User talk:SunCrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not notable enough?[edit]

WP:N means that the subject is sufficiently notable to be on any stand-alone list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, SunCrow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. 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 to List of evangelical Christians seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sun Crow: I was very impressed with the Women's Commission report adding the appointment by Andrew Cuomo of Lt. Governor (Kathy Hochul, already on the site) to lead the 100th Women's Anniversary Commission on his wikipedia accomplishments, and the removal of entries on housing and the environment (2017 and 2018 State of the State Addresses). Of course, I was concerned about the original author of the wikipedia on issues and scandals, especially for a Governor who could then be our US President in 2020! In addition, Kathy Hochul (wonderful videos online, historic in their own right) is directly involved with "the opposition" (e.g., Republican sheriffs and county executives) and "non-profit service delivery" in which it's a political football on the opiod epidemic "in my home town and county". ````Julie Ann Racino ```` 2018

January 2018[edit]

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Carly Simon. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cut the bologna, Binksternet. SunCrow (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You posted wrong, controversial information about a living person, misrepresenting a source which did not support your text. That shit'll get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Not a word of that is true, Binksternet. Cut it out. SunCrow (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kim Davis#Major cuts to the lead[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kim Davis#Major cuts to the lead. - MrX 🖋 20:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Family Research Council[edit]

"That did not "resolve" anything"

Even if one accepts that, it means you don't add it, genius. --Calton | Talk 07:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

But to refresh your memory: Talk:Family_Research_Council#Restoring_NPOV_to_the_article --Calton | Talk 07:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the discussion you referenced on the talk page did not address the clause in the lede that I tagged as POV. So you're mistaken. Second of all, I don't believe that consensus is needed on the talk page before an inline tag can be inserted. I didn't even change any content. Third of all, drop the attitude or don't post on my talk page again. SunCrow (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is the mechanism for all decisions on English Wikipedia. Also note the usage notes for the tag that you place in the lead:
  • The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
  • The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame.
  • This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant.
  • Do not add this to a page more than a reasonable number of times, instead use one of the other templates mentioned below instead.
- MrX 🖋 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding spurious tags to articles[edit]

Hi Sun Crow Would you please stop TAGBOMBING Family Research Council? There are already discussions on the talk page and you have failed to get consensus for your contention that POV needs to be restored to the article. Tagging is not a consolation prize for being on the losing end of a content dispute. Also, edit warring when several editors have reverted your tagging is disruptive and can result in you being blocked. Please discuss any new concerns you have about the article content on the talk page and respect consensus when it is evident. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 11:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a total of three (3) inline tags to a fairly lengthy article. Another editor removed a clause that I had tagged, which would indicate that the tag had merit. This leaves a total of two (2) inline tags that I am seeking to insert. That isn't tagbombing. I also wouldn't characterize the situation as being on "the losing end of a content dispute," because to the best of my recollection, the two sentences I am currently attempting to tag weren't addressed in any depth on the talk page. So I'm not sure what the "consensus" is that you want me to "respect." Finally, if there is a consensus that involves keeping blatantly POV language in an article simply because it matches the POV of most of the editors, that doesn't work. I can't respect a consensus that isn't respectable. If you want to try to have me blocked, that's up to you. But I think you're overreacting. The article is still flawed, but it is significantly improved from where it was when I started working on it. SunCrow (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Tags are for bringing editors to the talk page. We're there now but you're not. You have not given an substantiation to why you believe the sentence is problematic. Tags are not for warning readers. If you have a policy-based argument about the sentence, please make it in the talk page. Also, you seem to assume that your opinion that the material is POV matters more than other editor's opinions. It doesn't.- MrX 🖋 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Just responded on the talk page. I never said or assumed that my opinion mattered more or less than anyone else's. However, I am not going to allow you or anyone else to pressure me into backing off, either. SunCrow (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

I closed the thread you opened at WP:ANI. See here. If you fail to heed this warning, you risk being blocked by any administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process.SunCrow (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi SunCrow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I’m inviting you to join other people who edit conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can ask questions and meet new colleagues. You'll also discover DYK: the easiest and funnest way to get your article on the Main Page. I hope to see you there! – Lionel(talk) 07:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the invitation, Lionel. I have just joined Wikiproject Conservatism. SunCrow (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Edmund Burke2 c.jpg

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism!

