User talk:Thenightaway

Welcome

Hello, Snooganssnoogans, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Lklundin (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Immigration crime in Italy

Thanks for your edits: I find them reasonable. Please tell me, what does this mean, in plain language:

"legal status... explains one-half to two-thirds of the observed differences in crime rates between legal and illegal immigrants"

I do not understand it. Zezen (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a gap in crime rate between legal and illegal immigrants. The authors show that much of the additional offending (one-half to two-thirds of the gap) that illegal immigrants do can be explained by the fact that they don't have legal status. The post-EU enlargement experiment shows that simply giving a group legal status reduces the crime rate.

You could draw an analogy from epidemiology. You have group A and B. Group A suffers from higher rates of illness X. Researchers then find that the differences in illness rates is because group A lives in a high-pollution area. Pollution explains one-half to two-thirds of the observed differences in illness X between group A and B. Had group A lived in group B's area, the illness rate would much lower. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, noob!

Don't start an edit war with me. Not everyone thinks Morsi's impeachment was a "coup." Stop reverting my edits, man! Zakawer (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the definition of a coup from the political science literature and finding support in coup datasets collected by political scientists, Egypt 2013 is uncontroversially a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans, your edits seem biased. Please discuss on talk page first.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You should check the edits he's made on other pages where he's pushing his POV and notify senior editors (?) or the admins of it. He's compromising a bunch of wiki articles. I don't know how to fix all those edits and prevent future similar edits. Thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with Zakawer started, please see Talk:List_of_coups_d'état_and_coup_attempts_by_country#Delete_the_Egypt_section. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Stats in football players' infoboxes

Hi, when you update the stats in football players' infoboxes please remember that you should also update the |pcupdate= (or |club-update=) parameter. This shows when the stats were last updated and prevents editors from accidentally updating the stats again. Thank you. --Jaellee (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Immigration page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cod Wars into Iceland in the Cold War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I wasn't aware of the attribution rule for using Wikipedia content on other Wikipedia articles Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Caution

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 article's 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. Please be more cautious at the Political positions of Donald Trump article. You have already broken the three-revert-rule at that article.

• 1:18 on May 22[1]
• 0:05 on May 22[2]
• 22:54 on May 21[3]
• 22:01 on May 21[4]
• 17:37 on May 21[5]

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the caution. I wasn't aware it was a rule. I'll be more cautious from now on. Every edit was well-justified (and the page is highly active, which explains the number of reversals) but this is something I'll have to keep in mind. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm going to try and spend some more time at this article, and look forward to editing with you some more. Since you weren't familiar with the 3rr rule, I want to also mention WP:NPOV. While you may personally think Trump is a no-good lying sonofabitch, and I may think he's a smart and qualified leader, the object of editing is to just be neutral and not try to slant things for him or against him. Maybe you already knew that, but I thought it was worth mentioning just in case. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

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 article's 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.CFredkin (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Just as the editor above argues, you might get blocked if you engage in edit wars. Also, please refrain from engaging in edit wars. Zakawer (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Vidreisn

It looks like you might be Icelandic. If so, I would like your input to a naming discussion regarding Vidreisn, now moved to Reconstruction (Iceland). I think it should have stayed under Vidreisn until there was an official English name.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike Pence image

This edit shows that you tried to make some changes to the image in the Earmarks section. You got the [[]] out of balance and you can see the results here. Unfortunately, it was not clear what you were trying to do at that time. I suspect you wanted to shorten the caption. I restored the original image and its caption.

I don't have a strong opinion on it but believe we don't need that image in the article as it's not related to any of the text in the area. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember having edited anything related to earmarks or a picture. I had no intention to edit it if I did. You're free to fix my edits related to the picture. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Foreign Policy Journal

Hello there! I noticed your recent edit removing the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal from List of international relations journals. I stumbled upon the article while sifting through lists of orphaned articles. You will not be surprised to hear that I have no background in international relations. Since it sounds like you do have more experience in this area, if you think the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal is not notable enough to have its own article, perhaps you might consider nominating it for deletion. Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit COMPLETELY?

can't deal with other opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

still no answer190.24.78.19 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Has this edit appropriately addressed your objections?

I supplied the citation you requested, restoring the original text and the addition you requested to the Tim Canova article, as follows. Does this meet your standards, or if not can you suggest an edit which would?

After Wikileaks released hacked Democratic National Committee emails that confirmed that some DNC staffers had conspired against the Bernie Sanders campaign, Representative Wasserman Schultz tendered her resignation as the head of the DNC, effective as of the close of the nomination convention in Philadelphia. Canova has asserted that he found his own name in about 70 emails in the WikiLeaks-DNC database. He claimed that DNC staff appeared to be acting in a partisan way to promote Wasserman Schultz’s own reelection effort and that she may have violated campaign finance laws.

Thanks. Activist (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, though with the exception that we should add a link to the end of every sentence. There is no harm in it, and my experience is that this page will get shuffled in the future (as editors add content or rewrite existing content), which makes it much more convenient to each sentence sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change the period after "database" to a comma. Activist (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Kaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heartbeat International (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Your use of peer-reviewed articles on social science and economics has greatly improved a number of important articles, and your continued work on the public-policy positions of U.S. politicians has been extremely useful. In recognition of all your hard work, I would like to present you with this barnstar. With great thanks --Neutralitytalk 18:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein

SteveStrummer has been reported for edit-warring. I'm watching. 184.101.247.49 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have to commend you for adding the polling data, putting that 7% in better perspective. I did correct the spelling in your edit, however. I'm not sure how to address you: Would it be by your first name, "Snoogans," (or would that be too familiar?), or your last, "snoogans?" (I'm also assuming you're not East Asian, with the convention there being "family name, given name," of course.) 06:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Snoogans works. I also go by Snooch or Snooch to the nooch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4TAL58-tKE Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. There are comments for you on the page, again. You are probably aware that consequent to your decision to ask for a full-page protect, I have asked for you to be banned from the thread. I mean no harm in doing so, I believe there is a consensus developing that the neutrality of the page is problematic, and I've done the research to see that you are the most active reverter of neutralizing content. Today's example of the gorilla that you insist on keeping is just symptomatic. I'm sorry, but I have felt the need to take a stand against what's happening on this page. Couldn't you just let others "defend" the page in your stead? SashiRolls (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The administrator who reviewed your full-protect request suggested filing a case here. Since this seems to be the endgame you are playing for anyway, I have gone forward with the complaint for the sake of what I perceive to be the wikipedia community and the current consensus on the page.SashiRolls (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A new version of the complaint has been added. SashiRolls (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hillary truthful in interview

Snoogans, hypothetically would you support adding the following to the email controversy section in Hillary's bio:

In an interview with Fox News in late July, Clinton stated “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.” PolitiFact awarded Clinton four "Pinocchios", its worst rating, for her statement saying "While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public."[6][7][8][9]

Would you consider it appropriate to add both Clinton's statement and the interpretation? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: your recent post on Talk:Donald Trump

I don't like to mention sanctions, or indeed to mention users, on article talk, but I thought you might like to know that I have topic banned the user in question for ignoring the discretionary sanctions in force for the article. I think perhaps he doesn't understand them; but that's too bad, since his reverts tend to make it impossible for other people (who do abide by the sanctions) to revert him. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC).

Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Baraka

Please refrain from editing the summary of Mr. Baraka's article. Careful reading of the paragraph (and the article) makes it clear that the "weasel words" you don't like in the original article (i.e. by the author) have their place in the description of the article.

Best wishes to you and thanks for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place, by encouraging honest editing.

SashiRolls (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC) In June 2014, Baraka pointed out contradictions in the traditional narrative that the West was going after Bashar al-Assad's regime because it was a brutal dictatorship, saying that this notion was "carefully cultivated by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media."[11]

The article as it was written originally made no sense at all. Any chance of recuperating what he's getting at needs to be the result of a fairly precise transcription and cannot rely on gross approximations that are not textually warranted. (There are other clearer citations, but I did not wish to delete a citation.) SashiRolls (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you added a reference to a Telesur article to highlight something presumably negative about Mr. Baraka and then complained when positive elements in the same article were used? Your claim that Telesur "is not a reliable secondary source. it's the Venezuelan state propaganda network." would seem to only hold for positive statements, but when you can cut 3 words out of a much longer sentence, it's ok?

Again, I appreciate your efforts, but let's try to remain balanced and not complain about an editor using the same article you did, huh?SashiRolls (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The "uncle tom" statement was once on the article but sourced a facebook post and was consequently removed. While Telesur is bad, they don't invent quotes from nothing, so it is sufficient for that. Most of Baraka's writings and coverage are on poor sources, so his wikipedia page will unfortunately have to rely on them until reliable secondary sources (such as Politico) start to cover him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty concerning your bias. That you would consider a recently graduated free-lance journalist a more reputable source than the various foundations that have honored him seems strange to me, and I would ask you to reflect on this. Surely you would consider the UN Secretary General a reputable source, right? "In 1998, Baraka was honored by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as one of 300 human rights defenders from around the world who were brought together at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." SashiRolls (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a reliable secondary source about Baraka getting invited by Annan, sure include it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's already cited (reference number 3). I have decided that the wikipedian who called for deleting the op-ed article from Politico ("What If the Green Party Stopped Being Kooky and Started Getting Real?") is correct. If you wish to add it back, please do so only in a new section related to post-nomination op-eds. I have also deleted the sentence from Telesur I added to provide balance, since without the "fringe views" attack it is unnecessary. Let's let people make their own decisions and remain humble concerning someone whose achievements are clearly greater than our own (or at least my own). The only remaining reference to Telesur is the one you yourself introduced. You may do what you wish with that (but I gather you would prefer that it remain). Before making any reverts concerning the introductory paragraph in writings, please seek consensus on the talk page. Thanks! SashiRolls (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

About Jill Stein

Hello, You just erased what I had written, saying it was "elsewhere", could you tell me where is this "elsewhere", please! Thanks in advance. Claudi/Capsot (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It is in section paragraph of the 'Foreign policy' subsection. Note that I only erased the content that was already covered. For the content that was not covered, I added it to that section with a slight re-write.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen this before! Take care and have a great Sunday! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, since you mentioned that you haven't spent much time looking at policies, my suggestion for one to prioritize reading would be the policy on achieving consensus through discussion. (Some of the things listed there you already do quite well, such as appealing to common sense and suggesting alternatives.) Scrolling down that page a bit, it lists all the different avenues you can follow when a good faith attempt to persuade an editor you consider problematic does not result in progress toward consensus. Those links will direct you to instructions for requesting page protection properly, but that is just one option among many. Scrolling down further you will find commentary on what defines "consensus" and how that might change over time. Some of your comments along the lines of "this issue has already been discussed and resolved so it can't be changed" strike me as in tension with this commentary, but you may disagree (and I may be misunderstanding your comments without fully understanding the context and history of the page). 71.13.175.226 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll give that a read. I've never experienced constant disruptive editing from an editor before, so I've never had to cite rules. Common sense and a mutual acceptance of what's reasonable tends to be enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Snooganssnoogans. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jill Stein.The discussion is about the topic Jill Stein. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.175.226 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

npa

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 174.19.243.30 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Warnings

Hello. I just wanted to leave a few warnings here concerning your behavior on the Jill Stein page.

First, a warning for your repeated personal attacks on the talk page.

Hello, I'm SashiRolls. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Next, a warning for your regular non-neutral edits on the same page (example given with your partial citation concerning NATO and partial citations concerning Ajamu Baraka. Contrary to the warning, I would appreciate that you yourself provide the full citations. [10]

Hello, I'm SashiRolls. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Finally, the most serious warning, is for your deliberate reintroduction of an article containing factual errors, after admitting the source was erroneous on the talk page your talk then your edit

Hello, I'm SashiRolls. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hoping these reminders will encourage you to adopt a more helpful collaborative demeanor. SashiRolls (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that another user has already warned you, and seeing that you have just attacked twice more...

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SashiRolls (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you 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. If you have questions, please contact me.

- MrX 13:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Template:Z33 - MrX 13:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm largely unfamiliar with applying the rules of Wikipedia. Could you put in place discretionary sanctions for the Jill Stein page? It's become almost impossible to edit the page because of one editor's disruptive editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's a template I can put on the talk page. As I mentioned to SashiRolls, the key to successfully editing political biographies of living people is to be very careful about adhering to our policies, use impeccable sources, seek consensus for major changes, and work collaboratively with everyone, including people with different ideological viewpoints. Best wishes. - MrX 14:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)