Firestar464 (talk | contribs) →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message Tag: wikilove |
→Edit warring: new section |
||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you! [[User:Firestar464|Firestar464]] ([[User talk:Firestar464|talk]]) 05:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you! [[User:Firestar464|Firestar464]] ([[User talk:Firestar464|talk]]) 05:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Edit warring == |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|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 [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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 do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> |
Revision as of 17:48, 25 November 2020
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
June 2020
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Piers Robinson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please refrain from defining anyone a "conspiracy theorist" or other contentious terms unless multiple reliable sources use that exact wording, and only after a consensus on Talk. For now, you simply disregarded all the arguments that were presented on Talk:Piers Robinson over the course of the last two months. — kashmīrī TALK 13:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no BLP violation in the text I added. Looking at the talk page just now, it seems like a who's who of Fringe POV pushers on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I want to thank you for bringing the page to my attention and the Fringe POV pushing on it. I'll certainly make sure to beef up the page now that I can see all the issues with it and the fringe POV gatekeeping that is happening on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Reverted Edit
Your telling me it is supposed to be in a cite bundle? I am sorry, but it was! There's this thing called citation overkill, and should be removed. The excessive citations should be removed. I left one website, one book, and one journal, to clear up space. There were too many citations.
If you cannot give me adequate information as to why all those unnecessary citations should be there, I am going to undo the reverted edit. Thank you.
For more information, please refer to Wikipedia:Citation overkill - Lindjosh
- (1) That's an essay. (2) On contentious topics, a multitude of sources are needed because editors will repeatedly seek to remove the content, and rehash the content unless the extensive sourcing is made perfectly clear. (3) Readers are done a disservice when broad claims about a big contentious topic are made but only three sources are cited. (4) Do not remove citations. Put them in a cite bundle. 02:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but it was already a citation bundle. Also, it was one sentence for crying out loud. Do you really believe 20 or more citations are needed for a singe sentence? I don't think so. Plus, it is not a really contentious topic, it is one sentence. Lindjosh (Click here to speak with me)
- That is not what a citation bundle is. Three sources are not sufficient to support this sentence: "Whereas the impact on the average native tends to be small and positive, studies show more mixed results for low-skilled natives, but whether the effects are positive or negative, they tend to be small either way." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, read this and then you can talk. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations A citation bundle goes as follows: This is how a citation bundle looks like[1][2][3] And to be frank, there are many sentences as "contentious" as that one that have only one citation. Three are more than enough. By the way, you are arguing with someone with an English major. I think I know a thing or two about citing sources, citation overkill, and sufficient citations. Lindjosh (Click here to speak with me)
- Read that page carefully. A citation bundle is not multiple footnotes in a row. It's when multiple sources are bundled into a single footnote. See the "The sun is pretty big, bright and hot" example which has one citation bundle that includes multiple sources. What you did was that you scrubbed sources from the article, leaving only three sources as citations for a sentence which those three sources do not convincingly on their own support. By creating a citation bundle, you would have merged all those sources into a few footnotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- How exactly are you supposed to put it into a citation bundle? I know how to pare down citations, but I couldn't find out how to bundle the citations. If you could help me out with that, I would be more than happy to bundle the citations. Lindjosh (Click here to speak with me)
- I've never created a citation bundle before, so I honestly do not know. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers can explain how. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I will try that, or get some help from an admin. What do you mean by talk page stalkers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindjosh (talk • contribs)
- Please see Wikipedia:Talk page stalker. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I will try that, or get some help from an admin. What do you mean by talk page stalkers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindjosh (talk • contribs)
- I've never created a citation bundle before, so I honestly do not know. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers can explain how. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- How exactly are you supposed to put it into a citation bundle? I know how to pare down citations, but I couldn't find out how to bundle the citations. If you could help me out with that, I would be more than happy to bundle the citations. Lindjosh (Click here to speak with me)
- Read that page carefully. A citation bundle is not multiple footnotes in a row. It's when multiple sources are bundled into a single footnote. See the "The sun is pretty big, bright and hot" example which has one citation bundle that includes multiple sources. What you did was that you scrubbed sources from the article, leaving only three sources as citations for a sentence which those three sources do not convincingly on their own support. By creating a citation bundle, you would have merged all those sources into a few footnotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, read this and then you can talk. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations A citation bundle goes as follows: This is how a citation bundle looks like[1][2][3] And to be frank, there are many sentences as "contentious" as that one that have only one citation. Three are more than enough. By the way, you are arguing with someone with an English major. I think I know a thing or two about citing sources, citation overkill, and sufficient citations. Lindjosh (Click here to speak with me)
Edit Warring with Bias and No Reasoning
Beyond COI, which I've stated I do not have, you refuse to give adequate reasoning for the location of your edits while reverted any new edits. From my understanding, reverting these edits without reason and with bias would be part of edit warring, which you blame others. Utilizing other like pages of similar companies in the airline industry, it is clear that you are purposefully trying to mischaracterize the page. While I have no issue with the information being on the page, the relevancy of the information does not warrant its current location. Happy to compromise with it being in the company History or other section as page grows, but I can not understand your enthusiasm and repetitve edits for upsetting the neutrality of a page. AP Edits (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Achievments
That's quite a list of achievements you got User:Snooganssnoogans#Some_of_my_endorsements. I remember way back when we worked together on Gatestone Institute together. Hope you're well! VR talk 21:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Continued edit warring
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Stop the edit warring on reliably sourced content. Your recent editing history on a biography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. 2605:E000:1316:C889:D52:2EED:A5BC:49C4 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Obama's Immigration Policy
I am inviting you to justify your revert @Talk:Barack_Obama#Immigration_Policy and provide evidence to your opinion please.
