User talk:Truthsort - Knowledge (XXG)

1134:"A Hill Hack Goes Prime-Time Wacko": Hardly a neutral source. And it gives no more detail on his life and career than what is already in the article. You added it simply because it was critical of O'Donnell. The "Baltimore Sun" source is a blog (replete with grammatical errors), not a reliable source. And the Irish Central source does not describe O'Donnell as "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly; you imposed your own POV interpretation. It's a matter of opinion that he has focused "a lot of is program on verbal attacks": your opinion. In short, you did a bit of POV-pushing, which is OK if most Wikipedians agree with you. So get 2504: 1202:. I feel that O'Donnell has displayed some inappropriate behavior on air, and that information is included in the article in a balanced way. But you are stepping over the line continuing to try to push this O'Reilly claim into the article. This article is a BLP and requires a very high standard for sourcing and following policies. Please don't continue to message with me the same lame arguments. It's more than a little obvious you are intent on pushing something critical of O'Donnell into the article. 1225:

And secondly, there is exactly one news article about this (via google). If perhaps a bunch of newspapers start covering this or similar stories then this might be worth including. As it is, this really isn't newsworthy as is. And I don't feel that the actions of a few supporters are really relevant to the protests as a whole any more than the Indiana assistant Attorney general who wanted the protesters to be shot. Your edit seems to gives undue weight to this. Feel free to respond here.

1295: 1047: 1016: 252:- it will revert quicker than undo, it enables you to semi-automatically warn vandals (with a complete index of warnings) and has a few other useful features. It also provides nice detailed edit summaries automatically which makes it a lot easier to see what you've done at a glance. If you install it and spend a bit of time on the recent changes, come and ask me directly on my talk page in a week, maybe 2, and I'll probably grant it. Best, 2665: 3851: 3795: 3196: 2834: 3562: 22: 3693: 178: 4014: 3926: 3621: 3281: 2920: 3504: 3409: 3101: 3013: 1596:, which you have yet to do. I think you are being a bit too sweeping in your consensus, and like Truthsort, you have not addressed my point about allowing for a very specific exception, in a very specific way, with a very specific wording. Note that I am not endorsing mention of Breivik in general, only when and where the persons so named have publicly addressed the incident. 2088: 1384: 472:

including mine. This is considered bad form. The material I added was indeed well-cited. Stating as I did that her accusations are "controversial", "false" or unsupported is demonstrably true, and your attempt to remove this context from the article is singularly unhelpful to the Knowledge (XXG) effort. I trust you will refrain from such attempts in the future. Thank you.

28: 326: 623:. I appreciate that rather than speaking civilly to another editor, it's more fun to slap a BLP violation template on his talk page and treat him like a vandal. My edit was not a violation of BLP, and I invite you to bring it up at whatever forum will turn you on. Thirdly, you've been easily played by a . Cheers. — 1468:

Please stop accusing me of "adding" something that I didn't myself. I reverted one change that you made, and once only. A passing glance at the history will demonstrate this. Secondly, I think you're selectively reading the discussions that I referred you to. If it is guilt by association, then you

471:

Re: your rv of my edit to the PM article. The material I included was perfectly appropriate and well-cited. As you are apparently a newcomer to Knowledge (XXG), welcome. However, please acquaint yourself with Knowledge (XXG) rules and guidelines before making false accusations on people's talk pages,

3524:

This is the last warning you will receive before I report you to an administrator for violating both WP:POV and engaging in edit warring. You have been warned of this multiple times and it appears your account only exists to push political propaganda of some sort. Knowledge (XXG) is NOT the place to

3464:

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

3156:

1612:

in particular expended a considerable amount of energy reformatting the page in question a few months ago after a series of incidents comprised of edit wars and vandalism, and the present format was achieved through a carefully achieved consensus. You can observe this for yourself, by looking at the

1559:

No, not canvassing - a sharing of common concerns about what appears to be an attempt to impose a consensus that has not been achieved, with an apparently determined disregard of the arguments advanced against the "consensus" position. the repetition of the claim that those opposing the "consensus"

1224:

Regarding why I'm reverting your edit to the Wisconsin protests: Firstly, citing what someone wrote on RedState is not really newsworthy any more than what someone wrote on DailyKos. (And yes, this was covered by CBS, but still... it's like that NYT article citing literally "one person on a blog.")

