User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Badass

I just wanted to say that you are a badass and i deeply respect what you are trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilithfreakinkay (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You're doing good work

Hey, I know you get an insane amount of hate here, but I wanted to let you know that you're doing good work. What some call "an agenda" should really be referred to as "correcting the record," and while I disagree with the aggressive way you do this, it's probably necessary. Kudos to you, and I hope you keep it up! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!}

Your revert of my edit

You are invited to comment at Talk:Washington Examiner#Refutation to the Washington Examiner's editorial stance. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ref issue?

Just noting that for whatever reason the ref you added here didn't work for me (as in, doesn't reference anything). I did a bit of a rewrite of that passage anyway, but feel free to readd if it's useful (I don't know what it is). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add it originally. I just restored it without seeing a ref issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

NYPD

Hi,

You recently reverted my clean up of the NYPD page lede with the comment "nonsense. these are not accusations"[1].

I'm a bit confused because I was very careful in my edit not to change the meaning of your original text, so I deliberately chose "Critics of the NYPD have highlighed.. throughout the Depts history" to replace "The NYPD has an extensive history" - because I'm aware these are real instances, not accusations.

I only used "accusations" in one place - the same place as in your original text: "Critics ... have accused the NYPD of rampantly manipulating crime statistics", which I changed to "The Department have been accused of manipulating crime statistics".

In short your reason for reverting doesn't make sense to me as I don't think I've changed anything from "real" to "accusation", and I feel that you have perhaps either overreacted or mistaken my intentions. You also reverted my restoration (in summary form) of the scope of NYPD operations, with no explanation.

So, do you mind if:

a) I reinstate the operations summary paragraph: "The NYPD has a broad array.." through to "...provides information and analytics to police.". This is notable information that has been lost in the edit-warring.

b) I cleanup the non-neutral words in your original text: "extensive", "rampant" etc. are for social commentators to decide, not for encyclopedic summaries (unless quoted?).WP:POV

c) Remove the 2020-specific references from the lede. They can perhaps be added elsewhere (in the "Corruptions" sections or in the linked pages?), but we are not a news site and these will lose general relevance in time.WP:NOTNEWS

The intentions behind my edit are to remove non-neutral language and to stay general, not specific, in the lede - I don't mean to minimise or delete police brutality/corruption. I'm happy to hear any proposed changes to my text if you think it goes to far in the opposite POV, or removes important "lede-worthy" information. Tobus (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've started a discussion about this on the talk page[2]. Your involvement would be most welcome. Tobus (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

I appreciate the effort on your behalf to mitigate. Seems like I ran into a deadly combination of an editor who knows the system a lot better than I do plus an admin who sounds like something of a "hangin' judge". JimKaatFan (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Main page

Hi @Snooganssnoogans: I read your main page and agree with all of it. Now I know why you posted that comment up at COIN. I came to conclusion long ago that it is almost impossible for home country editors to write about their own cultural icons in a fair and balanced manner. Other others like academics, celebrities and so on are just as bad. scope_creep^Talk 07:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a pattern today

Apparently. Grandpallama (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Difference of opinion

We have 2 very different views of what would be appropriate for inclusion in BLPs. You seem to closely follow current events, and if something is reported in a RS, you would generally consider this appropriate weight and notability to add to an article. Normally I don't think this alone is enough to matter, as generally a few weeks after something is reported it is never spoken of again and has no encyclopedic relevance to a BLP. I looked through some of your recent additions, and honestly I would revert this, this, this, and especially this. I generally do not consider additions like "In [date], X did Y." I would more advocate for something along the lines of writing how, per an analysis maybe later on, doing Y helps a reader understand the views of X and what those views were.

I don't know how to proceed about this, as the reversions and discussions are going to waste a lot of time. Consider, for example, the Tucker Carlson blurb you added and I reverted. We discussed across several venues before Drmies finally said what I think summarized it best - "For another NEWSy thing that shouldn't even be a footnote in a biography of a person who lost touch with reality a long time ago."

