This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Diamond_and_Silk. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This is just the current example, but I have seen several similar statements in my brief time looking at pages you seem to frequent. "If you're incapable of reading sources and adhering to them, get off Wikipedia." is less than ideal. {{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
14:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war
I cannot believe the cheek - you repeatedly revert everything within minutes and accuse me of edit-warring. Your edits do not even make sense.
Right - how do we get this in arbitration?
Hogweard ( talk) 18:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about not putting a sorce I was going too but for some reason it would not let me use the sorce even know it’s from Fox News which is a reliable news sorce so I left it unsourced temporarily until I could find another news sorce to use.In hines sight it was probably not best to leave it unsorced. Colored ( talk) 03:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on my edit to the Kelli Ward page. Although I believe that the information about SB1469 cited is extremely reliable given that the source is the Arizona State Legislature's .gov website, I have found another source per your request. The signing of the appropriations bill is chronicled in the online newspaper and digital arm of The Arizona Republic's article titled "Ducey signs historically lean $9.1B Arizona budget" and published on March 12, 2015 ( https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/12/arizona-governor-ducey-signs-state-budget/70244574/).
Original Edit:
Ward voted to approve appropriations bill SB1469 on March 7, 2015 which removed all state funding for Maricopa Community College District and Pima Community College when it was signed into law by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on March 12, 2015 [1].
Catwilsonaz ( talk) 03:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Do you have a better source for your edit on Candace Owens? It seems to me that she had a website that let people comment on a wide variety of subjects (per your source) and that the person commenting on it (Bernstein) does not seem to have a good track record of verifying his sources. Patapsco913 ( talk) 00:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
FrontPage Magazine. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. – Lionel( talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Would be great if you could slow down on the headline news spam. As an encyclopedia we're looking for academic sources. Just food for thought.-- Moxy ( talk) 14:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the outcome--hopefully it will stick. Next time, please consider making use of the article talk page in parallel with the reverts. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Please have a look at this : P. Roth's letter
Wikipedia is so darn silly sometimes. Editors seem so hidebound by rules that they let common sense go out the window. Roseohioresident ( talk) 01:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Liberty University. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard to this edit [1] where you have, once again, cast aspersions on an editor, falsely claiming they have stalked you on Wikipedia. Accusations of WP:STALK are serious here. If you think you have a case, then bring it to a noticeboard with some real evidence. Otherwise, stop with the claims and accusations that other editors are stalking you. Such accusations only make the heated editing environment at political (and other) articles more tense and cause disruption. If choose not to do the right thing and this behavior doesn't stop, you may find yourself at a noticeboard soon. Please don't let it get to that point. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Liberty University. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Warning is in regard to this edit. That's two at the same article page in as many days. This warning, however, is a level 4 (final warning). I hope you are done with such errors in judgement. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Liberty University. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
You're edit warring now - not at 3RR, but edit warring behavior nonetheless and just as aggressive as well as disruptive.
[2],
[3].
