User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

About Robin Vos

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

Ben Shapiro

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

Ro Khanna

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

Stalking

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

Relevant reading for you:

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

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

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

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

The Gateway Pundit

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

Sheryl Atkinson and Rasmussen Reports

Hey, did you notice these articles? [1] [2] and especially [3]. I think you've been involved in both wikipedia articles. Any comment for The Signpost. (email me or posit on my talk page please). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I must admit

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring on Mark Levin

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

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

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

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

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

Please revert

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

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

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

Still waiting for your response

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

Talkback Tim Pool

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

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

A beer for you!

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

Talkback Tim Pool (second request)

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

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

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

June 2019

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

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

Hofeller

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

April 2019

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

April 2019

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

The content is sourced in the body of the article[4] and is entirely consistent with WP:LEDE (citations are not necessary in the lede when they are in the body). Please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia before aiding IP vandals in their edit-warring of long-standing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Abby Martin

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Mark Levin

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

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

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

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

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

Congestion pricing sources

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

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

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. כורכום (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

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

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

Ocasio-Cortez

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

If you can't read (which the comment above clearly illustrates), you should stay away from Wikipedia and stop adding your confused smears to articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Pot - meet kettle."-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Snyder

Follow the hyperlinks:

https://www.geni.com/people/Dr-George-Washington-Snyder-USA/6000000048250056857

It's as good as any source, and Snyder is a Dutch name. I do not doubt this source. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Where does this say he's related to Rick Snyder? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Click through the names. Dr. George Washington Snyder was the father of George W. Snyder, who was the father of Dale F. Snyder, who is the father of Richard Dale "Rick" Snyder. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We are conflicting each other edit

We are conflicting each other edit because this UserRamcdaniel1, but it seems to me that we are both on the same wavelength regarding edits we make. I think, if you take your time and look to mine input there, that you would somehow restore UserRamcdaniel1 removals with preserving my own. I guess. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

While you are away or busy, note that I am going to restore your revert + my own input (I just re-arranged and added refs that confirm your revert in the first place), so that you don't push me into edit-conflict again - OK.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

I see you have been removing validated and sourced sections of articles simply because you disagree with them (specifically in the Immigration and crime page). I also see you have a long history of this behavior. Please keep your biases under control, and try to promote an intellectually honest wikipedia that is inclusive of all views that are objectively substantiated with evidence. It should be noted that evidence counter to the (again sourced) claims made on the page were left untouched to provide a fair argument from both sides on what is an ongoing and still hotly debated issue. Please consult the not censored policy. Thank you. WolfHook (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Ocasio-Cortez

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

Your constant slipping-in such personal opinions against Trump and so on during various Talk Page discusions shows your bias - just because some of the editorial shows at Fox support or give the Conservative POV is no reason to think Fox is not a Reliable Source. Agree with John's remarks. 50.111.27.90 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

William Barr

Hi, Snoogans. I want to invite you to return to the discussion on the talk page for William Barr. Another editor has posted support for including the entire Mueller quote in the article. If you are uninterested in continuing to discuss your objection, then I will assume that the edit can proceed forward. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained why it's WP:UNDUE. You need to get a consensus or start a RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have no intention to discuss the matter further, then I will take your objection as abandoned. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion from Empirical research to Snooganssnoogans on the Article Freedom House

What you suggested above (Sarah Sunn Bush-The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Ratings) is just a Anecdotal evidence/Self-report full of Individual Testimonials. If you read your source, we cannot find any academic method or effect size etc. Please see the following figure and you can find it just corresponds to weakest evidence undermost: editorials/opinions.

