Hi Snooganssnoogans, I do not have any sort of affiliation with Douglas Murray. Simply trying to add more neutrality to the article, since I believe there are many negative remarks and very few positive ones, to balance it out. Thank you for your interest. KaraMcKinney (talk) 13:53, 13 February 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. MONGO (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Concealed carry in the United States
I noticed that you reverted my edits on the page for concealed carry in the United States. First off, what's a "lede?" If you're talking about the summary of the "effects on violent crime," then I can rewrite that in the aforementioned section. However, if, as you said, we shouldn't "mention specific studies," then that summary would have to be either rewritten or deleted entirely, since it mentions a specific study. Thanks. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - you edited the above article at 21:18 hrs today, cut out a paragraph of text and then changed it to the exact opposite of what the source says. You said the study said "Subsequent research has indicated that right-to-carry laws either have no impact on violent crime or that they increase violent crime.". The study  reference you removed states in the preamble "These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level". Why did you remove this reference and also make an unfounded comment to say the exact opposite? This is very concerning Apeholder (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- You do realize that this is one study and that body of the article literally contains dozens of studies? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I made an edit to the article. If you seriously and in good faith want the summary to accurately summarize the below section, then you'll find the edit satisfactory. Leave the issue be. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ironic of you to reference that very study when it disputes your assertations. Did you come up with a "comprehensive" list of studies on the subject, too? I find it pretty telling that you said, in your most recent edit summary on this matter, "why he is not allowed to..." Sounds pretty narcissistic. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's getting incredibly tiring trying to understand your strange comments: (1) "Ironic of you to reference that very study when it disputes your assertations." I added a reflist code so that the other editor's cite would stop screwing up my talk page. I am not the one adding the study. (2) "Did you come up with a "comprehensive" list of studies on the subject, too?" This is presumably in reference to my version of the lede actually summarizing the body, whereas your version of the lede was just a summary of your personal feelings on the subject, although I'm not actually sure what your point is. Snooganssnoogans (talk)
Snpgg is a lying RW hack who needs to stop editing or risk finding himself revealed and personally outed. If that gets the liar RW hurt, good. Your time of using this site for your politics and reverting stuff because it hurts yor feeling is over. Watch out, it might get you family hurt, too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B15D:6792:5807:E079:23FE:5719 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2020 (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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Curivity (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I won’t be around much the rest of the day/week (travelling) but I wanted to stop by and just leave a note that linking to profiles on other websites is considered a violation of the harassment policy and is usually suppressable. Please be more careful in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, this includes linking to comments made by a Wikipedia editor under their own username on an anti-Wikipedia website where they themselves openly acknowledge that they are a particular Wikipedia editor? If I write an op-ed as "Snooganssnoogans" where I push falsehoods and conspiracy theories about specific editors, would other editors be guilty of "outing" if they rightfully complain that I'm engaging in off-wiki harassment and link to said op-ed? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- A bit of wordiness since I want to be clear: do not link to any profile on another website unless the person involved has explicitly made the link on-wiki themselves. This includes links to people commenting on Wikipedia-related forums under the same username. Unless they’ve made the link, don’t connect the accounts.As to your hypothetical: unless you linked to said op-ed yourself, we’d suppress. The correct course of action if you think someone is engaging in off-site harassment that is sanctionable is to email the Arbitration Committee with evidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Is Glenn Beck known for promoting conspiracy theories?:
Jo Nova page: rapid and persistent reversion or attempted edits by you and possible sock pupper 'slywriter'
The Jo Nova entry appears to have been vandalised by 'Climate Change' activists who have inserted the offensive and demeaning personal insult "climate change denier" and also arbitrarily, wrongly and slanderously described Jo Nova as a promoter of "pseudoscience". You and a potential sock puppet by the name of "slywriter" have been very quick (within half an hour every time) to repeatedly undo all attempts by several editors at removing that blatant vandalism, which to me suggests some level of overt sympathy with or complicity in it. If you do not desist, I will refer this matter to the Administrators and request that action be taken.