What are your thoughts? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie, I'm guilty of such a note myself, placed yesterday: [3]. My thinking is that this particular situation is rather unusual, with two R-elected officials disagreeing, but I'll admit I made the note more out of genuine surprise than with a full view of what's encyclopedic and what's not. I still think the best thing to do is to not write BLPs, but to write only about dead people... Drmies (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well I'm certainly not the judge, just giving my personal opinion on what I think is suitable and not, and why I revert some of those additions. Snooganssnoogans and I had a brief discussion about that here a while ago. There's a big difference between adding such content to the VP's article rather than the LTG of Alabama. One is usually in the news a lot more than the other and there's a limit to what we can add. We're having a fun discussion over at Ivanka Trump about beans now too. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of historical monographs and peer-reviewed research, I'm struggling to think of content that is more DUE than extensively reported ethics violations by government officials[4], misinformation by powerful figures about a pandemic that has killed 138K+ people in the US (and is surging), and government actions that worsen the pandemic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want the beans to spill over to here necessarily, but if there is a conclusion or official ruling there was an ethics violation, we can add that. I'm not sure you've seen it yet but it is also covered here. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, Pence saying this, and then saying that, meh. The problem is also that these people never stop talking, and that they have a tendency to talk foolishness. I just saw the president on TV saying that if Biden gets to be president the "beautiful suburbs" will be "sniffed out" (that's gross, BTW). Like, who comes up with that? Anyway, while we're talking about beans, check out User:BoriquaZurdo's advice on my talk page: we need to get the Goya Black Bean Soup. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody ought to be sniffing around the suburbs on beans and rice night. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your terrific work on ANI

as Vindman said of Solomon’s work, “his grammar might have been right.”[5]

cheers soibangla (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just saw your question

I just saw your question on my Talk Page. I answered there as well, but no, I do not. This is my only account (and has been ever since I registered in February, 2016). Hope you're well.SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you brought this to my attention. I was reviewing their edits after I followed the links you provided and it seems that one of the users you mentioned may have tried to edit my own user page. Is there a way to report that?SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't make insinuations or ask such questions on my TalkPage

Following some advice I received when I reached out for help with what I consider bullying behavior, please do not ask such questions or imply unsubstantiated claims on my TalkPage. Any concerns should be taken and addressed with the proper channels. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The investigation is completed and the admin and/or clerk found no evidence that I am connected with SarahDinner. That is because, like I said the whole time, I have none. Have a good day.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Something to add to your endorsements

Breitbart recently claimed you are "prolific in smearing conservatives". Just wanted to let you know. I've always found their coverage of Wiki humorous. (link: https://www.(retracted).com/tech/2020/07/22/wikipedia-discourages-editors-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-on-contentious-content/) ~ HAL333 12:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Asked Administrative Intervention WP: ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

MONGO

Not cool. MONGO is good people, please retract and apologise. Guy (help!) 23:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

AN/I complaint posted

You can comment here.--MONGO (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Scott L. Fitzgerald‎

Is there anything I can be doing differently on this page? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I put in a request for page protection[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Moore Page

I know you don't like me posting here, but I wanted to ask the logic of a recent edit of yours and I thought this would be the easiest way. You recently edited Stephen Moore's page and removed a lot of sources from the lead.....and I wanted to ask: why? The edit description didn't explain. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Cites should preferably not be in the lead per MOS:CITELEAD. As far as I can tell, all the cites were already in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. I just noticed some links missing to Stephen Moore (archive) articles at National Review and another. But I'm not so sure that is necessary in the first place. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

2020-08 conservatism in the US

Hello,

If you didn't get the memo: the Republican party (except the RINO), Fox news, breitbart.com, WorldNetDaily, One America News Network, Christian Broadcasting Network, are not conservative. They are far-right. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and Theresa May are conservative. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Hasset

"Hasset, despite lacking experience" and "downplaying the danger of coronavirus" are bias phrasings. You're effectively making the claim that Trump made a bad decision by appointing him as an economic advisor on the COVID-19 reopening plan since you write he lacked experience. In addition, you're claiming that Hasset was incorrect about the dangers of the virus when you write that he downplayed its dangers. It is entirely true that Hasset pushed for reopening amid lockdowns, but writing that he lacks experience and downplayed the dangers of the virus is tendentious editing. Also, social distancing is not a government policy so that should also be removed, lockdowns should be kept.

