User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A non confrontational note

You appear to have something of a record in terms of combative editing. I would suggest that you discuss more, and revert less. You could start by opening a discussion on the T/P of Robert E. Lee, outlining your proposals and requesting other colleagues input. I have a NPOV on the subject, but I would like to see more input from others. Indulge me :) Regards, Irondome (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

If you present zero reasons for reverting my texts, what exactly is there to discuss? My texts are accurate and reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Louise Mensch

In case you were unaware, SPECIFICO—who has been systematically promoting Mensch and her conspiracy theories for months (see one admin's perceptive analysis of SPECIFICO's POV-pushing here), has redacted your recent edits to Louise Mensch ([1], [2], [3]), claiming they constitute "BLP smears." I would appreciate it if you could leave a comment on the talk page attempting to explain your edits to SPECIFICO and everyone else, including The Guardian's recent bombshell report proving via the relevant emails that Mensch and co-writer Claude Taylor were duped by a hoaxster into promoting fake news and the #PIMPOTUS hashtag. If not, I will try reasoning with SPECIFICO for what seems like the thousandth time, but it's hard to get anywhere with such a dogmatic editor. Thanks for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Immigration and crime into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

(based on comparison with User:Snooganssnoogans/RefugeeEdits

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I forgot. I attributed the content when I first requested on the "Refugee" talk page that it be added to the article, but forgot when I created the "User:Snooganssnoogans/RefugeeEdits" page. I wrote the content on the 'Immigration and Crime' page originally by the way, but I should still have attributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought some of it might have been self-copying, but it was easier to put on the warning than to completely figure out who copied whom. Thanks for taking this in good spirit. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What is "CTR?" Conservative Talk Radio? Something else? Thanks! Activist (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Projected impact of DACA rescission

Can you please expand on the 'Projected impact' of the DACA rescission below that sub-heading? I just created the heading and I think it's important to incorporate that information into the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that such a section is needed. The section on DACA's impact is also necessarily about what would happen in DACA's absence (all else being equal). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally reluctant to create new sections and sub-sections, unless they are clearly distinct from existing sub-sections. It would, for instance, reduce the readability of the article if there's a bunch of sub-sections on DACA's impact on the economy, crime etc. and then somewhere further down another section on DACA's recission's impact on the economy, crime etc. It's not as if the first series of sub-sections are bursting at the seems. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that the first section is about the impact of DACA on different U.S. sectors, but not about the impact of the rescission. The impact of the rescission is being heavily analyzed right now so I think there is merit in having a stand alone sub-heading for that. Let's see what editors think. I just expanded the section a little bit. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Democracy and economic growth

Saw this article (in not so good shape) and thought you might be interested in doing some article rescue. Seems along the lines of what you're interested in. Neutrality^talk 02:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision on DACA

I noticed you undid my revision on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. You said it was poorly written and if it was so you should have improved it instead of completely vandalizing it. Secondly, you wrote some of it doesn't even seem consistent with the source, can you explain what was inconsistent with the source? Had I added anything new which was not mentioned in the source article? I had just rephrased the things and you know copying the same phrase is against the policy of Wikipedia, so rephrasing is also prohibited?Arif Rizvi (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't reply to my message. Can you explain please, why did you remove my addition to the page? What I observed is, you are a sort of vandalizing other's hard work instead of improving them. I see your contributions full of reverted edits, blanking the pages and so on. TMOR (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Protectionism

Continuing to revert edits in an extreme knee-jerk manner that is not appropriate. You have failed to assume WP:GOODFAITH. I have described the bias issues on the talk page. You are obliged to address them instead of claiming "utter nonsense" and allege fringe theories without explaining any theory. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced. You've brought nothing to bear to suggest otherwise, and brought up no academic sources to suggest that the article doesn't reflect the economist consensus on the topic. How exactly am I suppose to address your concerns except to point you to the RS cited in the article? Your "description of the the bias issues" is just one big WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

At the moment. I am identifying all of the bias issues and layout issues. When that is mostly fixed I may start researching. I haven't questioned sourced material. I am describing the very poor wording. Please re-add the template until the problems I have identified are remedied. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor disparaging you

You would be entirely within your rights to report this nonsense. He seems very attached to his amateur OR on the subject. Thanks for your vigilant adherence to policy. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion

Other editors have told you on your talk page that you make a routine of reverting any edits that you don't like. We are all here to try to build an encyclopedia, and you reverting so many edits rather than asking questions on the talk page is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Seth Rich

I had attempted to begin a discussion that ultimately went unanswered. And no, Dave Weigel was NOT attributed outside the citation as being the author of the WaPo piece. There are already plenty of other better sources present (see this sentiment), so nothing warrants WP:UNDUE attention on his non-WP:RS garbage. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your unsourced ranting does not constitute policy. If you believe Dave Weigel's reporting should be treated as non-RS, you're invited to gain consensus for that assertion st the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Absent such a finding, you don't get to unilaterally decide that a Washington Post reporter's work can't be cited here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Ok, that is fine re: RSN, but that does not all answer the question whether his piece adds anything to the article (which it does not). And re so-called "unsourced ranting", I will remind you of your substantial block record as it relates to Tendentious editing. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You can "remind" me of whatever you like; doesn't matter to me. Removing reliably-sourced material from an article because you have some personal ax to grind against the reporter is not how we write the encyclopedia. Whether it adds anything to the article or not is an separate question, and if you don't think it does, you're welcome to open a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus for your position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we are on agreement on the latter point. However, you're shooting yourself in the foot again with a WP:NPA by suggesting I have a "personal ax to grind" against this employee. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not a "personal attack" to note something that is very clear from your own statements. You have repeatedly made personal statements about Dave Weigel which demonstrate that you have a personal dislike for his reporting. That's fine, you're welcome to hold that opinion. Calling his work "non-RS garbage" and calling him "a known partisan hack" amply demonstrates that you indeed have an ax to grind here. The definition of "personal attack" does not include "seeing what someone has written and observing that it demonstrates something." Cheers.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading feedback

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&diff=790954496&oldid=790951226

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmHZ4hDvzb0&t=942s

Edit warring

You are involved in an edit war on Balance of trade. Rather than continuing to revert another user's edits, your should discuss the issue at the talk page. Since you have already exceeded the three revert rule, I consider this to be a final warning. Further edit warring will be reported to the appropriate notice board. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I had not noticed that the reverts had occurred over a period of several days. Nonetheless, discuss, don't just continually revert. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

CTR

What does "CTR" on your userpage and in the Reddit threads linked to on it stand for? Everymorning (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Crazies on the Internet believe that I work for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton super PAC started by David Brock. It was the Internet boogeyman of 2016 and amazingly even 2017. Every action taken by anonymous online individuals since 2016 that could be construed as being bad for Trump (and Bernie Sanders) was blamed on this boogeyman. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I actually figured this out while you were replying to this question. Everymorning (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Rodney Freylinghuysen

Your explanation for reinserting your text was accurate but it doesn't address the concerns the IP editor raised. Could you please hold off on reinserting it until you've discussed those concerns? CityOfSilver 19:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor is not acting in good faith. The user is following me around and reverting my edits for the same reasons on every page. The user does not tweak existing text, add new text or keep uncontroversial text: just mass-reverts for spurious reasons. Discussion is completely pointless. On another page, the editor reverted text based on four RS (Washington Post, Buzzfeed, the Independent, Snopes) with the following rationale: "explain on talk how one editorial should establish the tone of our article; stop pov pushing". On another page, the editor reverted text based on three RS (Vox, Newsweek, HuffPo) with the rationale that the text was "unsourced". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding their behavior. I'm not trying to get on your nerves by doing this but since I agree their concerns are valid, I need to point out that "Discussion is completely pointless" isn't a valid response to my request that you discuss with me. (I'm not that editor.) That your edits to Rodney Freylinghuysen are reliably sourced isn't my concern since I agree that they are. NPOV and UNDUE aren't about sourcing, though. CityOfSilver 19:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, would you mind pinging me? CityOfSilver 19:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No consensus on Talk for anyone to edit the text under discussion

In case you have lost count your next edit on the Navarro page will put you at three reverts. You must have consensus in order to make your edits which are presently under discussion of the talk page there with no consensus. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Implication of Trade models

Per this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protectionism&diff=prev&oldid=808224073

