User talk:Snooganssnoogans

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


November 2018[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martha McSally. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I have warned SunCrow about this as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

William Happer[edit]

I left a note for that person on their talk page, User talk:DLH. I think you should consider taking some action on some noticeboard or arb forum: it's worse than your edit summary suggests. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Figuring out the rules and practices on the admin boards is too complicated and time-consuming for me, and I fear any malformed requests will lead to a backlash. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Question for talk page stalkers[edit]

Is it possible to create a private Wikipedia sandbox that only I can read and edit? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:MyPage/sandbox.--Moxy (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Would that page be private? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know there is not something that would be completely private. PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have really grown to like the Wikipedia writing software (in particular the cite feature). I hate Microsoft Word with a passion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh in that case you could always try something like Connected Text. Its basically a personal wiki from what I understand.[1] PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never done it, but you could create your own wiki through Mediawiki. Miraheze looks like a relatively easy way to do this. I would love to have some kind of software that interfaces "one way" with Wikipedia, so that you could use links, templates, etc. while keeping everything private. –dlthewave 03:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history ([2], [3], [4] 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. Today you have ignored the TP discussion. 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 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.. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a history of edit warring. Your edit here [5] is WP:SYNTH. I will give you some time to reconsider and revert your edit. DN (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo[edit]

You should know that this is how Spintendo treats editors with whom he has no previous contact or knowledge. What comes afterwards was written with the intention of defaming one user to support another who has been previously banned from the site: "You should ask the good people of Wikipedia who tried and failed to work constructively with this editor if they know what a bully sounds like. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to describe the pervasive coldness and contempt of character that arises from repeated attempts at communication with an individual who, against all decorum, ignores and invalidates their co-editors with stony silence. I'm sure they would leap at being able to describe the sound of an editor who quietly and without explanation scatters bizarre and unhelpful edits across the Wikipedia landscape, for reasons which seem like only purposeful distraction.

It would be important to hear them describe the anxiety and the anger that comes from seeing their hard work and time invested in articles on Wikipedia defaced by another editor for reasons which go unexplained. Actions from an editor who, when confronted with their peers concerns, artfully deflects them off of himself. An editor who then seizes those same concerns and complaints of his peergroup — not to address or validate them — but rather, to pusillanimously construe them into accusations which he could then use to throw back onto the character of others. Make no mistake, these were bullying behaviors meant to invalidate the integrity of the editors he came into conflict with. That editor's actions made a mockery of the content and conventions of the entire Wikipedian-editorial process itself. That this community rose up and fought back against a bully should rightfully be seen as a singular victory in the long-standing war of reasoned colloquy over disputatious and rancorous abuse." 37.228.129.81 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

POV editing[edit]

Quoting sources in an inaccurate, misleading, POV manner as you did here: [6] with regard to an article in Commentary Magazine during a deletion discussion, with edit note "it's ludicrious to describe her as a university lecturer," is not okay. It looks particularly inappropriate in this case since you nominated this article about a political activist for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Real publication[edit]

  • James Morton Turner (12 November 2018). The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Harvard University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-674-97997-0. Today Republicans denounce climate change as a “hoax” and seek to dismantle environmental regulations.--Moxy (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --MrClog (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute[edit]

Hi Snooganssnoogans. Thanks for your edit to The Heartland Institute . I clarified it a bit. Why not keep some mention of Klein's work as well? --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019[edit]

Stop icon

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 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 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. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Republican Party (United States), you may be blocked from editing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Republican Party (United States). 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. Toa Nidhiki05 03:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Toa Nidhiki05. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 19:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on MS-13[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PaganPanzer (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kirstjen Nielsen ~ Family separation policy[edit]

that does not belong in the lead it is in the proper section I even gave you top billing in that section ~ this move was also approved by an administrator Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitchellhobbs, which admin approved the removal of this content from the lede? I see absolutely nothing about that on the talk page. In fact, an admin added the text to the lede, and there was a talk page consensus to include it.[7] This is long-standing content that has a consensus for inclusion. Please get a consensus if you want to remove it. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not have to tell you which one ~ BLP's leads are not the proper section to put political statements in and it is a very political move to put that statement where you did. The lead it is one of the first thing a reader reads ~ ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
If you believe the text is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, you can (1) start a talk page discussion to convince others that you're right (you've done so, but no one agrees with you), (2) start a RfC to get community input, or (3) start a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. Do 1, 2 or 3. Just stop edit-warring this content out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wired UK article about Brexit Wikipedia page[edit]