"Hassett, despite lacking experience in the field of public health policy, influenced the administration's response by downplaying the danger of coronavirus and pushing the administration to re-open the economy amid lockdowns and social distancing." Should be changed to... "Hassett influenced the administration's response by pushing the administration to re-open the economy amid lockdowns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis215357 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

He downplayed the dangers per RS. That he was involved in the coronavirus response, despite no relevant training, is crucial context, which RS also deemed worthy of coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonie Darwish

This figure originally came up in a RSN discussion. Darwish is a prominent member of what one scholar called the "sharia scare industry" speaker circuit, and has described Obama as a "political muslim" and has suggested that Islam should be "annihilated" and said that Muslims "are incapable of feeling compassion toward non-Muslims", among various other similar statements. her recent twitter posts veer into COVID 19 conspiracy theories, but these aren't covered by reliable sources. Before I started editing it her biography it was glowing, describing her as a "human rights activist". The lede in particular needs a re-write to reflect what has been stated in the SPLC and elsewhere, this seems right up your alley. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Robin Vos

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 EditWisconsin (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced

I recently made edited and added additional sources to the wiki page for the Secretary of Defense. Apparently you undid the edits. I posted the following on a talk page seeking assistance: "I would welcome insight as to why my recent edits were deleted for being poorly sourced, and advice on how to use better sources. Once source I used to cite quotes from GEN Milley in the George Floyd section is a recognized commercial transcript agency. Two other sources for another section cited official, signed letters from DOD officials to the Congress. The last addition made cited the official video transcript of the House Armed Services Committee. I don't understand why these were labeled as "poor sources" and consequently deleted. Thanks for the help12:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Bloovett (talk)." I would welcome a response to this request. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.53.28 (talk)

I've double-checked the wiki rules and other sourcing standards, and see no reason not to re-submit my edits, especially given the fact that I've received no real explanation as to why they we undone in the first place. Bloovett (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We use reliable secondary sources. We do not use transcripts and press releases from agencies into the bios of the individuals who manage those agencies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You state "We use reliable secondary sources." But the Wiki Editing Guide says "Wikipedia permits editors to use any citation system that allows the reader to understand where the information came from...." And the Wiki Sourcing Guide says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" Further, it states that "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." These, of course, are all Primary sources. Regarding Secondary sources, it states "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible," which does not mean that Primary sources are excluded, contrary to what you state. To tie this all together, let me go back to two of the "poorly sourced" edits of mine that you undid. The current wiki page for Esper says the following:

"On June 6, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) invited Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley to testify before the committee regarding the events of June 1; they declined. Chief spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in statement that the pair "have not 'refused' to testify'" and that the department's “legislative affairs team remains in discussion" with the committee.[82]************ HASC chairman Representative Adam Smith later acknowledged in a written letter that Esper and Milley may have been prevented from appearing by the White House.[83] Esper and Milley subsequently agreed to appear before the House Armed Services Committee on July 9.[84] In the meantime, on June 8, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to brief the committee on the presence of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., during the protests on June 1.[85]  Days later, Esper and Milley responded in detail to a series of questions asked of them by HASC chairman Smith regarding events during the week of June 1. ********Smith later said the Pentagon had been "reasonably cooperative" in providing witnesses to the committee amid logistical issues during the coronavirus pandemic.[84"

The references I added were at the extended asterisks in the above paragraph. In the first reference area, I added a letter from DOD to the HASC Chairman. And in the second reference area, I added the actual letter from DOD to the HASC Chairman (where no reference currently exists, I might add). By undoing both references (because they're not secondary sources?), it appears you violated the cardinal wiki editing rule of "Wikipedia permits editors to use any citation system that allows the reader to understand where the information came from...." Isn't it helpful for readers to actually review the core documents underlying the words already written on the wiki page?