The standard trade models clearly imply that the distributional effect of trade are permanent. Sourcing is easy to provide if you insist. LK (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please source that. Furthermore, it's misleading to say that both the gains and losses are "large". The effects of trade liberalization usually has a slight net positive effect on most, but can have a large adverse impact on the minority in the import competing sector exposed to trade liberalization in their sector. The text needs to clarify that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgive my asking, but are you an economist? It's a well known result that the standard heckcher ohlin model implies that the relative changes in factor payments are much larger than the relative changes in goods prices. These changes are permanent. Hence, the income of the owners of factors that are related to imports and exports experience permanent and relatively larger changes. If you like, I'm point you to some relevant chapters in undergraduate international economics texts. Rgds, LK (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I can provide no information about myself. There are lunatics who are trying to dox me. If you make claims in Wikipedia articles, source them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee page context

Just to be clear, I agree with RJensen that Foner sourcing should be included on the Robert E. Lee page. In my own research, I rely heavily on Foner for reliable accounts of Reconstruction. What does concern me is partial representations that mislead in an article, especially those that can be set aright with a quick reference to commonly known information, or a more complete representation of the source.

As to Foner's NYT article, I wonder how he determined Lee's 1860 presidential vote, but in any case, --- in my view, the fine examples of Victorian and Gilded Age statuary representing Lee should be relocated to battlefields or museums, and the memorial statues to the Confederate dead should be relocated to Confederate soldier cemeteries. I know, one side wants no movement and the other side doesn't want to pay for it, so my idea is a non-starter for most communities. Still, I wanted to let you know where I was coming from. Thanks for your patience in this and other matters. I look forward to co-editing with you at Robert E. Lee. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to explain where I'm coming from: I'm an extreme believer that all claims and contexts have to be reliably and directly sourced. I don't add text unless it adheres precisely to the RS and I'm extremely wary when other editors add that type of content. You're probably much more informed than me about Lee and the Civil War, but still, the content that you add has to be reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of news papers

There has been some discussion about the usage of news papers for academic topics even when they are by academics. Obviously it is best to give our readers the best posible sources for research....if you need help accessing stable books that will not be link rot in a few months I can help.....as I have subscriptions to most academic publications. --Moxy (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. I'm one of the most prolific contributors of social science studies to Wikipedia pages (ctrl-F "stud" in my contributions). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for some assistance on gun violence

If you have the time, please help and take a look on the below articles/talk pages and help. I am doing some initial research on this and am running into some blockers with folks and could use another set of eyes if you have the time. Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mass shootings in the United States
• Talk:Colt AR-15
• Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)
• Modern sporting rifle

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm usually up for fixing articles that have extensive RS media coverage and extensive academic research, in particular when those articles are rife with poorly sourced content that was only added because it fit some people's political biases. I like the idea of scrubbing text and starting anew. I've been hesitant to start editing articles related to guns simply because it would be too time-consuming. All I foresee is edit wars and constant vetoes given that there are so many people who feel passionately about the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WW2 casualties SU

Hi, I have been following the course of editing this AM. The annIP posted material on the demographic calculations of the Russian Orthodox priest Nikolai Savachenko, an amatuer history buff interested in Soviet losses in WW2. Savachenko lacks academic credentials in either history or demography according to what I can determine on the Russian internet, however his calculations appear on the website demoscope.ru issue 559/560. Savachenko's calculations indicate the loss of 16.84 men of draft age and 8.28 non draft age persons, a total of 25.1 million. He maintains that the official total of 8.7 military dead is understated. IMO you were correct in reverting this material. The bottom line is that I do not believe that Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox for amatuer history buffs. [4]--Woogie10w (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Good work looking it up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have good reason to believe that a Russian edit warrior from 2013 has returned to WW2 casualties of the SU, the anny IP signed a post with the archaic Russian letter Въ, this was used on a talk page edit of July 18,2013 the guy is persistent a real hard core POV pusher, an admin had to block edits on the article from anny IPs.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Vox (Talk)

You reverted the edit stating the content of the source was a misrepresentation when it was a paraphrase of Klein's own words: "And overall our audience leans a bit left, but it doesn’t lean overwhelmingly so." In addition, there is precedent for leads to include the political leanings of publications: The Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Weekly Standard, Slate, Salon, Breitbart, The Guardian all include this context. Klein is also a registered Democrat in the District of Columbia. That's relevant because it informs readers from what perspective his leadership of Vox approaches its content. There is also precedent for this on Breitbart and National Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs24 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Civility

Please try to be civil (Wikipedia:Civility; one of the five pillars). Misrepresenting the views of other editors (eg [5]) when they have clarified them (eg [6]), and using expressions such as "falsely claimed", "deceptive" and "pathetic ... dishonest" to describe others is not positive.

