDE (citations are not necessary in the lede when they are in the body). Please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia before aiding IP vandals in their edit-warring of long-standing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL ~ I like the beginner part the best ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Vocabulary

Skeptic: a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Denier: a person who denies something. Being skeptical of anthropogenic global warming doesn't mean one denies climate change. No charge for the education. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• By embarrassment, do you mean that your misrepresentation is being pointed out? I can see why that would embarrass you. That wasn't my intent though. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions

Your wholesale reversions are pretty terrible. While your edit summary applies to some of the content, it does not apply to all 8 revisions. When someone makes it easy for you to undo particular edits, you might was well utilize it. Killiondude (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Second time. Killiondude (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to solely remove the bad parts, but I could not do it individually except to leave the first edit in. I cannot spend 15 minutes manually maneuvering through a huge edit. The other editor (who knows very well that a large chunk of that series of edits would be contested - it's been subject to talk page discussions) can restore the non-disputed parts himself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Required ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiLeaks RfC

Hi Snoogans, I wrote a draft of a new Version A from the Seth Rich content RfC. I tried to remove redundancies and the claimed copyright violations while maintaining the same meaning. I don't know if this is helpful but I hope so.

WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich which were spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets. On August 9, 2016, Julian Assange seemed to have insinuated that Rich was the source of leaked DNC emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. Wikileaks further fueled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.

It does make a big change by changing "hinted" to the qualified "seemed to insinuate/hint/suggest". I haven't read all the sources to know which choice is best. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2019 (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. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 12:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplicating passages on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

I think it's better to have unique passages in each, to avoid repetition. El_C 23:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Political Position Sections

In this diff you added information to Jim Jordan's "Political Positions" section - I'm having a hard time understanding what his position is on the Pharmaceutical Industry based on that information. I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be in the article, but perhaps in a different section or heading. This is somewhat of a follow-up to our discussion on the Dan Crenshaw page, in that some of the things you're putting in Political Positions sections don't always seem clear to me about why they should be there. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:GPS Hospitality

Good morning Snooganssnoogans Hope you had your coffee,

I sent this draft for review, If you are the reviewer please let me know what I have to do to improve in order to be accepted, also there is a section in Burger King franchises (at the bottom) and GPS Hospitality for ref of why I started this article ~ thanks ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

"War hawk, my ass". While I generally share your sentiment, Please attenuate your commentary. Assume Good faith and all that. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Jihad Watch

Your politically correct edits of Jihad Watch do not have neutrality and are out of the wiki line. -Yohananw (talk)

Instead of revert wars, UNDO, let's report your pc no pov work to wiki -Yohananw (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls case request

This is a courtesy notice that the case request for SashiRolls has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For more information on why the case was declined, please see the link above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Greetings Snoogans! With this edit[2], you re-instated new content[3] that I had just reverted.[4] Please self-revert pending talk page discussion. — JFG ^talk 16:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Body Worn Video

Hello Snoogans, I reacted on your revision of changes I made. You make a good point, but I believe mine is even better. :-) I don't know if you get an automated message of that or not, but I would appreciate a reply on that page. Once that's done, I'll take this message off your User talk page. Thanks and have a good day! Sanderflight (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Solved the issues you noted, thanks for your help. I'll delete our debate from the talk page on Body Worn Video.Sanderflight (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you should delete talk page discussions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm Bneu2013. I noticed that you recently removed content from Illegal immigration to the United States and crime without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. the studies you removed are about incarcerated aliens, not all illegal aliens. Nothing about them says that all illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes, just that incarcerated aliens were more likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. You appear to be trying to slant the article toward a certain point of view, yet refuse to discuss on talk page. Please stop removing what you are referring to as "anecdotes about sanctuary cities"; the fact that sanctuary cities are controversial is well established by these sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated deletions at John F. Solomon

I've started a talk page discussion section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_F._Solomon#Repeated_deletion_of_balancing_information_on_Uranium_One_story Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated reverts/changes at Joseph diGenova

LOL! Oh the irony! Can we have a look at your revert history of this page?! You, and a few others that keep changing this page content to your desired opinions, would make great democrats... you don't practice what you preach!RLove79 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Republican Party

I noticed you recently reverted my edit to the Republican Party and didn't revert my edits to the Democratic Party. Could you please elaborate on why you did this? Interstellarity (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