So given these facts, how are these edits "poorly sourced" and inconsistent with wiki guidelines?Bloovett (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Harassing me on my talk page

Coming on to my talk page and demanding "should self-revert immediately" is not a very diplomatic, polite way of speaking to someone. It smacks of poor interpersonal skills.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place to create disinformation propaganda pieces

Your edit implies that there is a consensus among scholars which opposes the Center for Immigration Studies. The accurate wording for the article is some scholars not scholars. The Center for Immigration Studies is composed of scholars not everyone agrees with them. RichardBond (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Stalking me on other articles

My gut instinct is telling me that you're following me around on other articles in order to seek revenge for our discussions related undocumented persons. You deleted additions both in the article about China during the 1950s. I think you even used "Marxist" as a bit of a pejorative in one of your edit summaries, despite the fact that the individuals I cited are scholars in China. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have never edited the Andropov article. My edits on the Great Leap Forward article precede yours and the article is on my watchlist. The journal you cited is literally a self-described Marxist journal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

One of the sources I cited that you removed: "Famous economist, member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, chief professor of the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences."[7] It's problematic to disqualify sources based on their nationality.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 03:29, 23 August 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)

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)

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)

Continued edit warring

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)

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)

Read again WP:BLP and the Talk page discussion. The text you added was previously removed after lengthy discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:27, 14 June 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. Thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

References

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[8][9][10][11][12] or "appeared to" do so[13]. 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)

"might leave you in legal jeopardy" - That's silly and its inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 20 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

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:

Thanks for your help. Cmwitten (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

— 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)

Presidency of Donald Trump

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)

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

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you! Firestar464 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

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.

@Snooganssnoogans: If you want to file a report somewhere about Pkeets, I am more than happy to second it. Stuff like this [14] is definitely unacceptable, as are blatant WP:POVPUSH edits like this [15]. It's pretty obvious they put this notice on your page in retaliation after being warned by both you and PhilKnight. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

	Hope and Safe
	~ Happy Holidays ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Vanessa Beeley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vanessa Beeley 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/Vanessa Beeley (2nd nomination) 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Conduct on Fox News and Republican Party (United States)

Greetings. You have consistently showed a tendency of WP:POVPUSHING in both of these articles, and an aversion to the slightest of modifications or improvements to either based on vague or non-existent reasoning (e.g. restoring a revision because it is merely "longstanding" though this isn't strictly the case and another just saying that an edit is "not [an] improvement"). You then warned me on my talk page about edit warring, though I have (as far as I'm aware, feel free to correct me) observed ArbCom remedies in relation to the article in question (Fox News). It is my belief that your recent conduct is utterly antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for, and I urge you to show more constraint. Do keep in mind that, in relation to the Fox article, I plan to restore my most recent edit, which was already a compromise as I see it, as you have not been able to justify removing them and convince a substantial number of editors to side with you. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post??

Oh! Oh! Bishonen | tålk 22:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC).

Steve Sisolak

Hey, don't revert any more. Even if you can CRY BLP, it's not worth it. There are database problems but I am looking into the matter. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of labels

Please don't use loaded terms like "cried" when discussing other editors comments.[[16]] Springee (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Stacy Abrams page dispute

You have said that you would resolve the dispute and create a consensus for the page know as Stacy Abrams but have not further more you keep reverting edits which only state fact can we come to a consensus? Boomchickensoup35 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry wrong person Boomchickensoup35 (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2020 (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. 31.127.148.247 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

ALEC

Do you have any explanation for this? Did you misread or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council&type=revision&diff=995426832&oldid=995401994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.251.17 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Your WSJ reverts.