- Nope, not a sock. Nice try though. Now provide sources for your changes or knock yourself silly with the Admins. Doesn't matter to me.
- Slywriter (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
your 'undos' of my edit of the Jo Nova entry in Wikepedia
Your smug, smarmy demand for 'sources' is not relevant to this issue, as you well know. My edit made no changes to any factual content, but merely deleted/replaced some blatantly opinionated and offensive wording and phrases that have apparently been inserted into the article by some 'climate change' acivist(s) to personally attack Ms Codling - a personal attack that no reputable scientific/encyclopaedic publication would allow - and merely reverting the article to something like its previously neutral wording. The Wikepedia system is clearly too easy to subvert and abuse. An edit 'undo' can be achieved with a simple single click of a mouse button, with no justification at all from the person doing that. Any group of two or more people who are pushing some personal, political or philosophical agenda can gang-up on any individual by simply taking it in turns to quickly 'undo' any edit that that individual makes. If that individual can be baited into 'undoing' their 'undos' more than three times in a twenty-four hour period, that individual will be banned. As you are also well aware. One person could also use several 'sock puppets' to achieve the same result. Let me cast this hypothetical at you: a 'climate change' activist vandalises an entry about a prominent 'climate change' skeptic and alters its wording from a fair and neutral description to one that is derogatory, insulting, and in places possibly libellous. That entry is then closely monitored by other 'climate change' stooges who take it in turns to quickly 'undo' any attempt to remove that vandalism, knowing that any individual who 'undoes' their handiwork more than three times in one day will be banned and thus silenced. The Wikepedia administration apparently wants to shirk all responsibility for what goes on in here. Their attitude of "just sort it out amongst yourselves" is all very well in an ideal world, where everyone participates honestly and in good faith. But with gangs of bullies and thugs who know that they can just 'undo' anyone's edits and ignore their victims' complaints with impunity, 'discussion' will achieve nothing. The process of taking any issue to a higher authority looks to be so awkward, time comsuming and futile, that most people with a complaint will just give up, shut up and go away. And with that the bullies and thugs win. There is really bugger-all that any individual can do about that. As for my particular complaint, from what I've seen here so far, the expression "pissing into the wind" comes to mind. Okay, you win. I have better things to do with my time. After seeing how you people operate I will just assign a 'probably bullshit' label to any potentially contentious information sourced from Wikepedia. I'll leave it at that.
I know you reverted the changes to her work history, but she never directly worked for Jesse Helms. Please see these screenshot records from Legistorm:
She only worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - while Jesse Helms was the ranking member for a time period, she did not ever work directly for him. To say otherwise is incorrect.
- We should stick to what reliable sources say. Not interpret what that primary source is saying. To say she worked for the "Senate Foreign Relations Committee" would also inaccurately suggest that she was a nonpartisan expert, which she was not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that she is, and no one who works on the Hill would do so either. On the Hill you either work for a member, general support staff, or a committee. Committee employment is very much political - when there is a new majority, there isn't a guarantee that you'll stay employed. It is not an interpretation of the primary source to say that she didn't work for Jesse Helms - it is a matter of Congressional record. If she worked for Helms's office there would be a record of such employment. She is part of the committee staff, please see this article on Congressional staff Aleaiactm (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Changes on March 2nd
This is the second time you have reverted changes to this page I've made after accusing me of a litany of things to which you have no proof. The first time, you were shown to be incorrect, and you are letting your biases get in the way of reasoned stewardship.
When you reverted my changes this is the note you left:
- revert whitewashing by an obvious COI account. remove self-sourced content that is presented in a non-npov manner and puffery.
Let's take a look at each of these claims.