1189:

what you're doing. Nowhere does a source explicitly state that O'Donnell has been "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly since the timeslot changed. The source says "last week". The time slot didn't change last week. And even if you said, "Last week O'Donnell ...", that's a

489:

Careful, you're at 2RR already, and if you exceed you will be reported. You need to explain how my edit was "my personal analysis". It is self-evidently true that her statements are "controversial", and that the relevant statements mentioned in the article are "false". I am at 1RR and will revert

1690:

Talk pages are for discussions in improving the article. When an IP address dumps off two links and copies and paste two sentences from one of the articles without anything else written from the IP address, it should be removed. We do not let users dump links in the talk page for the sake of it.

276:

Hey, I noticed you're trying to revert vandalism but have been recently declined for rollback permission. As you are no doubt aware, vandalism is a major problem on Knowledge (XXG), and we need all the help we can get keeping it off the site. Huggle is a powerful tool, but if you don't know what

2990:

Truthsort, I would appreciate you weighing in on this editor discussion. The mention of this trivia was excluded in 2012/3, but a newbie posted it in the article of Congressman John Fleming after he was appointed to HHS even though there is nothing new on this ancient trivia. You can find it at

1602:

canvassing. It is very clear that I in no way asked the few individuals contacted to affect a specific outcome. These editors all participated in the last comprehensive overhaul of the "criticism" section, after it was the subject of edit warring and vandalism, and have spent considerable time

2183:

I reverted your recent edit. I think you were trying to remove the phrase "Particularly controversial", however, you removed a great deal of other well-sourced content (and citations), which has been exhaustively discussed on the article's talk page. I don't want to make assumptions about your

1587:

or not. I believe that if it is carefully worded, refers to reliable third-party sources, and is very brief, that it doe not constitute such a violation. Understand that I am not advocating for inclusion in articles of each and every person that Breivik has mentioned, only this one. You have

556:

Viriditas, I already did. But thanks, I agree (obviously). Truthsort, I think you are misconstruing the nature of Knowledge (XXG) - not every sentence can, or should be cited - that is ridiculous and so surely you aren't suggesting that. As for BLP, I don't think you have much of a case there.

1621:

Also Jayjg, I note that you have now warned me for edit warring in a 48 hour period, but I find this is bit incredulous, for you have not provided a similar one to Truthsort, who has taken it upon himself to unilaterally revert the article numerous times, claiming that there was some sort of

3293:

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

3633:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2241:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at

1472:

Perhaps you would like to address these specific points made rather than smugly assert a de facto statement as proof of fact? You need to make an argument in defense of your position, and are in no position to issue an absolute dictum. Again, you might like to review the

3256:. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 1524:

Do you believe, however, that this should be included in these BLPs? It just seems like the conesensus there was not to include, but the user who created section above this one says you did support inclusion and that there is no consensus. BTW, would you consider this

2891:. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 1968:. But if the source is reliable, and does contain valid material that is reasonable to include in the article, then the proper thing to do is rewrite it so that it exhibits a more neutral wording (and remove the unsourced info), and not remove it outright. Thanks. 1245:

This is not a violation of undue weight, as this was just a two sentence mention in the article and is not giving that section as much of a detailed view of the protest as the more widely covered events. BTW, there have been more mischievous behavior from these

638:

Goethean, you are the local wikituggee. You think Wikpeidia and it's articles are your personal blog, and any one who edits and challenges you, is a "Joe Hazelton". Your long history of contentious, and tenuous editing speaks volumes for the kind of thug you

2309: 2140:

to Knowledge (XXG) editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Knowledge (XXG) editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

2305: 1158:": First you haven't cited anything claiming that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly. And your finding "a bunch of sources" and then concluding that demonstrates an increase in O'Donnell's criticism of O'Reilly is 2932:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1759:

I see that you have been inserting multiple templates into articles which suggest that David Horowitz's blog is 'the media'. Given the ridiculousness of the claim, can I ask you to revert yourself - or would you prefer that I took this up elsewhere?

1607:

reason that I contacted them, and I have made no attempt to persuade them one way or another regarding the inclusion of any mention of Breivik or support for my position. I merely asked for their input as long-term editors of the page in question.