We are a friendly and fun group of editors dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:


If you have any questions Just ask and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!
- – Lionel(talk) 10:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Lionel(talk) 10:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff June 2018[edit]

The Right Stuff
June 2018
FROM THE EDITOR
The Right Stuff Returns

By Lionelt

Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism Watch (Discuss this story)

ARBITRATION REPORT
Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

By Lionelt

After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.

Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)
IN THE MEDIA
Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

By Lionelt

Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)

DISCUSSION REPORT
Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

By Lionelt

Liberty is one of the largest Christian universities in the world and the largest private non-profit university in the United States. Described as a "bastion of the Christian right" in American politics, the university plays a prominent role in Republican politics. President Donald J. Trump gave his first college commencement speech as sitting president at Liberty University.
President Donald Trump Speaks at Liberty University Commencement Ceremony
There are several open discussions at the Project:
Recently closed discussions include Anti-abortion movements which was not renamed, and an RFC at Trump–Russia dossier. (Discuss this story)

Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: July 2018[edit]

The Right Stuff
July 2018
DISCUSSION REPORT
WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

By Lionelt

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism Watch (Discuss this story)

ARTICLES REPORT
Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

By Lionelt

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)
RECENT RESEARCH
Research About AN/I

By Lionelt

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:

  • 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
  • "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
  • "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.

(Discuss this story)

Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doug Hoffman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McHugh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Noerdlinger[edit]

A section of text was removed because it violated NPOV and OR. Quis separabit? 01:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ages of consent in the United States "age of consent for marriage" citation[edit]

In Ages of consent in the United States, for the following statement:

Each U.S. state has its own general age of consent. As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States is either 16 years of age, 17 years of age, or 18 years of age. The most common age of consent is 16.

you provide the following citation:

"State-by-State Marriage "Age of Consent" Laws". FindLaw.com. Retrieved 2018-08-01.

On the referenced page, the table provided is described as

a state-by-state summary of the "age of consent" for marriage

This is not relevant, since this article is about age of consent for sexual activity, not the age of conset for marriage.

Please save me the trouble and self-revert this change. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I apologize for the oversight. I have made the appropriate edits. SunCrow (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not new[edit]

Regarding this, it's happening here, as well. It's not new behavior from that particular editor and has been ongoing for months. No one who can do anything about it seems to want to do anything about it even though it's been brought to the attention of several admins numerous times. -- ψλ 04:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, -- ψλ. Thanks for the heads-up. SunCrow (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I will be more than happy not to post anything on your talk page, provided that you don't post anything about me on your talk page and that you stop making false and ridiculous POV accusations against me. I am not going to put up with any of it, and I will respond each time you do it. You have been editing on Wikipedia for a long time and are well aware of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPT. From the way that you treat me and other editors, it is clear that you don't think those rules apply to you, but they do. SunCrow (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
From WP:TE:
One who "bans" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page
Some editors routinely tell other editors that they disagree with to "Stay off my talk page." The editors who do this tend to have long lists of folks that have been "banned." Talk pages are the fundamental medium used for editors to interact. Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others.
SunCrow (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis 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 any 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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, why did you post this notice on my talk page? SunCrow (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
You’ve recently made edits surrounding controversial BLP subjects. This is just informing you that there are special rules in the area, nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for clarifying. SunCrow (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS[edit]

You were involved in John Faso, where content about political attack ads was being added. I've removed the content for now as tit-for-tat editing around campaign ads inevitably runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This type of largely unencyclopedic content addition is sadly becoming routine as elections near. Marquardtika (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, Marquardtika. Thanks for letting me know.SunCrow (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Hi - I created the article ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team, which you nominated for AfD. I would have liked to have been notified that an article I created had been nominated for deletion and would ask that you do this in the future with articles you nominate (assuming the editor is still active). I actually agreed with your assessment and voted with you on this nomination. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, Rikster2. Sorry about that. I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't sure how to figure out who created a given Wikipedia page... SunCrow (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Just go to the oldest edit in the page history. It’s all good. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team into another page. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. Additionally, it is premature to be making replica copies when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team is outstanding. Regards.Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. SunCrow (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Regarding the AfD, WP:REDACT should be followed when you modify your own comments after someone has responded. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

