User talk:Thenightaway

Talkback Steve_King

Hello, Thenightaway. You have new messages at Talk:Steve_King#Request_for_discussion_-_King's_response_to_controversy_and_edit_reversion.
Message added 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LoveIsGrue (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

December 2018

Your recent editing history at Secure Fence Act of 2006 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.

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Candace Owens 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.
Just to ensure you know you're on the edge. Please don't revert again. Lourdes 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop

I appears as if you are stalking my edits, reverting just because I have made the edit. If you disagree with edits, please take your concerns to the talk page rather than revert. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You are accusing me of "stalking" you and spuriously reverting you just because I reverted your removal of reliably sourced content on a page that I had edited considerably (and long before you first touched it)? A page that you yourself stalked me to on August 12 (less than 24 hrs from my previous edit on the page) during one of the harassment episodes[1] which later led to your block? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And I've told you before: stay away from my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been editing that page and pages related to Pirro for a while now. I haven't stalked you in the past or even now. But somehow, when I edit an article you do, you invariable revert what I've just edited. Frequently within minutes afterward. It's been going on since this spring. That does look and feel like stalking and hounding to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking are a serious matter both for the accuser and the accused. If you have supporting evidence you should take your concerns to the appropriate user conduct noticeboard where they can be acted upon. Spurious accusations of stalking constitute (at best) incivility and (at worst) harassment, so be sure that you are on solid ground. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

You are edit warring and POV pushing at Jeanine Pirro. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Stay away from my talk page. I've repeatedly told you this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Billy Long

You have undone my Billy Long Agriculture Section many times on the account of using primary sources. Aren't primary sources generally considered good? As they cannot be faulty do to (in this case) being the exact words of the person in question from him, and not a third party that could have distorted him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelchMan (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the WP:PRIMARY source content that you keep adding is that it fails to give appropriate context and it fails to meet WP:DUE. Simply use secondary reliable sources (such as news reporting). A secondary reliable source might for example note that Billy Long's own assertions about being pro-agriculture or whatever fly in the face of a record of anti-agriculture actions. That's why it's unacceptable to use politicians' own statements or those of lobby groups, unless they are substantiated and contextualized by secondary reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Snooganssnoogans. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Your recent editing history at Paul Ryan 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. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop-and-frisk in New York City

Snooganssnoogans, just wanted to drop by and say "hi" as I intend to edit Stop-and-frisk in New York City over the next month or two and see that you're editing there too. Hopefully we can improve the page (it is currently a class C page) and get it up to WP:GOOD standards. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01, you may be interested in reading this[2] and adding the research that it reviews on S&F to the article. I haven't had time to read it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans, thanks for the reply. I just left a note on talk stop-and-frisk nyc suggesting we give more historical context to the story. I agree with you that, since we are working on an encyclopedia, both sides of the story should be told. So, I think there should be more than enough room to both outline the goals and successes of proactive policing as well as the controversy that resulted in New York City. Anyway, I'm planning on working on this over two months, so we can have more discussions later. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martha McSally. 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.
I have warned SunCrow about this as well. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Diamond and Silk

The other party seems determined to win another e/w block. I've removed some of what they were arguing about though, as it's based on primary sources and is, frankly not particularly relevant to their notability. I also assume some kind of conflict of interest. ——SerialNumber54129 18:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Safe Distance

Hello there. I would like to request that you keep a safe distance from me effective immediately. It is not your job to police me, especially given the fact that you ought to have people watching over you and your bad faith edit practices. Stay away, and have a nice day. ~~ KidAd

Coordinating with other editors to go after me as you did here[3] is not acceptable behavior. It is WP:HARASSMENT. Furthermore, asking other editors to revert a specific edit of mine on a post-1932 US politics article (as you appeared to do) seems to be a violation of your topic ban (in spirit, at least). I will write these warnings on my talk page. Just don't pretend that you haven't been warned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your statement above--like many other statements you have made on Wikipedia--is misleading. Contrary to what you said, KidAd did not "coordinate with other editors to go after you." In fact, he did not ask me to take any action toward you at all. His use of the term "enemy" was unfortunate, but--contrary to what you said--I do not believe his comments violated WP:HARASSMENT. What KidAd in fact did is express (understandable) concern and frustration with your editing behavior. The "warning" you gave him blows my mind. Given the litany of warnings and disputes that appears on your talk page, and given the experience I've had in dealing with you over a period of months (dismissiveness, snark, twisting of the truth, unwillingness to look at your own glaring POV issues, and insistence on getting your own way when disputes arise), I don't believe you are in any position to warn other editors about supposed conduct failures. You say that you find KidAd's behavior "not acceptable." Do you care whether your behavior is acceptable? If so, I can't tell from your user page, where you have posted a list of negative comments other editors have made about you; it appears that find those comments funny, or see them as a strange badge of honor. If you want other editors to care about your warnings, your opinions, or anything else, you might want to begin by extending the same concern and courtesy to them. It would be a welcome change from your usual modus operandi. SunCrow (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KidAd (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sourcing