If you’re going to add references to articles, can you please us descriptive titles? Names like “:0” and “:02” are not helpful and are difficult to find. Just copying the article title as the reference name normally suffices. Toa Nidhiki05 16:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Going to repeat this in case you didn’t notice - please stop using numbers for reference names. It’s not helpful. Just copy the article title into the reference name so it can be easier for people to find for additional citations in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rejected change

hiya

Perhaps count to 10 and think about others' contributions before revert them. Occasionally you might learn something.

thanks

2RR

Hey, I am very happy to see you working with other editors and using consensus to resolve disagreements, I think it's great. I also like the way you have been improving the brexit article with good solid content and sources. One item of note is your reversion of another editor twice today. As a rule of thumb, I always avoid doing more than one revert of another editors edits within a 24 hour period. I note you have reverted another editor twice today. Just some friendly advice, you may want to avoid multiple reverts. Most of these articles dealing with politics have a 1RR restriction, not sure about the brexit article, but it's a good idea to avoid multiple reverts. Keep up the good work.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A rare event

I'm glad we agree on something! -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

reporting you for trying voice your opinions and forcing content not related to the subject

see in the page's talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cornstein

Required notification

There is currently a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have requested enforcement regarding your violation of the 1RR rule in effect for the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article. You have made three partial reverts within a 24-hour period. SunCrow (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RS/N

You asked "Can I please get confirmation from this noticeboard that Fox News is not considered a reliable source on the subject of climate change?" I think that question should be submitted to a formal and carefully worded RfC. The AOC piece is so glaringly false that I'm convinced we need to downgrade Fox as source, at least for climate change.- MrX 🖋 17:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you do it. You know the rules around here better than me. Make sure to use the academic sources that I cited in the recent RS discussion (the RS that showed glaring errors by Fox's 'straight news' division and malicious intent by Fox's managing editor) and perhaps complement it with sources cited in the 'climate change' sub-section of the Fox News article (in particular, Climate Feedback explicitly saying that Fox News is unreliable on this issue - it doesn't any clearer than that). I'd also make clear to note that you're not talking about the opinion shows or editorials by Fox (otherwise the discussion will descend into a discussion about Sean Hannity). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional content that may be relevant:

• Curtis Brainard, the managing editor of Scientific American, noting in 2011 that all of the mainstream media had long since upgraded its coverage of climate change to no longer present a false balance between scientists and deniers EXCEPT FOX NEWS: "Almost all the US newspapers now report the science straight; they just don’t cover it prominently or enough. There are some opinion pages like in the Journal that display scepticism but you don’t see the same issues with climate sceptics quoted in news stories that you did six years ago. The exception is Fox News which is absolutely terrible and has a large reach." Page 39 of Poles Apart: The international reporting of climate scepticism[5] by James Painter. Published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, but I would just ask the question in a neutral way. The academic sources would be appropriate for an actual vote/comment. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFNAME

Per WP:REFNAME:

Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":1".

You generally edit in political articles that have dozens and dozens of sources. Please use more descriptive refnames. It’s literally as simple as just using the cited article’s name for the refname. Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Extreme bias

All changes were made based on cited news articles and this is not a campaign account. Changes to previously cited material were made due to the bias and slant of the source material. Reinstate immediately. Chase Simpson (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

About Robin Vos

Hi, Snoogans! I took a look at the article Robin Vos because you had asked for protection. I didn't install protection, BTW. Semi-protection wouldn't have done any good anyhow, because the editors you are disagreeing with are mostly auto-confirmed, and the problem wasn't so bad that it deserved extended confirmed protection. I see Malcolm, at RfP, reached the same conclusion. But while I was at the article I noticed the personal section had some slightly lurid stuff in it, so I checked the cited reference to see if the source really said that. Not only the source didn't say that, it didn't mention ANY of the info in the personal section. All along people have been saying "you can't delete that, it's sourced"; turns out it isn't. So I deleted the entire section. Feel free to restore whatever you can source. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro

You have already made 3 reverts on Ben Shapiro, and your next one may be considered a violation of 3RR. Also, the preferred method on WP is BRD, so I suggest that you discuss your controversial insertion rather than revert again.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ro Khanna

Hey there, the other user has been blocked 24 hours, but the blocking admin did not revert their last edit. I don't want to open the door to any boomerangs on myself, so if you feel it is appropriate to re-remove those same sources that they were so steadfastedly deadset on adding, it should be safe to do so without any reverts for awhile (unless they make any new alts). Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Stalking

Stop systemically going through my edits and reverting them. It's WP:HARASSMENT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Relevant reading for you:

...the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.

Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.

Dy3o2 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, he accused you too? That’s an unfortunate pattern. He’s “warned” me twice. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit

You and I have exchanged edits to this article, with some exchange of views in edit summaries. I see your edits as being not WP:NPOV, and you probably see mine the same way. My POV in this is strongly in favor of WP:DUE, which I see as being flouted here in favor of what I see as your political POV. You would probably disagree. I think that the 1973 award from Accuracy in Media should probably be mentioned, you would probably disagree. This is discussed in several places on Talk:The Gateway Pundit, and I don't want to reopen those discussions here, or there. I'm also not presently motivated to spend any more time on this than I have. Perhaps this concern will be revisited by others; perhaps I will revisit it, though I have no present intention of doing so. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sheryl Atkinson and Rasmussen Reports

Hey, did you notice these articles? [6] [7] and especially [8]. I think you've been involved in both wikipedia articles. Any comment for The Signpost. (email me or posit on my talk page please). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, I think I may have been involved in making changes that both SA and RR oppose. IIRC, I removed promotional rubbish on the RR page (e.g. "we're the best pollster" stuff). IIRC, I beefed up the SA page with her anti-vaxx reporting and started talk page discussions about how we should describe SA's anti-vaxx reporting. I stand by my edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Just to be clear, I'm reporting on the existence of these doppelgänger Wiki-articles on the internet (to a certain extent, I think they are positive, or at least better than edit wars on-Wiki). A 5-8 word quote (from above) from you might give a bit of interesting background. OK with you? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to quote me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please revert

I clearly said at the Trump positions article that I was beginning to work on the climate section and continuing to work on it and yet right in the middle of my editing you jumped in and reversed my work in progress. The section is all jumbled going from the present, previous to his run, during his run, and back again. It needed to be sorted out which takes some time to untangle the information. I can see jumping in and reversing something I wrote if it was something disparaging to a BLP or I were a drive-by that didn't seem to know what I was talking about, but I happen to be by far the leading editor of the Trump environmental article and one would expect that I must know how to make a few edits. I believe that you should revert yourself and wait till I'm done with my edits. Try to remember that we must all make an effort to support and get along with our fellow editors rather than piss them off needlessly. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The way you left the article inaccurately suggested he believed in climate change until 2016 but has since rejected it. That's just not accurate, and such content shouldn't be left in articles any longer than it has to. You can use a sandbox or make one enormous edit to avoid this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I had not "left the article" as I had clearly said in my edit summary. I returned in about eight minutes to continue with organizing the information and you had already deleted my first edit, deleting everything I had done. If you know for a fact that he did not believe in climate change prior to 2009 you should add that to the article but till then the article should reflect that he apparently made an abrupt change in thinking when he ran for office, similar to several other issues such abortion; positions he took to fit into what he believed matched what a certain segment of society wanted. This is not the first time you have stepped in and reverted me while I was making a series of changes that I had clearly made known in my edit summary. I'm surprised you'd suggest just making huge changes to an article all in one edit. Most editors don't like that and I don't either. I like to enjoy my work here and fortunately most editors are much easier to work with than you. Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I must admit

I must admit, Snooganssnoogans, that I initially doubted your ability to edit political articles, given your editing patterns, but I am beginning to think that I was wrong. I exaggerated what I perceived to be your partisan politics.

We may have our own differences in our editing, where you seem more likely to revert statements that are POV against liberalism and I tend to revert POV against right libertarianism, but unlike what your opponents think, I think I can trust you to edit Wikipedia, particularly when it is not political or it is but it's about extremism. I can certainly trust you to edit Mccarthyism, The Gateway Pundit (one of the edits for which I thanked you), and InfoWars, of course as long as you (and everyone else) steer clear of questionable sources.

If there is one thing I would like to suggest, I would like to advise you (as I would with anyone else) to consider situations where your reverters are potentially right, not that I think you are not doing that. I say it because everyone who edits in good faith thinks that their edits are for the better, so it is tempting to stay closed-minded in the event that their edits are reverted.