3811:

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

1155:

There are a bunch of sources that document O'Donnell criticizing O'Reilly. Given the brief time he has had in the new time slot, the fact that there are quite a few sources on it, indicate that he has used a good portion of his show criticizing

1578:

who specifically mentioned not reverting the Spencer page, not Jayjg and I apologize for my confusion. Nevertheless, the issue that I am addressing is whether Breivik's quotation, mentioned together with Spencer's response, constitutes a

1617:

that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

1549:

I haven't looked at most individual cases in detail, but I haven't stated any specific mentions of Breivik should be included, and in general the consensus is that it's just guilt by association. That does look like a bit of canvassing.

3840: 2858: 1775:

Not as ridiculous as calling Moore's films "documentaries", and yes – right-wing media is media too, or shall we narrow RS down to "what suits my own personal world view"? By the way, it's not a blog, it's a legitimate online magazine.

2554:, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of 954:

First off, "gay affair" should not be wikified to "homophobia", second off, I just removed a quote, and third, the source I provided should not have been removed simply for being a blog. There is no blanket ban on all blogs.

2856:

to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is

2297: 2021:

You need to take this to the talk page because you are adding undue weight into the article. You need to prove that this is having an impact on his campaign and is not just minor coverage of material being rehashed.

4057: 3969: 3661: 3321: 2960: 815:

I placed in a news item that had four sources. I stand by all my edits, although some may have typos or be too trivial to remain. I agreed with the person who reverted my edit that, while sourced, it probably was

281:, I highly recommend installing it. It has a "Revert Vandal" function that works basically the same as rollback but doesn't require permission. Use this tool to gain experience. To find vandalism more easily, try 2155:

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through

2772:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 285:. This tool automatically searches recent edits for certain words or phrases and then displays them. You can then go to the edit and revert it using Twinkle. For more information on vandalfighting, go to the 1166:

to either find sources explicitly stating that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly, or get a consensus. That's the way it works on Knowledge (XXG). Have a good day.

1891:

Thanks for the detail , I just did a quick search and looked for the most reliable looking one, there does seem to be a lot of returns for the search though. I see Mastcell has sourced it now, regards -

648:, and yes your edit was a violation of BLP as you decided to wikify contentious material in the article. I also advised this ip address to take his differences to Goethean's talk page instead of mine. 3222:

to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is

4041:. 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 3953:. 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 3645:. 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 3305:. 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 2944:. 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 1198:. This is the last time I'm saying this: find a source that unequivocally (beyond your own conclusions) indicates that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly, or 2062:

article has been removed. There are a lot of things that appear on the front page of the Times. Just because something is newsworthy does not mean that it is significant enough to be mentioned.

2621: 2608: 2490: 1500:? It appears that you say that anyone cited in his manifesto should not have it mentioned in other BLPs. However, another user keeps that you think the Robert Spencer article is an exception. 1588:

continually evaded that part of my argument, Truthsort, and citing a consensus regarding the general mention of Brievik, which I am not advocating, in no way effectively addresses my point.

2559: 4027: 3939: 3895: 3595:

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here:

3223: 3219: 2853: 1469:

need to demonstrate it. I pointed you to specific comments that describe a reason for specifically leaving in the reference on Spencer's article alone. The wording is also very limited.

57:

at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

248:

Hey, I'm sorry, but I've declined your request for rollback, mainly because your last request was so recent and I don't see a large amount of vandalism reversion. I'd suggest you install

2725: 3867:

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

34: 41:

and have been editing Knowledge (XXG) for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Knowledge (XXG)! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on

3574: 3566: 1593: 1497: 1906:

What I disputed was the category "Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government". I never disputed that it was generally viewed as a terror organization.

1853:

What I meant is that there were no sources that stated that the U.S. federal government has designated it as a terrorist organization. The sources you provided do not say that.

512:, especially given that MMfA criticism is already in the article. The Huffington Post source does not indicate false or unsupported comments and the other sources provided are 1652: 520:. The brink for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth. BTW, 3RR does not apply to removal of libelous and unsourced material that violates the policy on 1433:

Hi I am surprised to see you replace this trivia, its been removed again - please open a discussion thread on the talkpage rather than reinset and revert again - thanks.

338: 1832:

http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3ps/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=28

2044:

article is having an impact on his campaign. The fact that the media is revisiting old material is itself noteworthy. Debate about killing the Iowa caucuses is new.