I'm hoping you can clarify what the need for secondary sourcing is. If a person gives an interview to a news or opinion source, why wouldn't that be admissible before some other outlet talks about it? I believe I've seen an individual's tweets used as sources on other articles; I just don't see how an interview differs from that in any meaningful way. Qehath (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We use secondary sourcing to ensure WP:DUE weight and to ensure WP:NPOV. Editors randomly picking moments and positions from primary sources can give a misleading depiction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

McConnell again

I'm very annoyed that tag is still on the page, especially considering my own attempts to add content that one could consider objective, i.e. what he's done in office rather than how he's been assessed. Regardless, I do think you and I share a commonality in wanting to contribute to that page. I'm just tired of my stuff getting reverted by people that never add anything, as you might be as well. Maybe we could collaborate. - Informant16 11 December 2018

Frank LaRose December 2018

I would like an explanation from you regarding why SmartVote and Cleveland.com are not reliable Secondary Sources. A legislator's voting record is public and therefore reasonable information to include on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreytFolly (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is a reliable secondary source. VoteSmart is a collection of all votes, and therefore fails to meet WP:DUE. If you want to add LaRose's position on various issues, a good way to go about it is to look at say Cleveland.com's coverage of him and include the positions that Cleveland.com covers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me your definition of reliable secondary sources varies depending on which edit/reversion you are attempting to defend. On "secondary sourcing" above, you claim that "Editors randomly picking moments and positions from primary sources can give a misleading depiction" while under Billy Long, you say: "The problem with the WP:PRIMARY source content that you keep adding is that it fails to give appropriate context and it fails to meet WP:DUE." These appear to be contradictory explanations.

If Cleveland.com is a reliable source (as you indicate), then your reversion of my edit was inappropriate, and frankly, annoying, But yet according to your response quoted above, Cleveland.com wouldn't be because it could give a "misleading depiction". Yet SmartVote simply compiles a legislator's voting record with comment. It is not a primary source (that would the actual voter record), thereby making it a secondary source. Either Votesmart is neutral, which is supposed to be the point of WP:DUE or it is biased, which I see no evidence of. Either way, I still see no convincing argument for why my edits were reverted. GreytFolly (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your use of the Cleveland.com source was inappropriate because the source did not mention LaRose. That makes it WP:OR, which is a no-no. And no, there are many reasons why primary sources are inappropriate, and the ones I've mentioned are not contradictory. Furthermore, it's not my task to explain to you how WP:DUE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR etc work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don’t bite the newcomer

I am a longtime reader of Wikipedia and am very familiar with its policies for years, but I am not an editor (except for minor tweaks as an anonymous editor). I created an account because I believe this discussion on BLP for Steve King affects the credibility of Wikipedia, but I am also assuming good faith when you are discussing this. Please do the same with me. Also, unrelated, I might be a bit slow in my replies but I will keep an eye on what you have to say. Cheers. JLaw220 (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hans von Spakovsky

Hi. Why are you having a problem with my adding to the page of Hans von Spakovsky? The page mentions Georgia voter ID was thrown out by a District Court judge. I added that the Circuit Court reinstated it in 2009 and that the Georgia Supreme Court gave final approval in 2011. I provided a link to a article about both elements. Why remove the addition and leave people thinking the Georgia voter ID law does not exist. My addition is appropriate in light of the claim that the law was thrown out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excalibur26 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

counterfactual edit about Seth rich allegations

Hi. Unless you can prove who killed Seth Rich - in which case you should immediately contact the DC PD - you don’t get to claim that allegations that in large part are highly unspecific are “discredited.” We can agree that the allegations in question are highly controversial, not widely held, especially in polite society, but absent proof of what happened, they’re not “discredited.” Please desist. Alterrabe (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You can take that up with the numerous reliable sources that have described the conspiracy theories as false and unfounded. Here at Wikipedia we have strict rules about how we treat fringe theories. R2 (bleep) 16:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Miller

I have discussed multiple issues I have with the miller article on its talk page; let's discussMagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Disagreement

I notice you have reverted an edit multiple times. Obviously you take an issue with my objective edits, so do you care to discuss what the issue was? Nuerotoxic2213 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

I am not saying that his hosting white racists has no place in the article, but not under career. perhaps under white genocide conspiracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiohdi (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Zinke