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Snoogans, you were just warned about personal attacks, and the next day you posted
this. Consider this your final warning about personal attacks on other editors. --
MelanieN (
talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
What a load of bollocks. How deceptive and shameless can you be?The fact that you are here defending this kind of talk, or denying that it is a personal attack, is worrisome. It suggests that you don’t even recognize personal attacks when you do them. Accept my warning that the next time you do this you are likely to be blocked. I am an involved administrator at this and similar articles, so I do not carry out admin actions related to it. But I can document problems and leave it to uninvolved administrators to decide whether to take action. In this case I am warning you that IMO action is likely if you do this kind of thing again. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The wording is being discussed in the "Widely-accepted narratives" is not NPOV, and neither is describing Sandy Hook as a "high-profile controversy" in the section of talk. Please make your defense for the wording that goes beyond Ben's reporting as well as the claims of the sourced material for the statement. Has Ben done anything besides questioned the number of shooters? If so provide source and be specific. -- 98.173.248.2 ( talk) 14:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on
Liberty University. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Warning is in regard to this
[4] edit summary. Also, be mindful of not
biting the newbies.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Snooganssnoogans, could you weigh in on the Dennis Prager page? Certain "editors" are forbidding The Atlantic as a source and deleting wily-nily, even though TA is used as a source all throughout Wikipedia. Localemediamonitor ( talk) 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your most recent revert at Scott Pruitt; would you see the United States Office of Government Ethics as a secondary source, or only a non-governmental reference? X1\ ( talk) 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. Sorry if it seems there was a edit war. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I am just trying to add some positive information about what he has done, not just what he's against. Let's work together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florida188 ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The article was published by a Public Defender's Office. I it qualifies as a secondary source. The primary sources would have been the various arrest reports, plea forms, etc. that the article was based on. In my edit I linked to the PDF. Here is the same thing from the 12 Circuit Public Defender's website. http://www.jud12.flcourts.org/News/Final-Response-Bias-on-the-Beach Is it all right with you if I re-add the edit? Emperor001 ( talk) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just did special:diff/846883784, is that what you mean by threading, indents? Emphasizing larger paragraphs for replies is something I'll try to remember. It's a delicate art I guess because if a paragraph gets too long it's also hard for some to read, but you're not the first to point out I overdo that. I've even caught myself doing 2-sentence paragraphs before. Part of it is an optical illusion when you edit in a narrow textbox, it looks larger (more wordwrap and lines) on my screen than it ends up looking on others' wider screens. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 13:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to work with you to make this section reflect the article more closely.
Edit I would like to make: At a May 2018 hearing in the Science, Space and Technology Committee, Posey introduced the now disproved, outlier position that climate scientists believed that the Earth was cooling in the 1970s. [1] At the hearing, Posey also expressed skepticism that humans contributed to climate change, asking how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. [1] Posey also asked at the hearing whether warming would be being beneficial for habitats and to people. [1] Posey also stating "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee." [1]
Please let me know what you think ( Bketnick ( talk) 14:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)).
Sources
|
---|
|
You had deleted considerable content from the Scott Pruitt article's lede, but didn't move any of the text or citations to the article. Were you going to do that? Also, Inhofe told Laura Ingraham that Pruitt should probably resign, but after meeting with him, he reversed himself. Inhofe is Pruitt's long time friend, ally and mentor. The issue of the Rose Bowl tickets acquired via lobbyists, does not yet appear on the article's laundry list of controversies. I deleted Curbelo's photo from the article, and some of the remaining photos might be deleted as well, I thought. Activist ( talk) 12:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
You attacked Patapsco913 when you wrote "Your reading comprehension is atrocious to say the least."
You used the same insult with me here: "you need to work on your reading comprehension"
It is important to comment on content--not your fellow editors WP:NPA. Especially at articles under DS where incivility is an actionable offense. – Lionel( talk) 07:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no horse in the race, I just noticed it when you mentioned it on MelanieN's page so I thought I would add the link you mentioned there as well. I do not plan on continuing at the prop 187 article though. I did not end up participating in the NPOVN discuss before and to be honest doubt I would if you reposted it. But I would certainly be interested to see the outcome. Do you think things have changed enough to warrant a new RFC? PackMecEng ( talk) 14:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Cheers soibangla ( talk) 22:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Larry_Kudlow&diff=848119349&oldid=847236222
Hey. I just wanted to let you know that my edit to Steve King was unintentional. I was trying to fix a ref problem where a cite web had a 1 instead of a | following it. I think what happened was that I was editing a previous version when I made that edit so way more got changed than I meant for it to. I'm sorry for the mistake, I wasn't trying to be deceptive, it was my error. Thanks for the swift revert. I am beyond embarrassed. Alexander Levian ( talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Liberty University, you may be blocked from editing. You know better than to add such personal, POV commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you notice that you restored a version that actually does not consistently keep similar content together and, in my opinion, makes it harder to follow the chain of events? Richard 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you're doing a great job adding all these relevant NBER working papers, but may I suggest that you add their DOI instead of URL? Just to make the external links more "future proof." -- bender235 ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I'm notifying all editors involved in the discussion at Talk:Liberty University. – dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Korny O'Near ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after being warned about edit warring here, [5] is now edit warring on a new page. [6] [7] [8] [9]
He is also engaging in the same WP:IDHT behavior on the talk page. Talk:Franchesca Ramsey#Deleting background information, again. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AlaskanNativeRU ( talk) 16:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, one must be careful not to engage in original synthesis when editing Wikipedia. Original synthesis basically means drawing one's own conclusions about a subject mentioned in an article, rather than sticking with the facts presented in said article. For example, calling creationism a "pseudoscience" is original synthesis, a form of original research. Nowhere in the source cited does it explicitly refer to creationism as pseudoscience; therefore, such a conclusion cannot be included in this article. Also, referring to Trump's Access Hollywood tape as "sexual assault" also violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. First of all, the source cited does not refer to the incident as sexual assault. Second, the words uttered on the tape are merely words, and all words are subject to interpretation and can easily be misinterpreted. In fact, just about anything that anyone says can potentially be misconstrued to mean something offensive. Therefore, conclusions based on one's personal interpretation of another's words cannot and must not be included in this article, either.