And, on Brexit, as you know, there are talk page discussions going on. Either ignoring them or engaging for a time before breaking off and then returning a week or few weeks later with the same or similar non-consensus edit (eg [7], [8], [9]) fits #1, #4 and #5 of disruptive editing (and the above incivility fits #6), none of which is helpful. EddieHugh (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Civility

Please be civil in edit summaries; they do not present an exception to Wikipedia's policies. Please visit the talk page for Concealed Carry in the United States for discussion of the changes I made on the article. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snooganssnoogans. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

DS Violation

Hi, your revert violated DS. Please self-revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Sanctions against Iraq

Your recent editing history at Sanctions against Iraq 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. SeriousSam11 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

tough crowd.... DN (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ban violation

Given your past sanction here, probably not good to be adding more or less the same material to 5 differant articles in the past couple of weeks.

1. Dec 8 Expands view of the bill
2. Dec 4 Adds support for bill
3. Dec 2 Adds support for bill
4. Dec 2 Adds opposition for bill
5. Nov 30 Adds support for bill

All adding or expanding a persons view of a specific bill the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. @Dennis Brown: does that violate the ban? PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

These are not more or less the same material. Each edit is drastically different. Your summaries of the edits are ludicrously imprecise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It's why I bring it here and not AE. Though it is a broad ban which is why I left the summary broad. But they are not incorrect, yes you added info past that they support or oppose the bill. That does not change the fact that you added info along the same lines in several articles in a relatively short span of time. All of which also push a negative POV of the bill. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If my topic ban was that broadly construed then it would essentially be a de facto ban from Wikipedia, because I would be unable to edit on any topic that I had broached 2x times before. There would be no topic left for me to edit on. For example, in the last two weeks, I must have edited on the topic of sexual harassment on approximately ten pages (both Democrats and Republicans) but each edit, while it covered the same broad topic of sexual harassment, was completely different. What the discussion on my topic ban centered on was the copy-pasting of virtually identical text to multiple pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

But that is not what was happening. It was all information specifically related to views of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and how they voted support it. As well as only adding negative information to multiple articles about said bill. It was not copy/paste but "more or less" the same information.

With the previous sexual harassment example they were different cases of sexual harassment to and from different people. If it was along the lines of going to various articles and saying so and so supports or opposes a specific person in this sexual harassment case that would be a violation from what I see. PackMecEng (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There is only one mention of a vote for the bill (Susan Collins); the rest are just vastly different assertions about the bill, all as different as the sexual harassment cases. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I used the wrong word in my previous reply. It was supposed to be their support for it not how they voted, as I had worded it in my first two posts. My mistake, but that does not change how they are all targeted around that bill specifically, peoples actions in relation to it, and adding negative information about the bill. I could be wrong in my interpretation of that AE action, which is why I pinged Dennis Brown for their view and did not go to a drama board. I was not involved in the AE discussion but did follow it at the time. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Prager

"deceptive edit summary": Prager's own article written by him in 2012 is a more authoritative source than a NYT opinion piece that does not quote or cite Dennis at all. Dennis's objection to same sex marriage, however reprehension, should be qualified with his real reason's and not fabricated reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.72.5 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

CounterPunch

You are either mistaken or you are lying. Use the article's talk page to discuss your problems with the sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

WP Fringe

Climate Change is a commonly debated theory disputed by tens of thousands of scientists. It is fringe rather to claim that it is consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuts566 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Enlargement of NATO

You undid my edit the first time barely a minute after I made the edit, saying “poorly sourced. not an improvement.” and I cited a lot of websites reporting fairly well-known events to educated people. There was no way you checked them all in that time, so I undid your action and added a bit more, and you undid that edit, so you obviously have your own agenda on here. PKDL (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Voter fraud edit

There is something missing at the end of this edit. I'm sure it can be improved, but not sure what you were trying. Otherwise a good addition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I fixed it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Idiocy

"Idiotic" is not a criticism, or a reason to edit, please refrain from further interactions until you can get a clear head and get the bias out of your system, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A10000000000975 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Stefanik

Hi there. Thanks for your suggested edit, but if I'm honest I think we're making something infinitely more complicated than it needs to be. I really do think it's best we just say "She is currently the youngest member of the House." It's simple, accurate, and I fail to see what adding a date qualifier or anything like that adds to the article - if anyone younger is elected, we'd simply remove the line. 86.20.10.233 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this. Feel free to change it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

George Borjas

Let's talk about George Borjas. Did you read the edits I made?