You appear to be edit warring and are up against WP:3RR. Take it to the talk page like you suggested. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As the powers that be have taken their time to warn me, I am passing on to you the fact that it was WP:1RR on this article. I was unaware of the restriction at the time. Now you are unquestionably aware. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Following up, as it was I who mistakenly told 7&6=thirteen that the article was under 1RR. The 1RR sanction was added after the edit war was over. ~Awilley (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

We are all now at least on the same page and new rules. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Zinke, Trump presidency, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Harding presidency

User:Snooganssnoogans Do not refactor my comments on my talk page. You know better. Please stay off my talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Improving Brian Kemp Page

I'd like to add more balanced criticism for Brian Kemp to improve neutrality on his page after adding a lot of negative info, but saw you reverted my change with praise from Donald Trump. It seemed to be because I took it from a video transcript (though I did cite it). Since you have more experience as an editor, could you explain why transcripts aren't allowed? Just want to get better :) Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betatype (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Beto O'Rourke Drug Policy

Hi I've attempted to remove the editor's overly political language that is unrelated to the biography of Beto O Rourke. The current source does not imply that Cruz's comments were false, it just quoted Beto's claim to be confused of marijuana's classification of a narcotic. The El Paso resolution cited by Beto himself lists "narcotic(s)" which leaves doubt on what drugs it could have included. I will re-edit with a better source and still maintain a neutral view of the controversy. Please scroll to bottom of page labeled "REGULAR AGENDA – OTHER BUSINESS" to see the resolution in question. http://legacy.elpasotexas.gov/muni_clerk/city_council_legacy.asp?agenda=01-13-09&addition=true Youronlyhope (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)youronlyhope

Warning

Your recent editing history at Pete Hegseth 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:C100:E5BF:867:9941:1E:5BCC (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I deleted some of your recent edits because they were not good. --Onlyheretovandelize (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Onlyheretovandelize

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R2 (bleep) 01:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Immigration

I just want to be clear I am not stating that immigration is bad. I just felt that the fourteenth citation on the "immigration" page of Wikipedia did not accurately reflect the sentence it was claiming to be a citation for. If you could read the abstract of the article I am referring to and see if you agree with me I would appreciate it.

If you feel I am wrong than please explain. Thank you. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Constitutional hardball

The article Constitutional hardball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDICT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi, Snoog. We've always been rather oppositional. I wonder if you would like to work together on something? I'm interested in this page that someone just translated from French on "Citizens' initiative referendum (RIC)". It's a "crazy" idea that's been floated in Presidential / Napoleonic / Kingly France in an effort to give the ordinary citizen (and not corporate people) more of a say in matters of legislation and representation. If you're not interested, no problem, but this is meant as a friendly offer, because I think it's something you could potentially find interesting. Best, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not report you, but I noticed that someone else just did, and forgot to warn you. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

This is to inform you that I am in the process of submitting a complaint to the above-linked page regarding your chronic NPOV issues.--Rajulbat (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC).

Deletion discussion about Constitutional hardball

Hello, Snooganssnoogans,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TheLongTone and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Constitutional hardball should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional hardball .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I am one of "Wikipedia's Jew editors" too

Snoo, this is appalling. You aren't supposed to espouse a particular political or not NPOV, regardless of what you think is inherently wrong or right. I am a proudly Jewish woman. I am disgusted by the biased page content on Peter Navarro's BLP. This has got to stop. I am going to bring this up at ANI if you don't let up on the stranglehold you have on that page. It is written as a hit piece. I mean it. All that crap has got to go. Shorten the article, fine. But stop saying that everyone in creation says that Navarro is wrong, crazy, and a lunatic. The article could be shortened dramatically. That's fine. The bias pushing is ridiculous. I don't care if you bring me up before the Arbitration powers of Wikipedia. Get me blocked. Whatever. I am sick and tired of you defaming a Harvard PhD economist. I am a graduate of Swarthmore College, Stanford University, the Wharton School, and have been a banker and financial economist for years. And I am an XX chromosome and fully Ashkenazi Jewish, both sides. You are giving us a bad reputation. Enough already!--FeralOink (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay this is epic

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jabba_the_Hutt&oldid=878896745 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.151.70 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

OMG, that is hilarious and awful. It has been cleaned up, thankfully!--FeralOink (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-American activism"

Inserting "known for anti-American activism" into a BLP without a source, as you did here, isn't acceptable, and had you done that as part of an edit that wasn't a revert, would probably be sufficient grounds for a sanction by itself. I have removed that sentence; please go find a source first if you wish to reinsert it. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That was an accident. As you may know, it can be hard to track every single piece of text that's added or dropped from an article when IP numbers are doing mass-changes to an article. One IP number had edit-warred one particular mass-change multiple times over the course of days, and so when the IP number again mass-removed content, I simply glanced at the change and when it appeared to be the same change, I reverted again. Had I spotted the BLP-violating content that another IP number squeezed in, I would certainly have deleted the BLP-violating content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, but it's a contentious article and a BLP, so please do be more careful. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Howdy. I was hoping you could expand on your thoughts on your reversion of my edit on Cathy McMorris Rodgers. The relevant discussion is at this link. I hope we can have a civil and well-thought out discourse. I think my edits fall in line with the precedent of nearly every other well-written BLP but I am open to critique. Please provide some on the discussion page. Cheers! PrairieKid (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andri Fannar Baldursson