- Excusing that the term usually infers a racial component (and race is not discussed on this page in question), how was anything whitewashed? There was no narrative content deleted whatsoever. About 95% of my edit was adding additional information. If this person crosses the threshold of notoriety for having a Wikipedia page, then the page might as well be done well, being fleshed out with content regarding what makes this person notable - in this case, their views on US foreign policy.
obvious COI account
- You have offered no evidence as to how I am in conflict of interest beyond being an editor of a page of a person that you clearly have some kind of issue with.
remove self-sourced content
- You should familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons page. Per the page, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (emphasis carried over). While I did use the writings of the subject in my edits (which is allowed - and what I think you are confused about), none of the sources were self published by her or anyone else. They were all from reputable national outlets like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, The Daily Beast, and more. The type of sources Wikipedia encourages you to use because they have their own editorial standards. Again, you provided no insight into where you think I was using self-sourced content.
content that is presented in a non-npov manner and puffery
- The only violation of this that I can find in the edits that I made is the use of the "prestigious" to describe an award the subject gave. Rather than deleting all of the edits, calling that out would have been fair and the word easily removed. Otherwise, you need to be specific as to where something is presented in a non-npov matter, and there are none of the types of adjectives described in the Wikipedia:Puffery page.
Your role as an editor is not to throw invective and do wholesale reverts of the hard work other editors put in. That is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Rather, you should open a talk page and list what specific items you have an issue with that violate wikipedia guidelines so an understanding can be reached.
I am making my changes again, with the delete of the word prestigious. Do not wholesale revert them. If there are factual, structural, or Wikipedia based issues with my content, pull out what there are issues with and I am happy to have a discussion.
If you do not think you can do that, then please escalate this to someone to adjudicate.
- You have exclusively edited the page of this one person, and your edits are devoted to removing controversial information sourced to RS (such as Pletka's climate change denial nonsense) while adding trivial and obscure commentary and detailed information about her life which was exclusively sourced to herself and her organization. It's hard not to raise questions about your affiliation with the subject of the article given these patterns. But that's besides the main point, which is that the content you added simply does not belong in the Wikipedia article, because the article is not Pletka's personal website. There is nothing to indicate that her views expressed in these op-eds are notable enough to warrant mention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I started I new section (in talk) discussing some changes I think are warranted in the article. If you take issue with what I have proposed, please say so now because I don't want to start some sort of edit war. To be clear, I do not wish to delete this info......however some of the conclusions drawn are inappropriate (as per NPOV & OR). Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Help at Abby Phillip
I am in need of some assistance at Abby Phillip. After her appearance co-moderating last night's CNN debate, her page has become a target from IPs editing in tendentious content. They appear to be the same type of folks who vandalized and generally clouded the Kulinski AFD. I requested page protection, but an extra pair of eyes would be appreciated! Thanks, KidAd (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zusammenbruch (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I restored the long-standing version of the lead once, whereas you are edit-warring new and blatantly non-npov changes into the lead and have referred to the lead as neonazi propaganda. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why did you revert my edit to the article about illegal immigration and crime? All illegal immigrants have broken U.S. law by entering and/or remaining in the United States illegally. That statement is truthful, and clearly relevant to the article, albeit contrary to your point of view. Please undo your revert. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring aggressive header titles again