September 2018/ October 2018[edit]

I fixed the dubious numbers under the nys 2014 gubernatorial election results and removed the dubious tags. I don't know if I should ask you to double check them since the talk page has your post about the tags. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for doing that, Dairyfarmer777. I appreciate you letting me know as well. I'll be happy to take a look, but am not sure if my review will be helpful. If memory serves, my problem was that I couldn't crunch the +/- figures vis-a-vis the previous election because the numbers on the Wikipedia page for the previous election looked off as well. SunCrow (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I responded to you on the talk page. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Doug Wardlow[edit]

Hey thanks for your help on the Doug Wardlow page! Koncurrentkat (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, Koncurrentkat. And thanks for your good work on that page as well. SunCrow (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination[edit]

Split-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, SunCrow. 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)

NYS 2018 Gubernatorial Election Page[edit]

I noticed this page is inconsistent with the previous years pages. Its missing the swings column and the numbers and percentages are reflecting total voter rather than total votes cast. The page is using a different election box code which swings can not be added. What would you suggest? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe put something on the talk page about it? SunCrow (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg 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.
Please engage on the talk page with Snooganssnoogans regarding this issue. I will be warning them next. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have just engaged on the talk page, but in my (extensive) experience with Snooganssnoogans, it is a complete waste of time to do so because there is no willingness to work toward consensus. SunCrow (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair, I wish you good luck then. Thanks for engaging at any rate. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend[edit]

Hello there, Mr. Crow. Have you tangled with this snoogans guy? I have recently acquanted myself with this character and have noticed that his edits are often riddled with mistakes and blatant violations of WP:NPOV. Snoogans obviously wants to impart his political opinion on Wikipedia, creating bad faith edits and spreading misinformation around the website. Just recently, he edited in some WP:NPOV-violating content into [[Paul Ryan]. Look at the page history, and you won't miss it. Here to talk, KidAd (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey man. Thanks for your concern about the integrity of the encyclopedia. While I don't like to think of anyone as an enemy, I have been at loggerheads with him many times, and you can see that from my user contributions. I've confronted him about his editing on multiple occasions with no results. It's a problem. I haven't had the time to solicit outside involvement, which is clearly needed with him. SunCrow (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding soliciting outside involvement, see Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
By outside involvement, I meant involvement from someone outside the dispute via one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. (I thought the context made that clear, but maybe not.) I did not mean meatpuppetry, which is something I have never done. But who are you, Ian.thomson? And why are you monitoring and commenting on my talk page conversations? It's weird. And slightly Orwellian. SunCrow (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
You are aware that almost all actions on this site (except WP:REVDELed or WP:Oversighted material) are public record, right? This isn't your house, this is a public space.
I came across KidAd at his topic ban appeal, where he demonstrated that not only was the ban necessary but that his actions needed to be monitored (as he was edit warring in the area of his topic ban while the appeal was clearly not succeeding). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that Wikipedia is public, and that my talk page isn't my house. For you to pop up out of nowhere on my talk page and start dropping policy reminders into conversations I'm having with other users isn't against any rule that I know of. It's just strange. SunCrow (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

polite admonition[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm AndInFirstPlace. I noticed that you recently removed content 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. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

AndInFirstPlace, I had no idea what you were referring to, so I searched my history and found that you had reverted an edit I made to the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries page regarding Andrew Yang. Contrary to your comment, I did explain the reasons I removed the content, both in my edit summary and in three separate entries on the talk page. In the future, please do not make false accusations against me or other users. SunCrow (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand your anxiety and shame about being called out, but I hope that you can try to use this moment as a learning opportunity. Rather than feeling anger towards those you have harmed, think instead about how you can do better in the future and hold yourself accountable for the damage you cause. We are all here to help you become a better editor and person, and there are a lot of great resources on here like WP: Teahouse that can help you avoid situations like this one in the future. No matter how far you travel down the wrong road, you can always turn back! --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. You are spot on, AndInFirstPlace. I am actually sitting here on the floor in my apartment, paralyzed with anxiety and shame because of your comments. But in spite of these deep feelings of woe, I appreciate your desire to help me become a better person. LOL. #DidYouReallySayThat #WikipediaIsNotATherapyGroup #AreYouOK SunCrow (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Seniority[edit]

