Jump to content

User talk:Thenightaway: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:Snooganssnoogans/Archive 10. (BOT)
WP:ASPERSIONS]] and WP:CIVILITY
Line 61: Line 61:
I look forward to your thoughts, thank you for your work [[User:LibrorumCere|LibrorumCere]] ([[User talk:LibrorumCere|talk]]) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I look forward to your thoughts, thank you for your work [[User:LibrorumCere|LibrorumCere]] ([[User talk:LibrorumCere|talk]]) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
|}
|}

==[[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and [[WP:CIVILITY]]==
As I'm sure you are aware, ARBCOM [[User talk:The Kingfisher#Email from ARBCOM to The Kingfisher|cleared me]] of being a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Kingfisher&curid=59831572&diff=996819828&oldid=881331201 sockpuppet]. Therefore, per [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and [[WP:CIVILITY]], you need to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Snooganssnoogans&diff=957124413&oldid=957095820 remove this edit] from your [[User:Snooganssnoogans|userpage]] immediately and I ''may'' consider not reporting you. [[User:The Kingfisher|The Kingfisher]] ([[User talk:The Kingfisher|talk]]) 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 24 May 2021


Since you created this RfC I figured it's best if you also closed it. It's getting pretty bloated and consensus seems to be definitive yes on options 2 and 3, while the reception on option 1 is more mixed. I think it would be a good idea to close the current RfC in favor of options 2 and 3, and then start a fresh one exclusively for option 1 and ping everyone who contributed previously. Curbon7 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
It's been very humbling and enlightening to read through some of your recently edited articles: Stimson, Krasner, the Naxalites, and Crosland in particular. Thank you for your tremendous work and patience — Hephestus-1964 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rufo

Thanks for your input. Left you a note on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B048:382:1179:A496:4AB6:FEFB (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved our discussion over the the reliable sources chatboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_text_of_an_Executive_Order_by_the_President_of_the_United_States_a_Reliable_Source_for_the_Content_of_that_Order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing warning

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ami Horowitz. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

You removed two reliable sources that backed the sections.

  • In this edit, you wrote: "nothing about this in this source" however, the reliable source has: "In Portland, he collected donations from college students to explicitly support Hamas terror attacks on schools, hospitals and other Israeli “soft targets.”
  • In this edit, you wrote: "same', however, the reliable source has: "The first really viral sensation was the ISIS flag versus Israeli flag."

The Kingfisher (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not support the lengthy quotes that they were used as sources for. Do not post on my talk page again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "nothing about this in this source" and "same" in the following edit. Your summaries suggest that, well, there is "nothing" in the reliable sources connected to the content which is false. Also, I believe that editors have the right to place reasonable warnings on editor talk pages. Can you show me policy that states otherwise? The Kingfisher (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOBAN, which is a part of the Talk pages guideline instructs: "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior." BusterD (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is listing someone's Government titles Puffery?

Why is listing someone's Government titles Puffery?
I have no conflict on Robert Kadlec. I am an expert on the topic. He has a 30 year plus career. Adding the titles of his roles at the White House and the Senate is fact based, nothing more.

Likewise noting that his Role at HHS statutorily oversaw BARDA which oversaw operation warp speed? These are inarguable facts. Why are you editing them out?

Please explain to me why you feel your opinion should beat proven facts (congressional and federal budget records, for example), or why these are not critical issues to note as we end a pandemic?

I look forward to your thoughts, thank you for your work LibrorumCere (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you are aware, ARBCOM cleared me of being a sockpuppet. Therefore, per WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVILITY, you need to remove this edit from your userpage immediately and I may consider not reporting you. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]