- I have repeatedly told you stay away from my talk page. And no one is buying your "not me, but you!" nonsense about being harassed. You have an extensive record of harassing me, and a simple search of my username shows you ranting about me over periods of years on off-wiki sites. In the last few days alone, you've insulted me as being "unemployed" and have suggested that I'm working for hire for David Brock In the last 18 months alone, you've been blocked twice for personal insults and harassment towards me. Admins have explicitly warned you for engaging in a "strategy to harass" me by following me around to obscure articles and removing content added by me. What's my supposed "abuse" of you? Last time, you made this accusation, you claimed it was harassment when I used the word "brazen" (as in a "brazen BRD violation"). This is getting incredibly incredibly tiring. How many years am I going to have to put with this editor? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Snoog. I can see that you're still a bit busy with Media coverage of Bernie Sanders and Sashi. Do you want me to nominate Emma Vigeland for deletion? I predict a fairly brief discussion. KidAd (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, if you think it should be deleted, you could try WP:PROD, but given the speedy deletion request was contested, I think that's highly unlikely to be successful. If you're correct that AfD will "obviously delete", going the AfD route requires really minimal effort. If you're convinced the sources don't go to notability, AfD is the place to make the argument, but given they could plausibly do so (they're not self-published or anything - they may be too short to establish notability, I don't know, but that's why a discussion is had). Given a G4 deletion would be straightforwardly overturned at DRV, going straight to AfD is just going where you'd end up anyhow. WilyD 06:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Follow up from 
Re-reading your commitments above, it looks like #2 is the one that applies to this case. I think it might be reasonable to modify the middle bit of that one to read, "If the user restores the content again, I will start a talk page discussion (even if the other editor is violating BRD), attempt to resolve it through discussion and will wait
a few daysat least 1 day before restoring the status quo version." That would at the least make it easier for you to restore the status quo while discussion is ongoing (which is what should be up anyway). But that would still not wholly prevent the examples you cited earlier (SR makes an edit changing the status quo, you revert, SR reverts you 10 minutes later). In fact, removing your commitment entirely couldn't have prevented that. That is a shortcoming that is baked into 1RR as it is currently defined, and the only way I can stop that kind of gaming is with an additional sanction on the article itself or on SR. ~Awilley (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that is an improvement, but the "wait a few days" provision wasn't all that cumbersome. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Awilley, the problem is the clear inability of other editors to abide by BRD and consensus requirements (despite repeated warnings by multiple editors to do so), and a desire by the same editors to exploit my voluntary editing restrictions. Earlier today, I made additional edits to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (my first in 6 days). These edits were made in bits and pieces, so as to prevent a wholesale revert if anyone disagreed with part of the edits. SashiRolls of course reverted me in full less than 15 minutes later. In his revert, he restored newly added content by himself that multiple editors have expressed opposition to (while laughably saying that no one has "talked" about these changes – just check all the references to David Brock on the talk page – ctrlF shows "53" hits for "Brock"). He also restored an inaccurate summary of the findings of a study (a study that he himself has admitted to not even having read). So, the editor is (i) brazenly violating BRD and consensus requirements (for the umpteenth time) by restoring newly added content, and (2) in mind-numbingly tendentious and extremely annoying form, he is restoring his own inaccurate summary of a study that he himself has admitted to never having read. I cannot overstate how obnoxious it is to see this person inaccurately summarize a study that I read and I originally added to the article (and which the other person has not read) just because of his hatred and obsession with me, AND that there is nothing that can be done about this. And this behavior does not come from nowhere: the editor has been doing this for many years, see this from 2016 where this person stalked me to obscure articles, only to revert my additions of peer-reviewed studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- After having already copped to not having access to the book, the editor now pretends to have it, as he adds whatever snippets he can find from the Google Books preview of the book. Upon hearing that they've inaccurately summarized a study which they cannot access, many editors might be inclined to restore the version written by the person who actually has access to the study. Then there are editors who respond to this by doubling-down and claiming that they do indeed have access to the book (as they desperately look for whatever pages are not blocked on the Google Books preview and then immediately insert the first tangentially related item they can find while leaving the inaccurate summary in place). This is because the goal is not to produce an encyclopedia but to settle scores with the editors that they have an obsession and hatred for. Cringey and bizarre but fully expected. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm getting a bit lost trying to review the lists of diffs above. Since you're more familiar with the context than I, could you do me a favor and give diffs in sets of 3 showing the ignoring BRD problem? Example: [SR adds new content] [Somebody removes the content] [SR immediately restores the content without discussion] ~Awilley (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- On 31 Dec, SR adds content. Reverted on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”) Reverted by a second editor on 6 Jan.  Restored two hours later. 