There is no question he has been targeted by economists and liberal commentators and writers for his research on immigration. The selective information on his page disproportionately undermines and discredits not only his research but his career as a leading Harvard economist. This is most starkly exemplified by the fact that the "Controversy" section of the page is twice as long as everything else on the page.

First, Jason Richwine. You or I could probably go and dig for dirt on figures we don't like, find sources that are good enough, edit a page and hope nobody finds out. The source provided for the Jason Richwine subsection is ThinkProgress. This would be akin to someone adding a criticism of a liberal and sourcing the information from InfoWars or Breitbart. ThinkProgress is an openly-partisan unreliable source, and it most certainly is not a reliable source in response to an economist whose research runs contrary to ThinkProgress' avowed political positions on immigration.

Second, believe it or not George Borjas has done more with his life as an economist beyond researching the Mariel boatlift and he outlines and discusses a great deal of that in his book We Wanted Workers. I read the book. In fact, I have it in front of me. If you want to find a book review of his work or counterarguments to his findings in the book from a reliable source, please do add it to the page. What you shouldn't do is revert edits back to show that an economist's lifetime studying immigration is confined to controversy he started over wage reductions after the Mariel boatlift.

Third, Trump's immigration. Trump endorsed the plan, but it's actually a bill co-sponsored by U.S. Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton. The original page further seeks to tacitly discredit Borjas by putting his name in the same sentence as Trump without including any of Borjas' own justifications for why he supports the bill. The paragraph then concludes with credible sources (15)(17) (altogether "fact-checkers" is an informal marketing term in journalism) but source (16), when it refers to "major criticisms" actually just links to Michael Clemens' criticisms which is a duplicate of criticism already cited.

Borjas' has gotten heat. His work is controversial, but he's provided data and a case for why he thinks he's right. I included some of those as citations in my edits. There is little to no precedent for why someone of his stature should have a page that is absent of the context that one would find on other pages of famous researchers from Robert Putnam to Charles Murray. Borjas' is known for more than the Mariel boatlift.

If you have questions, I'm happy to answer any of them. I study this regularly. If you don't engage me here and continue to revert my edits without substantive justification, I will continue to revert and I will absolutely escalate this.

Your edits are WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. You furthermore either remove reliably sourced text or misconstrue existing sources. You have not heeded any of these concerns, but keep restoring your text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Cite what you believe I am misconstruing. Cite the sources they you believe are reliable sources. Elaborate on your charges.

The short length of your reply in no way justifies a complete and total reversion of my contributions to the page. If you do not fully engage me on this and seek to find common ground I will escalate this. I am eager and open to discuss this in good faith and justify my edits. If you are not willing to substantiate thoroughly your charges, I will escalate this today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs24 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans In adherence to the the steps required prior to a dispute resolution filing, I'm continuing to seek a discussion and specificity around the reversions you've made to the page. You cited that I place Due/Undue weight in my edits. Where do you feel like I do this? You also cite that I am not using proper research that is reliable and has been published, but I have done that. To be more specific:

Here's the link of Clemens and Hunts study refuting Borjas' research.

Here's the link to Borjas' study on wage differences between different waves of immigrants over time.

This is the link to Borjas' rebuttal to the Clemens and Hunt study:

This is link showing how Borjas alludes to how "philanthopic" organizations are paying researchers:

Here's the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine detailing how wage disparities over +10 year timeframe cause little if any difference in wages while stating groups comparable to immigrants in terms of skill may experience wage reduction as a result of increased supply of labor.

What about these reliable, published sources make them unreliable? How are these sources less reliable than ThinkProgress?

You can suggest ways where I can elaborate more succinctly on Borjas' book, if you can specify where you feel like I'm placing undue weight. I'll give you some time to respond and I'm looking forward to understanding how you feel like my contributions to page are unjust in detail beyond simply citing the rules you feel like my contributions violate.