File:Hierarchies of evidence.jpg

Evidence-level pyramid representing the reliability of research method-level

That’s why I made a comment on that by using clarify and I added 3 meta-analyses which are highest evidences in Academia after reviewing all the published meta-analyses which can be approached from the readily accessible. But I can’t find anything meaningful evaluation on that, rather than it I found evidences to the contrary, so I just interpreted as it is following academical principle. But I can’t find any reason for randomly removing my corresponding contribution on the very wikipedia article. You said my contribution arbitrarily as gibberish, but I cannot find any academical reason for removing it. It was just for me to contribute to Wikipedia, but I had to undo your apparent repetitive vandalisms unnecessarily against the revision. Unless you can give any better evidences in academia than what I’ve suggested, I think you have no proper right to obstruct my precious right to contribute Wikipedia article. If you have such evidences, please just share the information in Wikipedia. But as best as I can secure, I cannot find any meaningful effect sizes in them. I doubt whether why on earth you have revert even your source I even clarified by making the immediate source be linked. Please give any proper reason for your vandalism.

Request for clarification

In your edit summary here, you said that you were reinstating long-standing text based on RS. Neither source says that the person was arrested for fraud and perjury. Did you read the sources for that long-standing text (which you added on 12 February 2017)? Please do not revert again to text not verified by the source. This is not quite as bad as your saying that Bill Lee created a Tennessee holiday that has existed for 50 years, when the article directly contradicts that claim. Still, it is very difficult to assume good faith in both cases. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Hi Snooganssnoogans (talk). Frankly, I am amazed that anyone can edit as often as you do. You must be retired or unemployed - no one with a real job could edit 14 hours a day. Or - is editing Wikipedia your full-time job? Can people actually get paid to be full-time Wikipedia editors?

In any event, you should discuss your desired language for the John Solomon article on the talk page rather than continuing to edit war. I know I am not the Wikipedia editing pro that you are, but it certainly seems that you are repeatedly violating BLP, RS, and NPOV. Anyone who edits as much as you do must know these rules. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually am glad people are doing this full time. I like Wiki and hope is stays. However he deleted and addition I made also for “poor referencing” becauseI used Youtube/Twitter/Reddit. It is possible he is still from the age of printed press. Truly hope they kinda work out a double check system, so that not only one person can decide to deleted additions. Merrinpope (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Dave Rubin addition deleted

My first addation to Wikipedia was deleted by you after 8 minutes ... because of “poor referencing”. Yet, the only references on the matter are YouTube (a certified University account), Twitter (tweet from the actual person) and Reddit (with a discussion + video), I do not understand how all of these ‘references’ can be dismissed as “poor references”. If I referenced a podcast by Joe Rogan, would it also be seen as “poor reference”. Since I am new, I am happy to learn. Merrinpope (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced to secondary reliable sourcing. Joe Rogan videos, Sam Seder videos and tweets are primary sources, and are therefore nearly always removed on Wikipedia. You need to add sourcing to news outlets (e.g. NY Times). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s a very “poor rule” that all references coming from Twitter, Reddit, Youtube are automatically deleted, as if the New York Times is the only one to have the finger on the pulse. (Not to mention they also had very biased articles in the past but this is a totally different ). Even if I understand the basic principle of references, the feud exists on social media for a very long time and I don’t know how to reference a ‘social media feud’ without relying on social media references. And we are talking of verified social media channels. Is it important? I believe it does, cause now the page is like a personal curriculum without criticism, and this addition may have showed another side to this person who claims to be all for ‘diversity of thoughts’ and yet deleted, blocks, shadowbans people on a regular basis. And Sam Seder is not just “a guy”. Merrinpope (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I responded to this on the user's talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeking consensus with respect to addition of VIPS findings to the Cybersecurity analysis section

I see you removed my edit for "craziness". That is not an objective reason as you know. The cyber security forensics completed by the VIPS team is quite sophisticated, includes evidence, and is indeed more detailed than anything the US FBI has produced. Any open-minded person trying to understand the DNC email hack (a significant untested assertion by the US Govt. of foreign government election interference) is entitled to view all the facts. Your removal of those particular facts is an assault on the intelligence of the inquisitive, censorial and counter-productive to the Wikipedia mission.