If you can come up with new sources that provide reliable information that justifies your reverts, while also avoiding original synthesis, then feel free to change the article as you see fit while also including the new sources needed. Otherwise, it's best to leave the clean-up edits alone. Also, keep in mind that a reliable source is not one that has a reputation for being reliable; rather, it is one that is providing reliable information. Greggens ( talk) 00:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
"I consider the unwanted grabbing of genitals to be sexual assault."(1) What you consider to be sexual assault is neither here nor there in relation to contributing to Wikipedia. As I hope you already know, adding our own personal beliefs into articles is WP:OR and in this case, WP:POV; (2) There's no evidence what Trump stated in the video was an action he ever performed, therefore, no actual sexual assault occurred -- all we know is he talked about it. Thoughts are not actions nor are they crimes.
"Per WP:FRINGE and a discussion on the Fringe noticeboard specifically about Liberty University, creationism if taught in science classes ought to be described as pseudoscience."Link to this alleged discussion and conclusion? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this: (1) Policy states we don't name editors in talk page headers; (2) policy also states we don't personally attack editors in talk page headers, just as we don't personally attack editors, period. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
"You add articles to your watchlist that you don't edit?"I add articles to my watchlist that I am interested in. As I imagine many Wikipedia editors do. Next?
"Did you add the article to your watchlist before or after I began to edit it?"I added it weeks ago. I have no idea when you started to edit it because I don't care about what articles you edit. Next?
"Before or after you sought to canvass Lionelt to find something sanctionable about me when you were losing a content dispute?"I didn't canvass Lionelt nor was I trying to find something "santionable" in regard to you. Next?
"Before or after your frivolous sanction report against me (related to the same content dispute that you had long lost)?"It wasn't a "sanction report" (whatever that is), and there is no winning or losing in Wikipedia. I'm sorry you're so upset by all of this, however, you did violate policy with the talk page header you created. That was the sole purpose of the warning I placed here on your talk page. I hope you have learned something from this and won't repeat the same error(s) and violation of policy. Sincerely, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to
Talk:Liberty University can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as
harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing.
This warning regards your continued inappropriate exchanges with editors at
WP:NPA. Along with the original talk page header and personal attacks at the talk page, harassment has now become an issue in
this section. Four editors have asked you to tone it down, but your personal attacks have now escalated and have taken on the appearance of harassing anyone there who opposes your opinions. Please stop immediately.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Regarding: "but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate." This content is still under debate, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
The additional content will read: "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies. "The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime." Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
The troll has been blocked, but in case they come back, let me know and I will protect your page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noto-Ichinose ( talk • contribs)
"only to revert me"See this as response, MelanieN. And then there's this - which is not a reversion, but a removal of inappropriate content [13]. SS's edit summary claims his reversion is justified per "RS", but that's not an appropriate response at all. A talk page discussion was started pre-SS's revert, he has yet to join in there. This has become a common theme for SS. And there's this blanket revert of good content [14] (there's more over the last several weeks just like it, if anyone's interested).