The article Andri Fannar Baldursson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Brexit

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 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 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.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Violation of enforced BRD on Tulsi Gabbard

I would like to give you a chance to revert your edits of your own accord to comply with the very clear TP notice on the Tulsi Gabbard BLP concerning enforced BRD. As it is you have clearly violated that principle as you've begun reinstating your edits without discussion on the TP (I even opened the section for you to make it easier for you...) The last version prior to your violation was this one. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my edit summary as a suggestion that you could make the changes without first discussing them on the TP. You can fix that by self-reverting and discussing. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for following the rules regarding the self-revert. You have not discussed any of the edits you wish to make except those I've specifically mentioned. You do not have consensus for any of the reverted edits at this point, except the ones that I rewrote the wikitext for you (without deleting articles as you had). Since you are continuing to make false accusations, I'm going to leave the talk page and let you try to convince people to help you on your own. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and won't interfere if you get consensus for reasonable edits. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: (1) You removed every single edit I made to the Tulsi Gabbard page and have refused, with a few exceptions, to explain what the problem with those edits were. (2) You want me to start a dozen or so talk page threads where I explain every single edit, and where I have to get consensus for every single edit. (3) You yourself now refuse to participate on the talk page or explain your reverts, yet you're gonna hover over the page, presumably revert every edit without explaining yourself and threaten sanctions unless I allow you to play veto player on the page. Is that about right? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, could you chip in on whether it's OK to hold a page hostage like this? This seems to completely violate the spirit of Wikipedia rules, and be an example of the abusive behavior common in American politics editing that you've tried to get rid off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, that is definitely not how things are supposed to work.

Editor A: Makes a bunch of changes to the article in a single edit

Editor B: Reverts the edit "Please make these changes in separate edits"

Editor A: Makes the changes in separate edits, as requested

Editor B: "Please self-revert as you have violated BRD"

Editor A: Self-reverts

Editor B: "Please discuss every individual change you'd like to make on the talk page before restoring anything

Editor A: *head explodes*

At this point the 24 hour requirement is obviously fulfilled because time has passed, and I would view the discussion requirement as fulfilled because both editors are making an effort to discuss things on the talk page. So I would suggest that you should be free to reinstate the edits one at a time, as requested, of course taking into account the specific objections on the talk page and the intermediate edits made by SashiRolls, and starting with things that are likely to have consensus. That will allow SashiRolls to specifically revert the changes they disagree with instead of doing it wholesale, and should help to focus the talk page discussion on the actual points of disagreement. ~Awilley (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello friendly admin @Awilley:. I believe you have mischaracterized what happened. Let me rewrite this according to my PoV:

Editor A: Makes a bunch of changes to the article in a single edit

Editor B: Reverts the edit with the ES: "Please make these changes in separate edits". Opens discussion on talk page.

Editor A: Ignores the TP discussion. Makes the changes in separate edits, despite objections appearing on TP}}.

Editor B: "Please self-revert as you have violated BRD; I'm sorry if I misled you into thinking you could restore the same giant edit bit by bit without discussion leading to consensus."

Editor A: Self-reverts because they clearly violated BRD; having still not discussed.

Editor B: makes careful, economical edits to do what Editor 1 wanted, but without deleting material; responds to Editor A despite their aggressive tone and accusations.}}

Editor A: continues making aggressive comments on TP.

Editor B: "Please discuss any edits you wish to restore that you have not discussed on the talk page. I have no desire to get involved in a fight with you. Work with others to get consensus.

Editor A: *head explodes* because they actually have to seek consensus and discuss, as suggested by the D in BRD, but realize that nobody wants to talk to them on the TP because of their aggressivity. Then realizes they just have to whistle for an admin, because they are considered "of the body" of extremely right-thinking editors.

That's how I see it. BTW, Awilley, would you take a look at their accusations here and tell me what you think about their collegiality? (This is the very definition of "casting aspersions" immediately after you warned them about it, of course. But I asked you about this on meta while I couldn't reply and you didn't ask them to retract, despite the crystal clear violation. Maybe you don't read your meta talk page.

You should probably also check out their latest edit to TG's page. They obviously did not follow your advice. Having a day job that keeps me busy, I'm probably just going to stay away from the toxicity, I think and hope other people will find the patience to deal with them. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

— SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)