So, what, we can't add information to a page that was obtained by doing math? I tried to find where someone tallied up the combined seniority of outgoing House members, but I couldn't, so I did it myself. If someone does count it all up and puts it in, say, a Washington Post article, what makes their math better than mine? I assume if I'd cited such an article, you wouldn't have removed it. ShorinBJ (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ShorinBJ, I do not know what you are talking about. Please explain. SunCrow (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am speaking of your edit on 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. I took a long time counting up the combined seniority of the Republican and Democratic members of the House whose terms just ended, and you summarily removed it. ShorinBJ (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
ShorinBJ, thank you for the explanation. It appears that you are referencing the edit I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections&diff=878617899&oldid=878617764. With respect, it appears to me that the material you want included may violate WP:OR. I also question whether it is significant enough to include in the article. If you believe I am in error, please feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Strong support for this user, after reviewing the particulars of this situation! --AndInFirstPlace 01:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talkcontribs)

I have no clue what the user is talking about, AndInFirstPlace, so I am a bit surprised that you were able to figure it out. #ThingsThatMakeMeGoHmmm SunCrow (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
AndInFirstPlace 1. Please sign your edits with 4 tildes ("~"). 2. Stalking other edits/conversations of a user you have a dispute with is hounding and is strongly discouraged, and may get you blocked. Do not edit on SunCrows's conversations just to try to get revenge. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It wasnt for revenge; I just saw this and had thoughts. AndInFirstPlace 02:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair, just letting you know. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Captain Eek, for attempting to re-establish some shred of normalcy on my talk page. It was starting to feel like bizarro night on here. Or the beginning of a really bad horror movie. #TheCallIsComingFromInsideTheHouse SunCrow (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You are traveling through another dimension[edit]

Twilight Zone Optical.svg Welcome to The Twilight Zone
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call SunCrow's Talk Page. Levivich? ! 15:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Levivich. I needed the chuckle. :) SunCrow (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Been a couple weeks since we beat this dead horse[edit]

I'm thinking of proposing this (yet another) revision to see if it will make everyone happy. What do you think of it: fine/not fine? Changes? Several Republican campaign advertisements were criticized for hypocritically expressing support for provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted to repeal, while others were described by various media outlets as having engaged in racist fear-mongering on immigration and crime. Note addition of "hypocritically", "racist", and removal of scare quotes around fear-mongering (which is a commonly-used word, right? and some editors might oppose b/c they think the scare quotes are diminishing). The reason I bring this up now is that the prior RfC on that page has now expired, so a new one could be started (though I'm not sure if it's worth it really, but at least it's an option, and we have A/B language to propose). Levivich 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Levivich. Thanks for your note. What do you think about these suggested changes to your proposed sentence?
Several Republican campaign advertisements were criticized for supporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act that most Republicans had recently voted to repeal, while others were described by media outlets as having engaged in fear-mongering on immigration and crime. SunCrow (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the first clause should do it to sum up the third paragraph. The purpose of the second clause being to sum up the second paragraph, I think editors will bay if there isn't a word in there that starts with the letters r, a, and c, and that will become the singular, unproductive focus of any discussion. To sum up the second paragraph now: 1st sentence: "...race." 2nd sentence: "...racially tinged..." 3rd sentence: "...nakedly racial terms..." 4th sentence: "...dark-skinned foreigners." (What do you mean, "undue"?) How about:
...while others were described by media outlets as evoking racial fears on immigration and crime. Levivich 03:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, works for me. SunCrow (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

CMR and JHB[edit]

Hello.

First, thank you for your edits to Jaime Herrera Beutler. That article has been in need of a serious copy edit for a long time. It is never good when an article is written largely by one author and I am not so arrogant to think I am an exception.

Second, given your areas of interest and recent edits to that article, I was wondering if you might chime in on a discussion here regarding JHB and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. It is an extremely long discussion but essentially another author and I disagree over what ought to be included in the lead of both articles. Any chance you could chime in? Thank you. PrairieKid (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PrairieKid. Thank you for your kind words and for soliciting my input on the lead sections of these two articles.
So, here is my input, for whatever it is worth. First, I would recommend that you create two RfCs--one on the Cathy McMorris Rodgers talk page (already done) and another on the Jaime Herrera Beutler talk page. I do not believe it is a good idea to ask for input about the Jaime Herrera Beutler article on the Cathy McMorris Rodgers talk page. (Does that make sense?) Second, MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that lead sections of articles of fewer than 15,000 characters be one or two paragraphs long; that lead sections of articles of 15,000–30,000 characters be two or three paragraphs long; and that lead sections of articles of more than 30,000 characters be three or four paragraphs long. The Jaime Herrera Beutler is (narrowly) in the first category, so I would suggest keeping the lead to one or two paragraphs. Third, per MOS:LEAD, a lead section "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". On that basis, I would generally recommend that lead sections of shorter articles omit biographical information like high schools attended, early career experiences, &c. Others might see the matter differently. Finally, it seems to me that the now-current version of the Jaime Herrera Beutler lead (which I just tweaked a bit; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaime_Herrera_Beutler&diff=883893820&oldid=883849680) could stand to be beefed up with an additional sentence or two, while the current version of the Cathy McMorris Rodgers lead (which I also tweaked a bit; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers&diff=883894514&oldid=883894304) is about right in terms of length.
Hope that helps. One other thing: It looks to me like you are now entitled to a Yeoman Editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards#Yeoman_Editor_.28or_Grognard_Extraordinaire.29) service badge. :) SunCrow (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits at Republican Party (United States)[edit]

Can you please tell me that:

(1) you understand the difference between "climate change" and "human-caused climate change"? (2) you understand that Bill Clinton was impeached by the House?

If there is something unclear, please ask questions on the talk page. You've now repeatedly edit-warred long-standing content out of the article, even though it has been repeatedly explained to you how "climate change" and "human-caused climate change" are not the same things, and how the House impeached Clinton. And even though this content is sourced to RS. At this point, this is frankly bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I have responded to your bologna concerning Gingrich on the talk page of the article in question. Your other question does not deserve a reply. SunCrow (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I love your editing.[edit]

I came here to thank you for this and have just looked at your contributions history. Thank you for all the work you do here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Anthonyhcole. It is kind of you to say so; I appreciate it. I do my best. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia as well.
I see from your user page that you experience a lot of physical pain. That must be very difficult. Hope you are doing well. SunCrow (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, SunCrow. Pretty good at the moment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

Thanks for adding references to A Long December and removing unsourced claims, etc. Can you please add more details than just bare links? Thanks either way. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ethel Kennedy[edit]

Hi @SunCrow: I removed that blp sources tag as you were updating fairly heavyily and I noticed the reference count went up from 34 to 44, with a good spread and figured it would be only a matter of time before each statement was references. Good work. Cheers. scope_creepTalk 13:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

scope_creep, thanks for explaining. SunCrow (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...[edit]

In this edit you removed material I added with a laconic "remove minutae".

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?

Did you read the article in question yourself? It mentions Bronfman by name three times. So, no, it is not primarily about her. But that article does show she continues to be part of the ongoing legal battle. Which I think means it is worth using in her article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I responded to you on the article talk page. I didn't honestly see the issue as controversial or complex. I do have a tendency to make bold edits. Please don't take that personally. SunCrow (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange priorities[edit]

You add the important fact "he was an avid hunter" (Scalia), but remove "introduced legislation to eliminate the inheritance tax" (McConnell) as 'unneeded'? Rather blunt. Shenme (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hunh? SunCrow (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human Life Protection Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For choosing to edit in contentious articles, to ensure they are neutral and not devolve into heavily biased non-neutral content, I hereby present to you this barnstar. Keep up your valiant efforts. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your very kind words, RightCowLeftCoast. It was nice and thoughtful of you to post that. I've never received a barnstar before! I appreciate it. :) SunCrow (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; 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. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SunCrow reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: ). Thank you. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 19:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)