You mention that it 'pushes a false narrative about Obama implementing the family separation policy.' despite me not even mentioning FSP. The cages are also backed up as a fact. [1] Thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Request for removal
I request that you remove this sentence from Talk:Tucker_Carlson#Comments.
Furthermore, experts see this particular rhetoric as extremely dangerous (prominent talking heads sanctioning vigilante violence, possibly murder).
It's a very serious charge. If you meant it abstractly that such types of things are problematic I'm in total agreement, but the placement suggests that you think that happened here. It did not. Many new shows and pundits have covered this event. Maybe others have done so in a way that sanctions vigilante violence but Carlson did not. Rhetoric is completed enough without dialing it up counter factually. If your statement wasn't abstract concern about such claims it doesn't belong here. If it was directed at Carlson it's a BLP violation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- He did defend, justify, rationalize [or insert whatever synonymous verb you can think of] Rittenhouse's vigilante violence. The language I chose is entirely consistent with the language of RS who either explicitly say he defended Rittenhouse's actions[1][2][3][4][5] or "appeared to" do so[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans, That's not persuasive. You are suggesting that Carlson was sanctioning vigilante violence. That's way off the mark and might leave you in legal jeopardy, so you really ought to remove it. Providing a plausible explanation of why Rittenhouse might've been there is not remotely the same as saying his actions were acceptable. Your statement is a BLP violation. Some editors seem to think that BLP violations only apply to articles not to talk pages but that's not the case, so when the chance you were under that misunderstanding, I'll give you one last chance to remove it on your own. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
PILF
You'll need to defend your reversion. These changes are not puffery. If you can't fix the POV, then maybe an administrator needs to look at the problem.Pkeets (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note about edit warring. I reverted to fix the last 2 references. I've also asked for assistance in discussing changes to the article from WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Hopefully we'll have more opinions on the article soon. Pkeets (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Ryan Saavedra for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryan Saavedra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Saavedra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Affiliation with Mark Milley
In response to your COI question re my affiliation with Mark Milley, I do work for DoD and noticed this Wiki page did not reflect much of General Milley's tenure as Chief of Staff of the Army. There were other Wiki editors who also commented on this fact. Would appreciate your help and guidance on the best way to submit proposed additions to his page that are neutral and reliably sourced as I sought to do. I also recall your edit re his refusal to testify back in June following his appearance in Lafayette Square with President Trump. He did appear before Congress with Secretary of Defense Esper to testify July 9, 2020 yet the Wiki was never updated to reflect that. I noticed others tried to submit edits citing congressional testimony but those edits were disputed.
Would you consider updating it for accuracy? Here are a few articles that confirm the hearing occurred July 9, 2020 and highlights from the testimony: [1] [2] [3]
Thanks for your help. Cmwitten (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2269438/no-place-for-racism-discrimination-in-us-military-milley-says/
- ^ https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889502158/esper-and-milley-testify-on-militarys-role-in-handling-recent-protests
- ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-milley-esper-testify-on-militarys-role-handling-civilian-protests
— Swood100 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
McConnell's rationale
Please see: Talk:Amy_Coney_Barrett#McConnell's_rationale_for_refusing_to_give_a_vote_to_Merrick_Garland — Swood100 (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Reference in Kayleigh McEnany article
Hi, Snooganssnoogans. In this edit to the Kayleigh McEnany article, what tool did you use to add the reference? Jason Quinn (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just used the "Cite" button in visual editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. That will help me. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not pinging anyone
Just wanted to ask you somehting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeR0101MiNt (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC) So, no need to be so cold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeR0101MiNt (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC) See, ya! I gotta go to a job. But we can talk later, I curious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeR0101MiNt (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. You've reverted the edits twice without coming to the talk page. Can you describe the RfC discussions you're referring to? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_6#RfC:_Public_health_analysis_by_Harvard_scholars Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
please see Postal Voting wrt Secret Ballot in talk, as suggested
First, I guess I should have realized this topic is too contentious for any "simple clarification", apologies. (It would have helped for you to say so in your initial revert, though I suppose you are weary of that.)
I added a moderately lengthy explanation and proposal to Talk:Postal voting as you suggested, please review and comment.
Thanks Rtminner (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit of the Sidney Powell page?
My edit has the explanation, and your revert doesn't. Yurivict (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- The content you removed was reliably sourced. Your edit summary which removed the reliably sourced content was not reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
3RR warning
Hello, Snoogans. This is to warn you that you have been edit warring at the article John E. James and have reached 3RR. As you know, if you do it again you could be blocked. I see no attempt to discuss the matter at the talk page. That is what you are expected to do. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--—valereee (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Thank you! Firestar464 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |
Edit warring
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.