- On 2 Jan, SR adds content. Revert on 11 Jan Restored 30 min later (with edit summary “No consensus for these changes”)
- On 2 Jan, SR adds content. Revert on 11 Jan. Restored 30 min later.
- 3 Jan. Reverted on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”) Reverted on 11 Jan Restored 30 minutes later(with “no consensus for these changes” in the edit summary) Reverted by a second editor on 12 Jan. Restored two days later.
- 3 Jan. Revert on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”) Reverted by a second editor on 5 Jan. Virtually the same text restored 2 hrs later.
- 3 Jan. Reverted on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”)
- On 19 Jan, SR adds content Revert. Twenty minutes later, SR restores the content.
- On 18 Jan, SR adds content. 21 Jan, it gets reverted. Ten minutes later, the content was restored.
- 12 Jan, SR was “warned” by an admin on the EW noticeboard for edit-warring. I explicitly complained about the BRD violations, which I considered a far more serious problem than 1RR. On the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders talk page, SR was repeatedly warned to stop with the BRD violations (just ctrlF “BRD”): on 5 January (by two editors), 7 January, 12 January (by two editors), 14 January, 15 January, 21 January. What makes a lot of this particularly galling is SR's calls on others to "discuss on TP" and "no consensus for these changes" when SR is restoring newly added content by himself, sometimes content that has already been discussed many times on the talk page and which no one has expressed agreement with SR for inclusion (all the David Brock content that he keeps edit-warring into the article, for example).
The examples above are just _some_ of the many many BRD violations by SR in the article. I did not bother to add the more complicated ones or the ones where it was hard to find the original edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Awilley and Snooganssnoogans: Just wanted to point out that my ANI thread was closed as not actionable, which I frankly find insane. I provided diffs to clear personal attacks and edit warring, and cited related policy. The attacks continued after the thread was closed, and when I raised that issue, I was told I need to calm down. I do not understand why admins are letting this fly. --WMSR (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hasan Piker AfD
Do not delete my revisions of subject matter that you know nothing about. You are a wreckless editor who should not be editing anything that you have no clue about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)
You are a wreckless editorThat's an endorsement if I've ever seen one! --WMSR (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Stop Stalking Me
Just today, you have followed me to two cites to undo my edits. Please stop stalking me. You complain whenever I happen to edit any articles you claim ownership to, and accuse me of stalking even though I couldn't begin to undo every edit a professional Wikipedia editor like you performs every day. But you are again following me around to undo my edits. I should report you to Awilley. GlassBones (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and report me. My editing on those pages precede yours, so your stalking claim is nonsense (you on the other hand literally stalked me and were warned by admins for doing so). It's not my fault that most of your edits are bad and should be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans- I'm not going to report you to Awilley. It wouldn't do any good anyway. It's clear that no Admin will do anything to the great and powerful professional editor Snoogy, except maybe having you do "voluntary sanctions". Despite your battleground mentality, biased edits, harassment of other editors, and other questionable behavior, you are obviously above reproach. I am also aware of the train to the gulags. GlassBones (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring on Conrad Black
I must say that you are repeatedly rewriting that statement on Trump releasing Black because of the book that the latter wrote. That might be true - I wouldn't put it past Trump - but, I have mentioned elsewhere, it is unproven, and will create an impression of bias if published here. You are creating the edit war, and the source you mention is not known for its friendliness to Trump (though quite rightly). Any Republicans reading the article will get ticked off, and so we cannot afford to be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not make that connection, but The Washington Post, a RS, does, and that connection is attributed to them. That's the proper way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Bloomberg stop and synth?
Snoog, this edit  appears to be SYNTH. There was just a talk page thread about how to deal with Stop and Frisk, and this was not one of the concerns that arose there. Maybe revert and come to talk? SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- There's no synth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted for different reason. I can't find an article post-publishing of either study that confirms the findings cited. As it is, the article was an article about an article. I don't doubt the finding, just would like better Sourcing.