Good evening, I thought I should post this here: WP:BRD would have been more constructive rather than accusing the other editor of edit warring: it seems to me that the warring was if anything on your side of the fence. I apologise if you do not like this, but you pushed to the edge of the 3RR rule (and not for the first time: [[17]], [[18]]) rather than immediately engaging with the other editor on the talk page. Unless you have evidence that the other editor is a sockpuppet, then WP:BITE would also apply. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

possible vandalism & edit warring violation

Your revert on the Mark D. Siljander article is unwarranted. Please review the following language, its NPOV, and independent citations and approve for reinstatement:

Criminal conviction and pardon

On January 16, 2008, Siljander was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on five counts including money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.[29][30] On January 28, 2008, Siljander pleaded not guilty in Federal court before a U.S. Magistrate Judge.[31]

On July 7, 2010, Siljander pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and acting as an unregistered foreign agent.[32] Siljander pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered foreign agent and obstruction of justice related to statements that he made to investigators about lobbying. The basis for these charges was Siljander's non-profit receipt of a $50,000 donation from the Islamic American Relief Agency ("IARA") which, at the time, was still in good standing with the IRS and not yet designated on OFAC's SDGT list. The group that Siljander worked as an unregistered foreign agent for the Islamic American Relief Agency, an Islamic charity with alleged ties to terrorism.[33]

Judge Nanette Laughrey is quoted during sentencing saying: "But the truth is, when you look at this objectively, this is not a case about [Siljander] aiding a terrorist, it just isn't..."[34] On January 12, 2012, he was sentenced to a year and a day in prison.[35] In 2020, President Donald Trump pardoned Siljander.[36]

Thank you. GWaldron88 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @GWaldron88: I have closed this request edit ticket since GW88 has already submitted a request edit ticket on Siljander's talk page. Any editor, including Snooganssnoogans, can comment on the request on Siljander's talk page but it is not required for a specific editor to comment or "approve for reinstatement." The request edit template should not be placed on an editor's talk page, but rather the talk page of the article that you want to edit. If you have any questions please use the help desk (click me!) or feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patient capital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital platform.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Election challenge

I edited the election challenge after reordering sections in the runup to making an edit, having a IP editor revert my reorder, having a bot revert the reversion. Then I made my intended edits, seconds after your making a similar edit that resulted in some redundancy. I then merged your edits, most of your text and your cites, and mine. Could you take a look and see if you're comfortable with that? I'll defer to your judgment on the matter. Activist (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Foley & Lardner

Hi, Snooganssnoogans. This edit unintentionally restored what I assume is vandalism, namely the claim that one of Foley & Lardner‘s practice areas is "counselling sedition". I haven’t had the chance to go through the edit history, but since it’s your edit, would you mind having a closer look at it and removing what doesn’t belong? -- Rrburke (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't see that. It's been removed now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Would like to glom on and say thanks for the new content edits Snooganssnoogans. I noticed this page since I saw it called out on a Twitter thread calling attention to it and noticed the questionable IP edit. Appreciate the good work! Shaded0 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter Navarro

I have posted at Dispute resolution noticeboard at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Peter_Navarro karagory (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to hear more about why you think it should stay the same TestingSwype (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Your edits 1 2 3 selectively removed Rodgers' relevant accomplishments and positions that are likely to be viewed favorably by general readers and have effectively reduced the overall article down to a set of criticisms framed from an American liberal POV. You claim that the content you removed was poorly sourced, but upon inspection most of the content you removed was sourced and it's unclear why you found the sources to be problematic. I am reverting your changes and request that you please add a section on the talk page to gain consensus for these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.140.195 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• 75.166.140.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), please don't do that. That content is promotional/not-neutral, and not properly sourced. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have added a section on the talk page for that article to reach consensus. The edits are clearly non-neutral and have reduced the article into a set of left wing talking points. The content was sourced and if you have legitimate criticisms about those sources then please explain them there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.140.195 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: Ashley Moody#Michael Flynn

I'm not sure that this section you added is particularly relevant to the article:

"In May 2020, Moody urged the federal government to drop its case against Trump associate Michael Flynn who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.[13]",

Unlike the Texas Attorney General paragraph, I don't see how Moody played any significant role in United States v. Flynn. The DoJ dropped the case in May 2020, but this was seemingly independent of Moody. For now I'll let the section stand as is while we discuss how to make it better. I think something along the lines of:

"In May 2020, Moody expressed support for Michael Flynn in United States v. Flynn.",

in the section regarding her association with Donald Trump, obviously with the relevant contexts, would be more appropriate. What do you think? Curbon7 (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the text needs to adhere to what the RS says precisely. The latter version is too vague. I think it belongs in a broader "Donald Trump" subsection of her article. Perhaps "2020 presidential election" can just be changed to "Donald Trump"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Yeah maybe something similar to how we added an "Association with Donald Trump" section to Pam Bondi would be beneficial. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I slightly rearranged the last paragraph of the election section. The paragraph is the exact same, I essentially just changed the direct quotation into a more specific paraphrasing in order to add context. Good work though, your efforts are greatly appreciated!! Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Steve Stivers Page OR

Hello; I am hoping you did not think that my information regarding the Cents and Sensibility Act and the U.S. Mint's report were "original research" simply because I wrote the report. The conclusions were not my own; I simply put the technical aspects in plain language. The report is public record, and was quoted in many numismatic magazines at the time. The report itself and one of the magazines quoting it are both listed as references. DeeJaye6 (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And if you have a POV against Stivers, then you need to report so, yourself. But I have no idea why you would be against my comments that actually paint Stivers' dedication to that idiotic bill in such a bad light. He wrote the stupid bill so badly that it actually precluded the use of steel in American coins at the same time that it demanded its use! DeeJaye6 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please stop edit warring. You should not keep reverting edits. You should instead post your feelings on it on the page's Talk page and try to get a consensus of editors to agree, one way or the other. DeeJaye6 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Stalking

Why are you following me around to revert my edits? They have been factual and relevant. Are you just trying to make sure that Obama is painted in only a favorable light that you approve of? Vinny Gambino (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

He has a very long history of doing this, if you look at his talk page. He's been doing it to me, too. DeeJaye6 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you reject my edits to the Susan Wagle page?

This is the second time you have rejected my edit on this paragraph. I originally deleted it because it was filled with only opinion and no facts to support it. When the deletion was rejected, I added a link to the entire video in question so users can make up their own minds on the events in question. I added a link to the very credible Kansas Secretary of State's website. I also changed the title from a subjective "Gerrymandering" to the more neutral "Redistricting Controversy". My edits changed the paragraph from opinion to FACT. There is NOTHING worth rejecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I love Kansas (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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!

Grahaml35 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2021 (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)

Snooganssnoogans is a snowflake A11200 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AN notification

Snoogans, I've opened an AN here [[19]] related to the RfC you opened. My question is only about procedure, not a question of user conduct. I just want to be clear that while I disagree with your actions this is not a request for any kind of reprimand or a claim of bad faith on your part. Springee (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Trickle-down economics entry

re: Trickle-down economics

You wrote "this is original research and synthesis. these are op-eds that are cobbled together to argue that trickle-down economics doesn't exist (or that a particular person doesnt believe in it). some of the sources do not mention mention trickle down at all."

Only two sources I provided were op-eds. One was a news source, and one was a published paper. All of them did mention trickle-down economics and criticized how it's used – I'm assuming you're thinking the Reason article didn't mention it, but it absolutely did, though it isn't the main argument of the article. Given how quickly you undid my changes, there's certainly no way you read all four sources.

If the problem is the quality of sources, why wouldn't Sowell's work essay be considered, given it's a published paper by an authority figure that one could even find via Google Scholar? What kind of source would be acceptable? Even the page itself has a quote from a Sowell column, not his published paper.