1713:"The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."}} 571:

Arujuna, I'm sure you have only the best intentions, but BLP's are treated a bit differently than regular articles, and every sentence in contention in such BLP's

1402: 1243: 1241: 3472:

Just because you're using a source in a post does not give you license to violate Knowledge (XXG)'s policies with politically-related articles. Your edits to

1271: 3762: 3378: 2431: 2319: 3788:

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles relating to living or recently deceased people

3596: 2421: 96: 1247: 2417: 620: 1983:

Yes, but we usually do not highlight this stuff outside of links in an external link section. You do not see this in every article on an politician.

3432: 3124: 1682:

refers to articles, not talk pages and besides, two links to support an assertion is not linkfarming. Deleting the whole section is proscribed in

1194:. It's you who "doesn't seem to have a full grasp of Knowledge (XXG) policies". And one policiy that I don't intend to repeatedly remind you of is 1835: 1264: 99:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out

3423:. 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 3115:. 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 699:

and actually reading the discussions before you just show up on my Knowledge (XXG) page and somehow suggest that my accusations are "unfounded".

3898:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 3843:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 3237: 2872: 3758: 3374: 2562:. There's lots of news this month for the Knowledge (XXG) Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... 2427: 2315: 1395: 1390: 854: 645: 4079: 3991: 3675: 3335: 2974: 2797: 2742: 2734: 2664: 1312: 1064: 1033: 2681:

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

2372:. I have been working to make improvements to get the article to "Good Article" status, and your constant effort really goes a long way. 1656: 1077: 342: 143: 124: 104: 42: 596:

Viriditas, me and the other user made two reverts, which does not violate 3RR (and even then I was just reverting content that was not

2520: 3705: 3515: 3215: 2815:. The article is under discretionary sanction (blp), so please be careful with your sourcing when naming individuals in articles. - 2259: 2354: 668: 3697: 3424: 3245: 3116: 3060: 2880: 2250: 3717: 1735:

How about reading the part where is says that talk pages are for discussing improvements for articles and not dumping off links?

1831: 81: 4075: 3987: 3671: 3331: 3228:

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

2970: 2863:

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

2793: 2738: 1876: 903:

PLEASE use edit summaries, especially when editing BLPs. They will at least explain why you're removing sourced information.

201:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 196: 4050: 3962: 3654: 3440: 3314: 3132: 3072: 3028: 2953: 2424:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2312:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2243: 1162:. You're not a newcomer; I don't plan to go back and forth with you over basic policies. Your edits have been challenged. The 71: 217:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

3444: 3136: 3076: 289:

page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Good luck, and welcome to the vandalfighter forces! --

3876: 3821: 3241: 2876: 184: 2534: 2163:

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

3509: 3452: 3253: 3144: 3082: 2888: 2784:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1342:

Not sure if you bothered to look, but I have given an explanation on the edit summaries. The content is a violation of

979:

Hey thanks for putting my edit back in. I think your wording is much better than mine too so thanks for that as well.

758: 4062: 3974: 3666: 3326: 2965: 2789: 2100: 1781: 1160:

synthesis of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources

984: 945: 908: 282: 3249: 3229: 2884: 513: 1099:? Your recent addition of an external link to this article appears to break this particular rule. Please remove it. 139: 120: 38: 2408:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2296:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

218: 204: 2152:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

597: 517: 3748: 3575:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Truthsort reported by User:White Shadows (Result: )

2218:

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

871:

I am simply trying to help the Knowledge (XXG) project and not hurt it. The content you added was a violation of

3570: 3457: 3436: 3420: 3233: 3149: 3128: 3112: 3068: 3040: 3020: 2868: 725:

No, I'm pretty sure he was talking to me given that I had just posted on a talk page discussion that he was in.

346: 66: 61: 2222:

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email

2092: 1797: 4038: 3950: 3642: 3364: 3302: 2941: 88: 1678:

Normally we do not remove entire sections of a talk page especially if it contains other people's comments.

1183:

WP:SYN means taking two different things and combining them to reach a conclusion. That's not being done here

686: 2503: 1660: 1081: 665: 3752: 3368: 3202:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Knowledge (XXG). It does

2840:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Knowledge (XXG). It does

1614: 1332:

and will likely be blocked. I'd advise you to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit-warring.--

1240:

How is something not newsworthy simply because it was written on a blog? Here are more sources if you want.