If this was an article talk page I would hat the insult-fest above. Since it is Snoogans' user talk page I will leave it alone. But I will note that Snoogans has launched two discussions at the article talk page, inviting Noto and WV to come and discuss the issues. That was the right thing to do. So far neither Noto or WV has responded. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Diamond_and_Silk. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This is just the current example, but I have seen several similar statements in my brief time looking at pages you seem to frequent. "If you're incapable of reading sources and adhering to them, get off Wikipedia." is less than ideal. {{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
14:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war
I cannot believe the cheek - you repeatedly revert everything within minutes and accuse me of edit-warring. Your edits do not even make sense.
Right - how do we get this in arbitration?
Hogweard ( talk) 18:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about not putting a sorce I was going too but for some reason it would not let me use the sorce even know it’s from Fox News which is a reliable news sorce so I left it unsourced temporarily until I could find another news sorce to use.In hines sight it was probably not best to leave it unsorced. Colored ( talk) 03:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on my edit to the Kelli Ward page. Although I believe that the information about SB1469 cited is extremely reliable given that the source is the Arizona State Legislature's .gov website, I have found another source per your request. The signing of the appropriations bill is chronicled in the online newspaper and digital arm of The Arizona Republic's article titled "Ducey signs historically lean $9.1B Arizona budget" and published on March 12, 2015 ( https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/12/arizona-governor-ducey-signs-state-budget/70244574/).
Original Edit:
Ward voted to approve appropriations bill SB1469 on March 7, 2015 which removed all state funding for Maricopa Community College District and Pima Community College when it was signed into law by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on March 12, 2015 [1].
Catwilsonaz ( talk) 03:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Do you have a better source for your edit on Candace Owens? It seems to me that she had a website that let people comment on a wide variety of subjects (per your source) and that the person commenting on it (Bernstein) does not seem to have a good track record of verifying his sources. Patapsco913 ( talk) 00:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
FrontPage Magazine. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. – Lionel( talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Would be great if you could slow down on the headline news spam. As an encyclopedia we're looking for academic sources. Just food for thought.-- Moxy ( talk) 14:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the outcome--hopefully it will stick. Next time, please consider making use of the article talk page in parallel with the reverts. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Please have a look at this : P. Roth's letter
Wikipedia is so darn silly sometimes. Editors seem so hidebound by rules that they let common sense go out the window. Roseohioresident ( talk) 01:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Liberty University. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard to this edit [1] where you have, once again, cast aspersions on an editor, falsely claiming they have stalked you on Wikipedia. Accusations of WP:STALK are serious here. If you think you have a case, then bring it to a noticeboard with some real evidence. Otherwise, stop with the claims and accusations that other editors are stalking you. Such accusations only make the heated editing environment at political (and other) articles more tense and cause disruption. If choose not to do the right thing and this behavior doesn't stop, you may find yourself at a noticeboard soon. Please don't let it get to that point. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Liberty University. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Warning is in regard to this edit. That's two at the same article page in as many days. This warning, however, is a level 4 (final warning). I hope you are done with such errors in judgement. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Liberty University. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
You're edit warring now - not at 3RR, but edit warring behavior nonetheless and just as aggressive as well as disruptive.
[2],
[3].