Hello,

I'm a journalist for Wired UK magazine and I'm writing a piece about the Brexit Wikipedia page. I see that you've been a really active contributor to the entry and would love to talk to you about it. Are you up for being interviewed for the piece?

You can find my email on my Twitter page if so.

Thanks, Matt Mrey445 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

personal ~[edit]

I just added a note in Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen in the '8 April 2019: Restore family separations' to lede section ~ I tried to revert what i said about you being political ~my bad ): and User:Escape Orbit put it back (Undid revision 891892846 by Mitchellhobbs (talk) don't blank conversations) I just wanted others to know that I apologized to you. that's why I added the note in the '8 April 2019: Restore family separations to lede' section ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

McGovern[edit]

Why did you undo my changes to McGovern article? These were good changes that made the article clearer - regardless of the positions one might hold about him. I think whether or not somebody likes him, the wiki article should make it clear what his opinions are. Instead of expressing one's own opinions on the matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.115.200 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Information icon 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)

Kamala Harris[edit]

Stop removing stuff on Kamala Harris' page merely because you do not agree with it. Removal of objectively true facts comes off as partisan. My edit was neutral as I presented both sides and made it clear she did not "lie". See WP:NPOV. I cited the matter from multiple sources, so it was clearly noteworthy and made sure the clarification from both her and the Breakfast Club podcast were mentioned because almost everywhere else ignores. Capriaf

Your edit introduced two faux controversies. The content does not belong on her Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong, the marijuana and Snoop Dogg was not a controversy, nor was it false. It was miscommunication between the two parties and I was making it clear that was the case because other sites leave out that part. I worded it in a similar fashion to the matter regarding her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin. Now let it be in there as it complies with WP:NPOV and you're WP:CHERRYPICKING. Capriaf.

84percent[edit]

The "Stalking" section was removed from this user's talk page. I don't know if that's improper or not. I had also commented there. I'm sure they'll stalk me over here too. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Information icon 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[8] 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)

Vocabulary[edit]

Skeptic: a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Denier: a person who denies something. Being skeptical of anthropogenic global warming doesn't mean one denies climate change. No charge for the education. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • By embarrassment, do you mean that your misrepresentation is being pointed out? I can see why that would embarrass you. That wasn't my intent though. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions[edit]

Your wholesale reversions are pretty terrible. While your edit summary applies to some of the content, it does not apply to all 8 revisions. When someone makes it easy for you to undo particular edits, you might was well utilize it. Killiondude (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Second time. Killiondude (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I tried to solely remove the bad parts, but I could not do it individually except to leave the first edit in. I cannot spend 15 minutes manually maneuvering through a huge edit. The other editor (who knows very well that a large chunk of that series of edits would be contested - it's been subject to talk page discussions) can restore the non-disputed parts himself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Required ANI notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SashiRolls t · c 15:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiLeaks RfC[edit]

Hi Snoogans, I wrote a draft of a new Version A from the Seth Rich content RfC. I tried to remove redundancies and the claimed copyright violations while maintaining the same meaning. I don't know if this is helpful but I hope so.

WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich which were spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets. On August 9, 2016, Julian Assange seemed to have insinuated that Rich was the source of leaked DNC emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. Wikileaks further fueled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.