3701: 3435:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

3127:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

2514: 2119: 2096: 1777: 1765: 1076:

What was proven false about the 2006 Forum Controversy? Perhaps you could discuss this on his talk page?

980: 941: 904: 681:

Please don't make unfounded accusations of other editors, linking off site will not help your case. Best,

354: 330: 177: 3428: 3120: 3064: 3032: 3024: 2785: 2592:

Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

919: 100: 92: 3908: 3265: 1973: 1580: 1104: 761:

to the David Koch article was a good one. The material you added was perfectly appropriate, and thanks!

682: 672: 387: 261: 189: 2864: 2157: 1679: 214: 3565:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

383: 3731:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3713: 3351:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3174: 2998: 2580:

Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

2470: 2377: 2238:. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. 1897: 1843: 1817: 1609: 1575: 1438: 1279: 4021: 3933: 3629: 3289: 2928: 2910: 2761: 2752: 1526: 1343: 876: 423:

Actually, up to twelve sources have been used for the most controversial issues. Seven sources are

2644:'s programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this 2586:

OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

1942: 1872: 1226: 766: 580: 562: 547: 495: 477: 4034: 3946: 3891: 3836: 3638: 3298: 3189:

Discretionary sanctions alert : post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

2937: 2781: 2765: 2114:

Please wait for him to actually sign to make edits to the Broncos. Must wait for it be official.--

1274:

related to your recent edits. I'd encourage you to join the discussion. Thanks for the work! --

1191: 1163: 850: 329:

Constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to

3744: 3578: 3527: 3485: 2574:

Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

2409: 1926: 1627: 1482: 1230: 1053: 1046: 1022: 1015: 717: 627: 539: 432: 208: 3887: 3880: 3872: 3868: 3832: 3825: 3817: 3813: 3035:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

2137: 2045: 2007: 1796:

Hello Truthsort, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this related

1710: 1683: 509: 3778: 3604: 3481: 3394: 3360: 3232:

administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the

2867:

administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the

2821: 2625: 2510: 2447: 2335: 2115: 1761: 1718: 1565: 1410: 1301: 1294: 865: 825: 458: 440: 350: 4046: 3958: 3650: 3310: 2949: 2777: 2769: 2645: 1961: 398: 4069: 3981: 3903: 3857:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

3801:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

3260: 3091: 2528: 2185: 1969: 1207: 1172: 1143: 1100: 397:

Well down the line do not blank portions of an article without discussing it and reaching a

365: 294: 253: 4049:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4042: 3961:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3954: 3653:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3646: 3477: 3313:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3306: 2952:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2945: 2780:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2773: 2672: 2641: 2544: 1769: 1584: 1474: 1399:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. 1195: 1159: 1135: 872: 817: 521: 508:

Actually, no it was not appropriate and was not well-cited. The MMfA source is just adding

428: 286: 3740: 3709: 2994: 2598:

WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

2568:

2466: 2373: 2255:

Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage

2133: 2049: 2011: 1893: 1839: 1813: 1801: 1671: 1434: 1350:

readded it without a reason and then reverts making an argument that violates WP:NOTNEWS.

1347: 1275: 111: 50: 2604:

Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

1329: 1328:

3 times in the last 24 hours. If you revert the edits again, you will be in violation of

1096: 278: 249: 3755:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 3371:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1651:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

3541: 3461: 3153: 2896: 2462: 2390: 2277: 2199: 2063: 2023: 1984: 1964:, in part because it included information not in the cited source, which also violates 1938: 1907: 1868: 1854: 1736: 1692: 1536: 1501: 1449: 1351: 1249: 1115: 995: 956: 923: 880: 836: 794: 762: 726: 700: 649: 601: 576: 558: 543: 525: 491: 473: 402: 334: 305: 234: 154: 21: 3850: 3794: 3195: 2833: 1965: 3769:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3385:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2438:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2326:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1623: 1478: 714: 624: 417: 76: 3774: 3770: 3600: 3519: 3473: 3416: 3390: 3386: 3108: 2816: 2443: 2439: 2331: 2327: 2301: 2184:

intent, so can I ask that you discuss the actual edits that you wanted to make, on

1714: 1561: 1406: 861: 821: 696: 644:

First off, Goethean, there is no Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline that says you

455: 436: 4013: 3925: 3692: 3620: 3518:

by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at

3280: 2919: 2006:

News pieces from the last two weeks aren't old, even if they bring up old issues.