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Snoogans, you were just warned about personal attacks, and the next day you posted
this. Consider this your final warning about personal attacks on other editors. --
MelanieN (
talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
What a load of bollocks. How deceptive and shameless can you be?The fact that you are here defending this kind of talk, or denying that it is a personal attack, is worrisome. It suggests that you don’t even recognize personal attacks when you do them. Accept my warning that the next time you do this you are likely to be blocked. I am an involved administrator at this and similar articles, so I do not carry out admin actions related to it. But I can document problems and leave it to uninvolved administrators to decide whether to take action. In this case I am warning you that IMO action is likely if you do this kind of thing again. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The wording is being discussed in the "Widely-accepted narratives" is not NPOV, and neither is describing Sandy Hook as a "high-profile controversy" in the section of talk. Please make your defense for the wording that goes beyond Ben's reporting as well as the claims of the sourced material for the statement. Has Ben done anything besides questioned the number of shooters? If so provide source and be specific. -- 98.173.248.2 ( talk) 14:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on
Liberty University. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Warning is in regard to this
[4] edit summary. Also, be mindful of not
biting the newbies.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Snooganssnoogans, could you weigh in on the Dennis Prager page? Certain "editors" are forbidding The Atlantic as a source and deleting wily-nily, even though TA is used as a source all throughout Wikipedia. Localemediamonitor ( talk) 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your most recent revert at Scott Pruitt; would you see the United States Office of Government Ethics as a secondary source, or only a non-governmental reference? X1\ ( talk) 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. Sorry if it seems there was a edit war. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I am just trying to add some positive information about what he has done, not just what he's against. Let's work together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florida188 ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The article was published by a Public Defender's Office. I it qualifies as a secondary source. The primary sources would have been the various arrest reports, plea forms, etc. that the article was based on. In my edit I linked to the PDF. Here is the same thing from the 12 Circuit Public Defender's website. http://www.jud12.flcourts.org/News/Final-Response-Bias-on-the-Beach Is it all right with you if I re-add the edit? Emperor001 ( talk) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just did special:diff/846883784, is that what you mean by threading, indents? Emphasizing larger paragraphs for replies is something I'll try to remember. It's a delicate art I guess because if a paragraph gets too long it's also hard for some to read, but you're not the first to point out I overdo that. I've even caught myself doing 2-sentence paragraphs before. Part of it is an optical illusion when you edit in a narrow textbox, it looks larger (more wordwrap and lines) on my screen than it ends up looking on others' wider screens. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 13:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to work with you to make this section reflect the article more closely.
Edit I would like to make: At a May 2018 hearing in the Science, Space and Technology Committee, Posey introduced the now disproved, outlier position that climate scientists believed that the Earth was cooling in the 1970s. [1] At the hearing, Posey also expressed skepticism that humans contributed to climate change, asking how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. [1] Posey also asked at the hearing whether warming would be being beneficial for habitats and to people. [1] Posey also stating "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee." [1]
Please let me know what you think ( Bketnick ( talk) 14:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)).
Sources
|
---|
|
You had deleted considerable content from the Scott Pruitt article's lede, but didn't move any of the text or citations to the article. Were you going to do that? Also, Inhofe told Laura Ingraham that Pruitt should probably resign, but after meeting with him, he reversed himself. Inhofe is Pruitt's long time friend, ally and mentor. The issue of the Rose Bowl tickets acquired via lobbyists, does not yet appear on the article's laundry list of controversies. I deleted Curbelo's photo from the article, and some of the remaining photos might be deleted as well, I thought. Activist ( talk) 12:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
You attacked Patapsco913 when you wrote "Your reading comprehension is atrocious to say the least."
You used the same insult with me here: "you need to work on your reading comprehension"
It is important to comment on content--not your fellow editors WP:NPA. Especially at articles under DS where incivility is an actionable offense. – Lionel( talk) 07:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no horse in the race, I just noticed it when you mentioned it on MelanieN's page so I thought I would add the link you mentioned there as well. I do not plan on continuing at the prop 187 article though. I did not end up participating in the NPOVN discuss before and to be honest doubt I would if you reposted it. But I would certainly be interested to see the outcome. Do you think things have changed enough to warrant a new RFC? PackMecEng ( talk) 14:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Cheers soibangla ( talk) 22:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Larry_Kudlow&diff=848119349&oldid=847236222
Hey. I just wanted to let you know that my edit to Steve King was unintentional. I was trying to fix a ref problem where a cite web had a 1 instead of a | following it. I think what happened was that I was editing a previous version when I made that edit so way more got changed than I meant for it to. I'm sorry for the mistake, I wasn't trying to be deceptive, it was my error. Thanks for the swift revert. I am beyond embarrassed. Alexander Levian ( talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Liberty University, you may be blocked from editing. You know better than to add such personal, POV commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you notice that you restored a version that actually does not consistently keep similar content together and, in my opinion, makes it harder to follow the chain of events? Richard 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you're doing a great job adding all these relevant NBER working papers, but may I suggest that you add their DOI instead of URL? Just to make the external links more "future proof." -- bender235 ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I'm notifying all editors involved in the discussion at Talk:Liberty University. – dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Korny O'Near ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after being warned about edit warring here, [5] is now edit warring on a new page. [6] [7] [8] [9]
He is also engaging in the same WP:IDHT behavior on the talk page. Talk:Franchesca Ramsey#Deleting background information, again. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AlaskanNativeRU ( talk) 16:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, one must be careful not to engage in original synthesis when editing Wikipedia. Original synthesis basically means drawing one's own conclusions about a subject mentioned in an article, rather than sticking with the facts presented in said article. For example, calling creationism a "pseudoscience" is original synthesis, a form of original research. Nowhere in the source cited does it explicitly refer to creationism as pseudoscience; therefore, such a conclusion cannot be included in this article. Also, referring to Trump's Access Hollywood tape as "sexual assault" also violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. First of all, the source cited does not refer to the incident as sexual assault. Second, the words uttered on the tape are merely words, and all words are subject to interpretation and can easily be misinterpreted. In fact, just about anything that anyone says can potentially be misconstrued to mean something offensive. Therefore, conclusions based on one's personal interpretation of another's words cannot and must not be included in this article, either.