- Slywriter (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
|Just checking on you! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)|
Hi Snooganssnoogans. Sorry for editing here, but I'm not a regular user, and am not sure how to contact you directly. I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you over Naomi Seibt, but your wording is decidedly partisan at best. As I understand it, Wikipedea is supposed to be a fact-finding site, and not somewhere for editors to air their personal beliefs. Could we reach a compromise? How about "..is a German Youtuber who is known for her climate activism, where she stands against the consensus of anthropogenic climate change..."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Livingstone (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans - You haven't edited the Joe Biden article for at least the last several months, but you suddenly visited the Biden article 35 minutes after me to change my edits. You accuse me of stalking you whenever I visit a site you have previously edited (which, since you are so prolific, is virtually any post-1932 US politics article), yet you just happen to show up at the only site I have edited recently, just to change my edits. Seriously, why are you harassing me? You really need to get a life. GlassBones (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Stop commenting on my talk page. I've absolutely had it with this bizarre and creepy nonsense. The Joe Biden page is on my watchlist, as can be indicated by my past edits on the page. Since your edits are usually awful and your edit popped up on my watchlist, I of course checked what you added to the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you are adding references to a number of articles which are causing cite date errors as
|date=undefined/ed is not a valid date. Could you please revise these to use a valid date. Thanks Keith D (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
First warning: stop introducing mendacious summaries into the Iraq sanctions death article
Hello, I'm Zusammenbruch. Your recent edit(s) to the page on the Iraq sanctions death page appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. *It does not matter whether those edits are "long-standing" features of the page; if they are incorrect and represent a misreporting of research, they must be removed*. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source (that the *consensus* has changed on Iraq sanctions deaths; one paper is not "a consensus" and may not be described as such). This is your first warning. This will progress to me requesting administrative intervention if you do not cease. You unfortunately have the right to be a white supremacist in private, but you may not introduce errors into Wikipedia that stem from your misinformed beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusammenbruch (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
GlassBones Topic Ban
Snoogassnoogans - I was told by Awilley that I since I have a topic ban I should ask someone prior to editing any Wikipedia article to determine if editing the article is a violation of the topic ban. Since I don't want to waste an Admin's time with my questions on this issue, since you are a long-time editor, and since you hold yourself out as an expert on what subjects fall within my topic ban, you seem like a good person to ask.
I intend to edit the Wikipedia article on the Battle of the Thames. In your expert opinion, would this be a violation of my topic ban in any way? Please advise. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Snoogassnoogans - I intend to edit the Wikipedia article on Central American migrant caravans. In your expert opinion, would this be a violation of my topic ban in any way? Please advise. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it. And get off my talk page. Bother someone else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - I assume you meant to write "of course it is". If that is the case, I'm not sure how an article about people walking from Central America into Mexico falls under post-1932 US politics but I accept your opinion. Thank you. And there is no need to be confrontational or less than cordial with me. Indeed, you should be happy now that you got me topic banned. I hope you have a nice day. GlassBones (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- GlassBones See Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors'_user_and_user_talk_pages Please respect Snoogans's wishes and stop posting to this talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Quit trolling. The photo is acceptable for use in the article, as it illustrates and shows the subject. One more revert and I'm reporting you to the ANI. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
No-go area edit warring
Your recent editing history at No-go area 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Please do not attack the motives of other editors
Snoogans, the last big ANI you were involved with included a warning about attacking other editors. Please keep that in mind when casting aspersions. If you don't I will not hesitate to take the matter to ANI. If you are too busy to do edits correctly you shouldn't be making those edits. Springee (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I will never stop calling out editors who remove the description "false" from the assertion that the Affordable Care Act created "death panels". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
|~ I heard there is an open spot in White House ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)|