Rs24 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Disruptive editing of immigration to Sweden

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I have reported you a second time for your disruptive editing, false accusations and attempts to provoke me.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP

Your near-instantaneous revert of my removal of a section filled with biased, out-of-context quotes in the Mark Levin article is pushing Wikipedia into danger territory. Levin is a competent lawyer, fully capable of taking down Wikimedia Foundation. The content in that section clearly is in violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Levin called out Wikipedia during his show on January 19 for lack of accuracy, even reading from his article and making point-by-point refutations. You should go to his talk show site and download the podcast for that day as I did and listen to the discussion before restoring the biased information. In reviewing the article's edit history, it is evident that you have a hard-on for Mark Levin. Take it elsewhere, as Wikipedia isn't the place to spew venom. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 16:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Your recent editing history at Immigration to Sweden 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. Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich

I noticed that you had "Dennis Kucinich" on your "To Do" list. I haven't looked, but I assume that you're aware that he's announced his candidacy for governor and I think he may have a running mate. Have you thought about getting a "Wikipedia-only" email address so that you can get emailed regarding articles on your watch list, and/or communicate with other editors about content, policies, etc? Activist (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The 'to do' list is all just articles where I have on-going editing disputes (it's just so I don't forget). I haven't looked into the merits of getting a Wikipedia-only email address. What are the benefits of getting one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Jidicial Watch reported to Admin Noticeboard

I reported it.Phmoreno (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Explanation?

I think it would be proper to make an explanation when you make an edit like this one [[10]]. Best, JS (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was a fairly self-explanatory. The title of the source is that Fitton warns of "massive voter fraud danger". "Alarmist" claims about voter fraud reflects the content of the source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Labeling a claim "alarmist" is an opinion, not a fact. It needs a source. JS (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Brexit falsehood

You are repeatedly trying to insert a false statement in the Brexit article. Either you don't fully understand the sentence you are inserting, or you are just hysterically opposed to any edits I make. Now p-l-e-a-s-e re-read my two explanation on the Talk:Brexit page slowly, take advice from someone who comprehends English fully, and then apologise for your repeated twattery. Gravuritas (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted to tweak the language, you could have done so. That was not your edit however nor was it what you talked about on the talk page. Like all your edits on the Brexit Wikipedia article, it was a bizarre attempt to insert doubt and biased language, and insert your skepticism (not found in RS) of academia and expert assessments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Just get someone with a standard of English higher than GCSE to read the sentences under consideration, and my explanation of the difference. I think the extraneous blather in your para above is getting in the way of your understanding.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Iraq

I have no interest in this edit warring or in going to ANI about it, but IMO you're getting sucked into a losing situation with editors who are not behaving collaboratively, who talk about DR but don't act on it, who don't recognize the consensus that was reached or your efforts to find RS to support good text. Sorry to see you dragged down like this. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Your recent editing history at Kelli Ward 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. MPS1992 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring on Brexit

Thanks for the hint. I will count your reverts too. And whether you use Talk, as I have. Hogweard (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Bingo! You have done three reverts in minutes. Hogweard (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Gateway Pundit

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. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)&action=history

I agree with the other editor. That's an irrelevant piece of information for that section. I vote to remove it. What do others think?

(cur | prev) 12:24, 20 February 2018‎ Snooganssnoogans (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,741 bytes) (+126)‎ . . (restore content that keeps getting removed) (undo | ) (cur | prev) 11:58, 20 February 2018‎ David notMD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,615 bytes) (-128)‎ . . (→‎Binney's Opinion on "Russian Interference" in the 2016 election: deleted a sentence that had nothing to do with what the section is about) (undo | ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantspantsly (talk • contribs)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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.

Merely a formality -- it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neoclassical realism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

you reverted my edit today to "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965" without explanation

My edit replaced "and unintentionally" with direct quotes from the cited article. The article did not conclude that the demographic change was unintentional; at best, it presented multiple viewpoints on that question.

My new sentence with its direct quotes was: The change "was not popular," so "many in Congress had argued that little would change," but a Customs and Immigration Services booklet predicted "rapid" chain migration of "foreign-born minorities."

If you don't like my edit, I welcome you to improve it. But to simply revert it without even a comment is unfair. I edited the article because the language was misleading and inaccurate. If we disagree, we should be able to come up with wording that reflects the complexity of the topic by quoting and citing sources and not stating our own personal conclusions (which Wikipedia does not allow).