Please restore the edit or refute the facts so that we might reach a consensus. At the moment your edit does not rise above political censorship for which those who engage in it should be banned from editing Wikipedia and I will pursue that end next.

Userpage

So a little bit of concern looking at your userpage. I appreciate that you are editing in a contentious area and I also recognize a lot has been said about you, your usefulness etc. My only concern is that it seems like your Userpage to only air grievances you have and may be a violation of WP:POLEMIC. I was intending to start a Miscellany for Deletion but wanted to see your thoughts here first? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Which aspect of my userpage? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Specifically this [[5]], never should have been directed at you but also no reason to keep it around like that too (in my opinion). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's valuable, as it shows the kind of response one gets for editing on controversial topics in American politics, as well as reflects on me as an editor. For example, I see it as a badge of honor that conspiracy theorists hate that I steered the Murder of Seth Rich article from an article which promoted conspiracy theories to one that concisely debunked them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree but I'm also not sure I'm going to do the MFD. I don't think it's egregious but at the same point doesn't seem like it furthers the encyclopedia. Thanks for the reply. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way Mayor Pete said it best, "It's true if we adapt a far left platform republicans will call us crazy socialist, but it's also true if we adopt a conservative agenda they will just call us a bunch of crazy socialist" That's from my memory but seemed like a good one to reference to. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re BLP/N

Replying to your comment here There are more ways to avoid a ban than to simply abandon the page. The preferred outcome would be for you to stop acting like WP:RS is the only criteria for including content in a BLP, and to start writing from a neutral point of view regardless of whose biography you're editing. For example, it's almost never appropriate to add a new paragraph to a BLP that says, "In [year] [so and so] false claimed that [blah blah blah]" ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(1) I have never said RS is the only criteria for including content in a BLP. (2) I do write in a NPOV. (3) I have never at any point heard anyone explicitly state that on Wikipedia it's a violation of BLP and NPOV to cover politicians, activists and pundits telling falsehoods and promoting conspiracy theories. I don't think I've ever seen that on the BLP and NPOV noticeboards; to the contrary, in my experience, the BLP and NPOV noticeboard overwhelmingly uphold that kind of content, RfCs conclude in favor of that kind of content, admins who edit heavily on politics pages write content like that, and when it touches WP:FRINGE, it's often considered a violation to not highlight a falsehood. If that's an actual rule, as opposed to your personal opinion to achieve false balance, it would be a dark day for those of us who edit heavily on pages related to conspiracy theories and fringe discourse. The day that Wikipedia decides it's a violation of neutrality to note that prominent figures in power promoted "the false claim that Obama was born in Kenya", "the false claim that vaccines are linked to autism", "reject climate change" etc. would be dark indeed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(1) I said "acting" and was referring to the diff above, where you mention "RS" 6 times without mentioning any other criteria for inclusion (eg. DUE, N) (3) That's not what I said. I gave a specific example, and there are exceptions to that. Here's an example of something that is inappropriate (UNDUE weight) pulled from the diffs you provided on the BLP/N noticeboard. ~Awilley (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sticking to the language expressed in multiple RS is intrinsically tied to NPOV. The best way to determine DUE is by the depth of RS coverage. NPOV and DUE is always implicit in my arguments, but simply saying I feel this is NPOV and I feel this is DUE is subjective and can be easily dismissed whereas "Judging to depth and quantity of RS coverage, Gabbard's commentary and actions on Syria is vastly more important than her surfing" and "RS near-unanimously describe the BJP as Hindu-Nationalist" is more empirical and objective. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Delaney's claim, it's a brazen falsehood that should be identified as such (although I'm sure TFD[6] would find some way to twist my edit into somehow being positive for Delaney). It's akin to Death panels, and it caught the attention of reliable sources who unanimously rated it as false[7][8][9]. I go consider it very likely that a RfC and/or a BLP noticeboard discussion would substantiate that this content belongs in one form or another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about the Delaney edit for a second. You say that DUE is determined by the depth of RS coverage. Your edit expanded the #2020 presidential bid subsection from 1 short paragraph to 2 short paragraphs. That amount of weight would imply that Delaney's false statement is the second most notable thing of his entire campaign, second only to him announcing the campaign. Are you claiming that the depth of coverage in RS justifies that amount of weight? ~Awilley (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It cannot be my responsibility to write an entire Wikipedia article from scratch and in one go. This is a collaborative project, and most edits are small ones that cumulatively make a bigger thing. If someone with a relatively bare Wikipedia page earns attention by pushing birther conspiracy theories, the burden cannot be that Wikipedia editors can only add those conspiracy theories if they can find and add some nice things to counterbalance the conspiracy-mongering. It is not my understanding of WP:DUE that one short accurately sourced notable sentence should be removed due to an absence of potentially other notable content from the page. The solution to that is to add more notable content - not to remove whatever existing notable content is in there, right? I do agree that the Delaney page is bare and needs more comprehensive content. I just can't be the person to add it (beyond what little content I added earlier[10]). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "It is not my understanding of WP:DUE..." From WP:NPOV:

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

It isn't your responsibility to write entire articles from scratch. It is your responsibility to understand and follow NPOV. Is that something you are willing to do on your own, or will it require administrative intervention? ~Awilley (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Does that not refer to adding way too much text on an issue (e.g. if I had written 300 words about all the ways that Delaney's claim was false) than the issue on its own warrants? Is the weight determined by whatever other content exists / doesn't exist on the page? Take this scenario: A prominent person with a relatively bare Wikipedia page earns significant attention by pushing birther conspiracy theories - is it a neutrality violation to add a short sentence saying "X pushed birther conspiracy theories"? Are there NPOV and BLP noticeboard discussions that substantiate this understanding of NPOV? Given my experience in past discussions on the BLP and NPOV noticeboards, as well as RfCs, I'm not sure this is a conventional understanding of BLP and NPOV. If this is how BLP and NPOV works, I'm of course prepared to adjust my behavior accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Weight does depend on context, including the amount of other material in the article. In the scenario you mentioned (a person gaining significant attention by pushing conspiracy theories) then it wouldn't be a NPOV violation to mention that. But that scenario doesn't apply to Delaney, who as far as I can tell got fact-checked for a run-of-the-mill false/unsubstantiated statement of the type that politicians make all the time. I could be wrong, as I said above, and this particular false statement could be one of the most notable things to happen in Delaney's campaign; but I doubt that is the case. ~Awilley (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Making sure that you know

Just in case you don't know about it: User:SashiRolls/alt-litterbox. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Obama on mass surveillance

Hi @Snooganssnoogans: thank you for your input on my recent paragraph on the Obama WP page about his actions related to government mass surveillance. I agree it can be improved in several regards, such as that the first sentence was a bit vague and broad like you said. I will try and improve it and repost it, and when I do so perhaps you can also help improve it with your expertise if you have the time. It is strange that there was no information on his WP about this since it is a very significant point of his presidency in how he responded to the 2013 leaks, etc. Did you think the "Legacy" section was the appropriate place or should it be in a different section? Best regards, -- Blue.painting (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should be covered in the article. I'm not sure where to place it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Perhaps as a subsection in the Domestic policy section, and with a Main article link to Barack Obama on mass surveillance. (Another editor I was discussing with suggested this.) Cheers. -- Blue.painting (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm up to my ears in something else, but I'm not seeing any discussion about Thomas Drake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_official), etc, etc. I'm I just missing such mentions? Activist (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

McCarthy edit

Good solution. "Controversial" is neutral.

Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Is this something you want to be involved in ~ (I'm at the bottom of the page) by the way HI! ~mitch~ (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page

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

You've been roped in

... to this ANI discussion. Sorry, I probably should have pinged you at the start, but since your name is being brought up, you should definitely be in the loop now. Nblund ^talk 15:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

This radical is at it again, this time on Joseph DiGenova undoing the legitimate edits removing incredulous descriptions of the subject as a conspiracy theorist and otherwise negatively affected individual. It is beyond comprehension how this user continues to engage in this long-documented radical crafting of text, construed potentially by countless millions (lest we forget) as objective, first-order, sincerely arrived at knowledge of the world, which it patently is not in too many cases involving this user. It is not beyond question that Wikipedia as an entirety is an increasing disgrace every moment this crystal clearly sabotageur is allowed to play any role in this (formerly serious) community. His undoing of the precious edits should obviously be reversed immediately, or it's all just an absurd joke at this point...

~ You still alive? ~

	Greetings
	~ You know the last time I saw one of these ~ I was on IH35 heading south ~ Nice to see you again ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Peter Navarro

Agreement between 3 editors on the Talk page which you appear to be ignoring. Please stop edit warring and make consensus on Talk prior to further edits. Your next edit puts you at 3RR. Please stop edit warring against agreement between 3 editors. CodexJustin (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Peter Navarro

Your next revert puts you at 3RR. Please stop edit warring and make consensus on the Talk page prior to further reverts. CodexJustin (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Mitch McConnell

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. EdJF (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please remove a comment

Snoogans, this edit is not acceptable for an article talk page [[11]]. It has clear CIVIL issues. Please self revert. Personally I think the article is getting much better now that we have some additional editors. I would suggest you review and take to heart some of the concerns raised here [[12]]. The Rubin article suffered from over reliance on hostile yet largely opinionated sources as well as too many "sound bite" type additions which used quotes to avoid having to summarize material in an encyclopedic tone. Regardless, the accusation of bad faith doesn't help anyone. Please remove it. Springee (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans's is your unsupported !vote here based on actual knowledge of the subject or as sort of a response to my request that you follow CIVIL at the article above? [[13]] Springee (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Cory Booker - Spanish

Good morning. What is RS? You mentioned it on the reversion of my correction and wanted to know what you were referencing before I correct the post again. Thanks and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyChanclas.DeLaBiblioteca (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard regarding a multitude of reasons. The thread is "Request for topic ban". Thank you. — Boscaswell talk 08:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian Monetary Union

Perhaps you could give your reasons for the ending quote here User talk:RexxS ("Admin request")Boeing720 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to quote what i said on the article talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever read a similar quote in a printed encyclopedia ? It's the form I think is just all wrong. Would you object if I rephrased the quote to a normal reference to that source ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of similar quotes. If you want to suggest a paraphrasing, feel free to do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can agree with you that we have lots of quotes and I don't think they are wrong in general. But I think to end an article with a quote like this, gives it too much weight. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian Monetary Union 2

Sorry to disturb you again. I just hope you think my contributions/changes was to the better. About refs, I don't get the kind of ref used. But they remain as "old refs". Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

courtesy notice: The Western Journal

Due to your previous interest in The Western Journal, notice it has been restarted/redone at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Western Journal" (September). X1\ (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Brian Kemp edit