I, for one, must admit that my use of perceivably on Wall Street Journal was inappropriate, as it could be taken as meaning "obvious" and purportedly does not necessarily mean "not so". I would like to point out that it is dubious for a publication to refer to an economic policy as being "superior" to another, as superior has multiple meanings (e.g. Are Trump's policies more efficient? Are they less "evil"? Are they "more economically friendly"? Or are they "just better"?), and it is almost as if we were debating what beauty is. Probably best to quote what WSJ called Trumponomics and not treat it as if we know what they mean by it, right? Not that I think that the "purportedly" statement is wrong. (For the record, by my definition of superior, when it comes to preventing government from potentially becoming corrupt and taxing us to selfishly and personally make money and not redistribute it as promised, I would personally say that capitalism is the best of the worst. I do not like any economic system out there.) Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 02:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Mark Levin

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm entirely within my right to revert newly added content per WP:BRD. You on the other hand have brazenly violated WP:BRD by repeatedly adding new content to the article which has been challenged and which does not have consensus. I have taken to the talk page to argue my case whereas you've just restored your version without explanation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I merely restored information that was long in the article which you removed. And, information which other editors restored, too, before you removed their attempts to restore, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate things here: (1) long-standing content in the lede, (2) newly added content to the body. When I'm referring to your edit-warring, I'm referring to #2. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for your response

I am waiting for a response to the discussion you started at Talk:Nancy Pelosi. I have pinged you twice and you are continuing to ignore me. You have accused me of "edit-warring" and excluding "the reason for why Pelosi accused the President of a cover-up", as well as removing a source in an edit summary. None of the allegations are true. Please strike your comments as accusations that lack evidence are Wikipedia:PERSONALATTACKs. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Talkback Tim Pool

Hello, Thenightaway. You have new messages at Talk:Tim Pool#No Go Zones.
Message added 11:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

14.202.2.167 (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

~ cheers ~ nice to see you again ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Talkback Tim Pool (second request)

Hello, Thenightaway. You have new messages at Talk:Tim Pool#No Go Zones.
Message added 06:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

194.223.38.162 (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting that you respond to the section I made in the talk page as you previously reverted my edits without responding in talk.

June 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ben Shapiro; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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 and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please also be wary of WP:Ownership and WP:Coatrack, which is falling afoul of WP:Undue, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Loksmythe (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hofeller

Your addition to the biography of Hofeller use subjective opinionated articles to draw conclusions that are not proven.Andradejf 20:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)andradejf

Abby Martin

All my changes did were move existing blocks of text from the article. 9/11 Truth beliefs are not Career. If you wish to fix this error, be my guest. PLawrence99cx (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ocasio-Cortez

It is not up to you to decide what is or isn't a reliable news source. Fox News is considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable news source. You had no valid reason to revert my edit; please re-instate the language.JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Congestion pricing sources

Your undo for the reason "misrepresentation of the literature" is wrong. The literature cited specifies exactly what I added to the article. Check the talk page and check the sources. Despite initial improvement, the same levels of congestion returned and continued increasing. This is particularly apparent in Stockholm where, despite reduction of 30% in traffic or so, congestion has not decreased, and the yearly congestion index never returned to the levels that were during the first year of the congestion charge. If you feel this is a "misrepresentation" please specify what is misrepresented. כורכום (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You just almost broke the 3RR and you're templating me? Ha. כורכום (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In particular, you chose to stop participating in a discussion, and now you revert the discussed changes. כורכום (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2019 (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. Thank you. כורכום (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Honestly dealing with those socks at Center for Immigration Studies for two years does deserve an award. Toa Nidhiki05 14:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 You beat me to also giving it. Great work, and I would re-iterate that editors like yourself that spend time in these situations, should think about what other tools/rules would help you here (e.g. I don't think the project can expect editors to put themselves in "harms way" like that for so long)? Anyway, really well done. Britishfinance (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Mark Levin

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

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

__DCflyer (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Multiple edit wars with multiple editors on this article. See xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Snooganssnoogans/0/Mark%20Levin and Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

__DCflyer (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

If you haven’t seen already, Attkisson and her goons have specifically attacked you on Twitter. Toa Nidhiki05 12:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

They think it's weird to start editing at 10AM and keep editing for 14 hours? Clearly they haven't met anyone with a real case of wikipediholism yet! All you need is some good black coffee. --Pudeo (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ocasio-Cortez

There was nothing false about either of my 2 recent edits. 1) Pastor Rodriguez did state that the conditions he observed at the detention facilities visited by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez were different than what was portrayed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and the media. 2) The Democratic Socialists of America's own material states that elimination of capitalism is a goal of the organization. Did you even read the cited references?-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)