Exmartian

Edit warring

Snooganssnoogans, please stop your edit warring at Chelsea Manning. You have been here long enough to know better. You have inserted the challenged material three times now. It is under discussion at the talk page, and it should not be re-added until consensus is reached there. Yes, this is a warning. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Britt McHenry

Honestly, what is your deal? As one of the most well-known conservative voices in the media, the fact that she's a daughter of an Air Force Lt. Colonel isn't relevant to her wikipedia page? Andersongrip (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If it can't be reliably sourced, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses reliable sources (WP:RS) to make sure that content is accurate and WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliably sourced? There's multiple stories that she came from a military family. I'm not sure what your beef is with Ms. McHenry Snoogans. Andersongrip (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I added sources from the NY Post. Are they a reliable source?? Andersongrip (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Barbara Comstock

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. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:14, 18 March 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.(OakTreeByWindow (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

Pruitt's domicile

You and I were simultaneously editing the housing section from the same source. I got an "edit conflict" message when I hit the "Publish changes" button, so went back, deleted my citation, kept some of my language and some of yours. I hope it's okay with you. I had made some other minor edits and may restore them in text above the changes we made. Thanks for your determined efforts to keep this article intelligible. Activist (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies

Your recent editing history at Center for Immigration Studies 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Icesave dispute

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Icesave dispute . Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ubba abba (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for this absurd warning, week-old account. My edit was perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please mention the errors with content which you deleted in the edit summary in the future. Ubba abba (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring Enlargement of NATO

You only ever participate on that article anymore after I post something that is proven by facts that you don't like. Who are you to say what is unproven or "fringe nonsense"? I believe it is fringe nonsense that those in power allowed or forced those events to happen in the first place. Why silence those events?

There are neo-Nazis in power in Ukraine. Obama admitted on CNN to helping organize the coup in Ukraine. John McCain was on a stage supporting the neo-Nazi Svoboda party. The Soviet Union proposed to join NATO and it was rejected (you didn't even give a real reason as to why you deleted that). There are so many paragraphs in the article with no citation or just one citation, you have no issue with those, and I gave two citations for each of my points, besides the add on that the National Security Archive report contradicted what Gorbachev said, which was implied indirectly, I just made it conclusive and you deleted that too for no valid reason. I cited HuffPost, The Nation, NBC, the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the European Union, and none of it was good enough for you.

What kind of free encyclopedia is this?

Edit-warring on Liberty University

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) 01:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

D&S

What you are calling a reliable source for the claim that D&S "falsely" reported Facebook censorship is from an opinion piece, which is not considered a reliable source - even though it's at the CNN website (a reliable source). We cannot say in Wikipedia voice that they intentionally made false statements, that is a BLP violation. Please don't restore it or edit war over it, okay? If you want, I'd be happy to discuss it on the article talk page. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two sources cited and neither of them are opinion pieces. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The CNN column is an opinion piece. You claim that the sources are being distorted, however, they are not - we simply cannot say in a BLP in Wikipedia's voice what you keep readding. The wording is completely POV and non-neutral. This is an encyclopedia, not a new source nor is it a opinion column. Yet, what you keep readding is making claims that are not NPOV and not encyclopedia in tone. Please take this to the article talk page where I will be starting an informal and unofficial RfC on the content you insist belongs in the article, as sourced and as written. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The CNN piece is not an op-ed. It's an article by a senior news reporter. It carries none of the labels for "opinion" (e.g. [11]) or "analysis" (e.g. [12]) nor does the article read like an opinion piece. There's nothing about the article that in any way suggests it's an op-ed. Please explain yourself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Every inch of it reads like an opinion piece. Senior editors write opinion pieces all the time. FYI: I don't need to explain anything about myself to you. Please see WP:FOC. If you want to discuss the article content that is now disputed, please do so at the article talk page. WP:BRD may not be policy, but it is a very strong suggestion for conduct and resolving challenges to content. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank god that your "feels" are not how we determine what's a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Diamond and Silk. 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:

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; 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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You should thank me that I reverted your edits. Your edits not only distorted the content of RS (violating WP:BLP) but you also falsely claimed that two news stories were op-eds. Having been corrected on your falsehoods and having had your BLP violations fixed, you come here instead with this warning. Not good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

You have been mentioned at AN/I. – Lionel^(talk) 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW.– Lionel^(talk) 02:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)