If you can come up with new sources that provide reliable information that justifies your reverts, while also avoiding original synthesis, then feel free to change the article as you see fit while also including the new sources needed. Otherwise, it's best to leave the clean-up edits alone. Also, keep in mind that a reliable source is not one that has a reputation for being reliable; rather, it is one that is providing reliable information. Greggens ( talk) 00:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
"I consider the unwanted grabbing of genitals to be sexual assault."(1) What you consider to be sexual assault is neither here nor there in relation to contributing to Wikipedia. As I hope you already know, adding our own personal beliefs into articles is WP:OR and in this case, WP:POV; (2) There's no evidence what Trump stated in the video was an action he ever performed, therefore, no actual sexual assault occurred -- all we know is he talked about it. Thoughts are not actions nor are they crimes.
"Per WP:FRINGE and a discussion on the Fringe noticeboard specifically about Liberty University, creationism if taught in science classes ought to be described as pseudoscience."Link to this alleged discussion and conclusion? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this: (1) Policy states we don't name editors in talk page headers; (2) policy also states we don't personally attack editors in talk page headers, just as we don't personally attack editors, period. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
"You add articles to your watchlist that you don't edit?"I add articles to my watchlist that I am interested in. As I imagine many Wikipedia editors do. Next?
"Did you add the article to your watchlist before or after I began to edit it?"I added it weeks ago. I have no idea when you started to edit it because I don't care about what articles you edit. Next?
"Before or after you sought to canvass Lionelt to find something sanctionable about me when you were losing a content dispute?"I didn't canvass Lionelt nor was I trying to find something "santionable" in regard to you. Next?
"Before or after your frivolous sanction report against me (related to the same content dispute that you had long lost)?"It wasn't a "sanction report" (whatever that is), and there is no winning or losing in Wikipedia. I'm sorry you're so upset by all of this, however, you did violate policy with the talk page header you created. That was the sole purpose of the warning I placed here on your talk page. I hope you have learned something from this and won't repeat the same error(s) and violation of policy. Sincerely, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to
Talk:Liberty University can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as
harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing.
This warning regards your continued inappropriate exchanges with editors at
WP:NPA. Along with the original talk page header and personal attacks at the talk page, harassment has now become an issue in
this section. Four editors have asked you to tone it down, but your personal attacks have now escalated and have taken on the appearance of harassing anyone there who opposes your opinions. Please stop immediately.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Regarding: "but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate." This content is still under debate, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
The additional content will read: "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies. "The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime." Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
The troll has been blocked, but in case they come back, let me know and I will protect your page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noto-Ichinose ( talk • contribs)
"only to revert me"See this as response, MelanieN. And then there's this - which is not a reversion, but a removal of inappropriate content [13]. SS's edit summary claims his reversion is justified per "RS", but that's not an appropriate response at all. A talk page discussion was started pre-SS's revert, he has yet to join in there. This has become a common theme for SS. And there's this blanket revert of good content [14] (there's more over the last several weeks just like it, if anyone's interested).
If this was an article talk page I would hat the insult-fest above. Since it is Snoogans' user talk page I will leave it alone. But I will note that Snoogans has launched two discussions at the article talk page, inviting Noto and WV to come and discuss the issues. That was the right thing to do. So far neither Noto or WV has responded. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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.