3469:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 3161:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2166:

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at

2040:

front page is not minor coverage. This is just a double standard. Prove that the

3732: 3431:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

3123:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

3087: 2651: 2524: 2267: 2235: 2223: 2170: 2167: 1365: 1333: 1325: 1203: 1168: 1139: 781: 290: 3503: 3408: 3100: 2266:

Thanks for helping make Knowledge (XXG) better. Enjoy your research! Cheers,

1147: 2413: 1622:

consensus, without actually citing it, and well before one had been achieved.

1589: 1551: 1516: 1383: 857: 1085: 454:

Please enable your e-mail. I have an important matter to discuss with you. --

277:

you're doing it's easy to do much more harm than good. If you don't yet have

2369: 1934: 809: 229: 2811:

Note that the RickjSerrano twit you used, has been removed by the author:

2620:

only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the

2353: 575:

be cited. I would help out, but I find that topic extremely distasteful.

3352: 3063:

to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents

2189: 1364:

I did, but that doesn't mean you can endlessly revert. Read the policy.--

666:

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/integralcensorship.asp

4053:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3965:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3657:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3317:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2956:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2675:

has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and

2368:

Thank you for your efforts resolving conflict and continuing cleanup on

2146: 1655:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

325: 4083: 4031:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3995: 3943:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3911: 3782: 3736: 3721: 3679: 3608: 3585: 3549: 3534: 3492: 3398: 3339: 3268: 3183: 3095: 3048:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made

3002: 2978: 2904: 2826: 2801: 2768:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

2746: 2654: 2628: 2474: 2451: 2398: 2381: 2339: 2298:

Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2012

2285: 2270: 2207: 2192: 2173: 2123: 2104: 2071: 2053: 2031: 2015: 1992: 1977: 1960:

from the Sean Duffy article was clearly slanted in a way that violated

1946: 1915: 1901: 1880: 1862: 1847: 1821: 1785: 1744: 1722: 1700: 1664: 1631: 1613:

most recent talk archives of the page. All of this is well within the

1569: 1554: 1544: 1519: 1509: 1486: 1457: 1442: 1414: 1368: 1359: 1336: 1308: 1283: 1257: 1234: 1211: 1176: 1123: 1108: 1060: 1029: 1003: 988: 964: 949: 931: 912: 888: 844: 829: 802: 793:

Nevertheless, this is a moot point because his adminship is successful.

784: 770: 734: 720: 708: 690: 676: 657: 630: 609: 584: 566: 551: 533: 499: 490:

your rv. I suggest we take this to the talk page to avoid an edit war.

481: 461: 444: 410: 391: 368: 358: 313: 298: 266: 238: 162: 147: 128: 27: 3708:

and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

3484:

if you'd like this source to be included in the text of the article.--

1515:

I haven't commented there about specific articles, including Spencer.

2812: 1937:

trying to explain why I did, and thought maybe you want to comment.

922:

that is all. Did you really have to note this on such a minor edit?

780:

Look at the time stamps closely, it was from almost two years ago.

382:

Please read the article discussion for reasons I deleted the post.

3696:

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own

2986:

Request For Comment: 2017 discussion of the 2012 Onion "incident"

849:

Yes, but it gets better: the Rand campaign is trying to cover up

349:

to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

4066:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3978:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3863:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

3807:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

3356: 2229: 117:

on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

4056:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

3968:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

3660:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

3597:

Knowledge (XXG):Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong

3460:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 3320:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

3164:

The article is under a 1RR restriction which you violated with

3152:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 2959:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

2700:: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices 4025:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

3569:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

3206:

imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

3059:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

2844:

imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

1560:

are pushing "guilt by association" is offensive and improper.

1574:

First off, I was incorrect about Jayjg's conclusion. It was

790:

As recently as this month, a user accused him of harrassment.

3407: 3099: 3011: 2712:: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs 2663: 2129:

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

1933:

I was the one who removed it before, I made a thread on the

1315:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1293: 1067:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1045: 1036:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1014: 3075:. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary 713:

I think that ValenShephard was replying to 76.203.2.26. —

3937:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

3567:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2706:: advise on building tools to support the library's work 1592:, I have asked you to respond to this specific point on 345:

for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our

4037: