User talk:Casey92

Welcome!

Hello, Casey92, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Kendrick7^talk 12:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Louay M. Safi page

You must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Material poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.

You inserted the following quotation from a blogger with the name of Robert Spencer:

"The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands"? The rest of that passage...and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." That's from "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America, the Islamic Society of North America is a arm of The Muslim Brotherhood.[14]"

You should provide the context of the statement and explain who the blogger was. This situation has been corrected, and a link is now provided to the Muslim Brotherhood. The blogger statement of the Muslim Brotherhood belongs in the page designated for this subject and must be disputed there.

I've already corrected this situation, but if you still have an issuue with the change, please discuss it with me and post your suggested changes on the "Discussion" page. BiogEd (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Moms Demand Action. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. GabrielF (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 January

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 1991 Washington Redskins season 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) 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP violation at Rashida Tlaib

As I'm unfamiliar with the source, I've asked at WP:RSN#Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib? about it. However, it's clearly WP:UNDUE as I can only find WND (which we would never use for much at all) and another minor website repeating it, sourcing it to Bigleaguepolitics.com. I haven't reverted you but I think you should remove it until there's consensus. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and relating to living or recently deceased people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm JimKaatFan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Stephanie Rawlings-Blake have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your edit history, it appears that a high percentage of your edits involve adding negative information to the articles of African Americans. I hope this is just a coincidence, and not part of some sort of agenda on your part. JimKaatFan (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the high percentage of my edits being changed, it appears that my "fair and balance" edits are being interpreted as an "agenda to add negative information to articles of African Americans" I pray this is just a coincidence, and not part of some sort of concerted effort to silence an alternative fact.^[1]

Since you started with a FoxNews slogan proclaiming your edits to be "fair and balance" [sic], it's difficult to take the rest of that claim at face value. JimKaatFan (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternative fact" - that's some serious Nineteen Eighty-Four Doublespeak right there. JimKaatFan (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying in this last statement. In any case, adding this edit indicates a strong POV that is not in line with Wikipedia standards. I assure you that any such POV edits you make in the future will be promptly reverted. Please read WP:NPOV for information on what is expected of Wikipedia editors. Thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casey92&action=edit&section=7

June 2020 (again)

I removed your contribution to Thomas Aquinas College's "notable alumni" section, as the person you added does not appear to be notable. In general, anyone added to such lists should be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them. But you've been editing since 2007, so you probably already know that. JimKaatFan (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Alicia Garza, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm Shibbolethink. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Anthony Fauci, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kenosha unrest shooting. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please drop the pointy editing. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 California Proposition 1. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Only the No campaign argues that Proposition 1 will legalize late-term abortion, which is already mentioned in the lead. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 16:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Trone. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chris Cuomo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casey92&action=edit&section=7

[1]