It really doesn't matter what the sources say, "assault-style" is a completely subjective term and, as I said in the edit summary, implies bias against the firearms/their accessories because it's a term used almost exclusively by those in favor of gun control. Wikipedia is, last time I checked, an impartial platform and there's a fundamental rule regarding this. The term "assault-style" isn't even defined by US federal law. The reason you gave for reverting my edit is a complete non-starter and doesn't address the flaws with such an inclusion.--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ... "assault-style" is a completely subjective term ... Maybe, but "assault weapon" has a legal definition – looks pretty objective to me, and here's an "assault rifle" for sale – I doubt the seller is biased against firearms. About 90% of the US favors gun control such as background checks – I doubt they're all biased against firearms, either. I do agree with you that Wikipedia is an impartial platform, and the fundamental rule regarding this is WP:NPOV. I don't even know what article this is about, but your argument above was a complete non-starter, and I wanted to address the flaws. – Levivich 06:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about a revert to the article for Brian Kemp, Governor of Georgia. "I don't even know what article this is about, but your argument above was a complete non-starter, and I wanted to address the flaws." That's funny. I love how you don't understand the context of the situation and still get involved. First off, a poll isn't a definitive/credible conclusion of support for any subject or practice. Many of the 2016 election polls showed that Hillary Clinton held a considerable lead over Trump, but the election was actually very close in terms of the popular vote. Frankly, polls are worth less than a used sheet of toilet paper. A poll of, say, 1,000 people isn't a reliable indicator of the opinion of hundreds of millions because, well... It doesn't involve those hundreds of millions. "90% of the 1,000 respondents support universal background checks, so that means 90% of all Americans support universal background checks" is a completely fallacious statement. You didn't ask every single person in the United States their opinion on universal background checks, how can you possibly conclude that a poll of, say, 1,000 is representative of every single person (or at least adult) in the US? Second, even if the term is legally defined, how does that mean the term is somehow objective and impartial? The term "colored person" and the associated racial slurs were defined under Jim Crow laws, but the states which enacted and enforced Jim Crow laws disagreed on the blood quantum and ancestry required to be considered "colored." I hardly find that to be an objective term based on the disagreements, do you? In either case, after some thought on the issue, the best thing to do (in my opinion) is to replace "assault-style" with "AR-15 style rifles." It avoids arguments involving implicit bias and subjectivity while addressing both sides of the debate. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault-style" have been proven by assault weapons legislation itself to be completely frivolous and subjective. Again, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a focus on neutrality, this would be the best course of action. People disagree on the terms "assault weapon" and "assault-style," but nobody's going to seriously dispute the clear fact that those rifles are modeled after the AR-15.--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I edited the article so that WP:NPOV is more clearly followed while still maintaining representation of both sides of the controversy. This should resolve the dispute. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

... and I've reverted your edit. First, as to "... how can you possibly conclude that a poll of, say, 1,000 is representative of every single person (or at least adult) in the US?", there is a branch of mathematics called statistics that explains this. Moving on, changing "assault style" to "AR-15 style" or something else at Brian Kemp is original research. It's not up to you, or me, or Snoog, or even the three of us together, to decide whether to use the phrase "assault style" or "AR-15 style" or "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" or just "rifle". It's up the sources, and only the sources. In this case, the sources–including the specific one that is cited for the sentence at issue–says "assault style". Thus, we will say, "assault style". That's literally the end of the discussion, until and unless you or someone else brings forward other reliable sources that describe the weapon using different language. If you do have such sources, please post them on the article talk page, together with your proposed revision to the language, and see if there is consensus for the change. Please do not revert any further at the article, to avoid edit warring. Thanks and happy editing! – Levivich 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Scott L. Fitzgerald

Your recent contributions appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 38.117.232.147 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

RAISE Act

Note, if you undo the edit again you may be in violation of the following rule designed to stop edit warring

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Haxonek (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CodexJustin, can you tell me which discussion involves Snooganssnoogans. I looked at the current discussions and don't see the editors name anywhere. ~ maybe I overlooked it ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CodexJustin (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

Snooganssnoogans, you recently suggested I've consistently misrepresented sources.[[14]] I'm asking that you strike that per CIVIL. I can see how you feel Sommers is a conservative author though I was referring to the web sites in question. I think you have a fair claim that even though HuffPo and DailyBeast are left leaning, the author is not. Would you mind striking the "There is a consistent problem here with you misrepresenting sources." I don't think I misrepresented either of the sources but I can see where you are coming from in terms of that author. Springee (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Complaint at WP:AN3

Please see this complaint about your edits of the RAISE Act. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#The_Daily_Caller. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark Morgan

I want to point out that WP:SELFPUB allows the use of self-published sources under certain circumstances. In this case, there is no doubt about the authenticity of an official biography of a leader of a government agency. There are plenty of secondary sources to confirm this, which can be added later. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's quite an extraordinary claim that you believe the information in this biography is falsified. Do you have secondary sources that back this up? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)