Masonica16 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There will always be better references and expert opinions than Sowell -- on just about anything relating to economics. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(i) The De Rugy article does not mention trickle down economics and it does not describe it as a strawman. (ii) WesternJournal is a crackpot conspiracy site. (iii) the FEE article is by an Austrian economist and fringe. (iv) The first Sowell source is a ludicrous op-ed where he argues that trickle down economics hasn't been advocated by anyone because he can't find it mentioned in a book published in 1954. (v) the second Sowell source is his personal argument for why taxes should be low on the wealthy. None of this belongs in the article. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the WesternJournal critcism, and that it shouldn't be in the lead. But to argue that Sowell isn't an expert in economics or that Horowitz is fringe is disingenuine. It's more indicative of your political leanings, given that Sowell is quooted in the Wiki entry.Masonica16 (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

The question the reporter asked was incorrectly worded, and therefore irrelevant. I’m sorry if you’re a melting snowflake. Please remove what you re-added. A11200 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AAR Corp

Why did you remove my additions to AAR Corp?Fgbwashdc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please put back the text. It's factually and referenced. Why call it "just mundane marketing material?" By that measure, it'd be fair to say that most businees Wikipedia entries are just that and should be removed from Wikipedia. 108.28.194.216 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Fgbwashdc

Ensuring the integrity of the Wikipedia discussion of the DeSantis CoVID-19 response

Never in my 30 years of work in public health have I seen such a damnable politicization of a public health threat.

As the pandemic unfolded in 2020, public health scientists worldwide engaged in a discussion about the value of different public health measures to manage the pandemic. This discussion was complicated by several novel features of CoVID-19 that had not been seen previously in coronaviruses. These included the ability of COVID-19 to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all. Further, infected individuals with few or no symptoms were able to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who proved to have risk of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. In these properties, CoVID-19 differed dramatically from other coronaviruses, notable SARS 2003 and MERS.

This discussion included the effectiveness of lockdowns in improving public health outcomes. Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, undertook large scale lockdowns. Other jurisdictions did not. For example, in Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, with much of the rest of the economy remaining open.

Acting on that science, after a brief "stay at home order" in early spring, Governor DeSantis chose for Florida a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. Elderly living facilities were protected, with DeSantis choosing to minimize lockdowns. +As the pandemic progressed, DeSantis continued to adjust his policy as science and data showed that lockdowns created other problems in public health, including mental health. Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost, which could also create other medical problems.

A year into the pandemic, the Florida strategy had proven successful by many metrics, especially in comparison with states that chose severe lockdowns. Florida never became a "global epicenter of the coronavirus", as some had predicted. Instead, the total number of cases per 100,000 in Florida was 8734, compared to California (8805) and New York (8337). The total number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). If the data are adjusted for population age, Florida's outcome is especially significant, as Florida ranks second in the US in its proportion of elderly.

These data informed public debate, not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but for future pandemics. In particular, it was clear that lockdowns did not have material impact on public health outcomes. While they did create collateral medical and economic damage. Thus, by the end of the year, Florida has performed economically better than the lockdown jurisdictions. For example, as of December 2020, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate..

The pandemic was also unusual in the degree to which specific news outlets politicized public health decisions.<rev> Abbas, A. H. (2020). Politicizing the pandemic: A schemata analysis of Covid-19 news in two selected newspapers. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 1-20. </rev>. The Brookings Institute noted that "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response"m<rev> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/09/17/politics-is-wrecking-americas-pandemic-response/</rev>, remarking on "partisan gaps" with Democrats overwhelmingly favoring extreme lockdowns, even after the disease moved from predominately Democrat jurisdictions. Many of the politically motivated comments assumed that extreme lockdowns were the only "correct" response to the pandemic, even though they reflected as unfortunate reactions based on distrust of the President, rather than proposals grounded in evidence". Brookings Institute noted that "[w]hatever the public health merits, we find that lockdown policies and business closures do real damage to the economy that goes beyond the actual effects predicted by infections or deaths at the county level." Brookings reported that as of September, unemployment in Republican states was 6.7%, while unemployment in Democrat states was 11.3%.

Consistent with his policy disfavoring lockdowns, DeSantis was the target of many, sometimes harsh, criticisms. In many of these, the science supporting the DeSantis policies were not mentioned, with the attacks claiming that DeSantis was not relying on science and data in guiding Florida's pandemic response, but rather claiming that DeStantis was relying on sportscasters family members, and "obviously wrong" experts for pandemic management advice. For example, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.189.139 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)