It does make a big change by changing "hinted" to the qualified "seemed to insinuate/hint/suggest". I haven't read all the sources to know which choice is best. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 12:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplicating passages on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange[edit]

I think it's better to have unique passages in each, to avoid repetition. El_C 23:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Political Position Sections[edit]

In this diff you added information to Jim Jordan's "Political Positions" section - I'm having a hard time understanding what his position is on the Pharmaceutical Industry based on that information. I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be in the article, but perhaps in a different section or heading. This is somewhat of a follow-up to our discussion on the Dan Crenshaw page, in that some of the things you're putting in Political Positions sections don't always seem clear to me about why they should be there. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:GPS Hospitality[edit]

Good morning Snooganssnoogans Hope you had your coffee,

I sent this draft for review, If you are the reviewer please let me know what I have to do to improve in order to be accepted, also there is a section in Burger King franchises (at the bottom) and GPS Hospitality for ref of why I started this article ~ thanks ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of request for arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

"War hawk, my ass". While I generally share your sentiment, Please attenuate your commentary. Assume Good faith and all that. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Jihad Watch[edit]

Your politically correct edits of Jihad Watch do not have neutrality and are out of the wiki line. -Yohananw (talk)

Instead of revert wars, UNDO, let's report your pc no pov work to wiki -Yohananw (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls case request[edit]

This is a courtesy notice that the case request for SashiRolls has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For more information on why the case was declined, please see the link above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please self-revert[edit]

Greetings Snoogans! With this edit[9], you re-instated new content[10] that I had just reverted.[11] Please self-revert pending talk page discussion. — JFG talk 16:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Body Worn Video[edit]

Hello Snoogans, I reacted on your revision of changes I made. You make a good point, but I believe mine is even better. :-) I don't know if you get an automated message of that or not, but I would appreciate a reply on that page. Once that's done, I'll take this message off your User talk page. Thanks and have a good day! Sanderflight (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Solved the issues you noted, thanks for your help. I'll delete our debate from the talk page on Body Worn Video.Sanderflight (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you should delete talk page discussions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Bneu2013. I noticed that you recently removed content from Illegal immigration to the United States and crime without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. the studies you removed are about incarcerated aliens, not all illegal aliens. Nothing about them says that all illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes, just that incarcerated aliens were more likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. You appear to be trying to slant the article toward a certain point of view, yet refuse to discuss on talk page. Please stop removing what you are referring to as "anecdotes about sanctuary cities"; the fact that sanctuary cities are controversial is well established by these sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated deletions at John F. Solomon[edit]

I've started a talk page discussion section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_F._Solomon#Repeated_deletion_of_balancing_information_on_Uranium_One_story Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated reverts/changes at Joseph diGenova[edit]

LOL! Oh the irony! Can we have a look at your revert history of this page?! You, and a few others that keep changing this page content to your desired opinions, would make great democrats... you don't practice what you preach!RLove79 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Republican Party[edit]

I noticed you recently reverted my edit to the Republican Party and didn't revert my edits to the Democratic Party. Could you please elaborate on why you did this? Interstellarity (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

If you’re going to add references to articles, can you please us descriptive titles? Names like “:0” and “:02” are not helpful and are difficult to find. Just copying the article title as the reference name normally suffices. Toa Nidhiki05 16:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Going to repeat this in case you didn’t notice - please stop using numbers for reference names. It’s not helpful. Just copy the article title into the reference name so it can be easier for people to find for additional citations in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rejected change[edit]

hiya

Perhaps count to 10 and think about others' contributions before revert them. Occasionally you might learn something.

thanks

2RR[edit]

Hey, I am very happy to see you working with other editors and using consensus to resolve disagreements, I think it's great. I also like the way you have been improving the brexit article with good solid content and sources. One item of note is your reversion of another editor twice today. As a rule of thumb, I always avoid doing more than one revert of another editors edits within a 24 hour period. I note you have reverted another editor twice today. Just some friendly advice, you may want to avoid multiple reverts. Most of these articles dealing with politics have a 1RR restriction, not sure about the brexit article, but it's a good idea to avoid multiple reverts. Keep up the good work. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A rare event[edit]

I'm glad we agree on something! -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

reporting you for trying voice your opinions and forcing content not related to the subject[edit]

see in the page's talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cornstein