User talk:BattleshipGray

I see that you already have received a DS notification from

talk) 02:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear

talk) repeatedly inserts the bias language into the article lede, when the only citation is to an Opinion article - not a reliable source. This is a violation of BLP, RS and NPOV, and needs to stop. He has been requested, repeatedly, to discuss this issue on the Talk page and get consensus, but he refuses to do so. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 14:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not agree that consensus is with Snoogans. How could it be? Opinion pieces are only good for the author's opinion which should be marked as such. They don't belong in the lede in wiki-voice. In any case, by my count BG has not broken any rulez. Still, one thing is sure... dwelling on the matter might would not be wise. I've already mentioned this page along with a couple other recent deformations at one of the public stocks. The House doesn't care, because reasons. So do be careful BG: being too earnest/right often gets the embattled thrown into the nearest

WP:POV Railroad car out of the House and off to the gulags. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

🌿

Snooganssnoogans' user page - he revels in doing what I was warned about. I get that he has been editing far longer than me, but it just seems that certain editors here are really protected, and also protect each other, even if their edits and overall behavior may be questionable. -BattleshipGray (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What kind of a question is that? What are you accusing me of? -BattleshipGray (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it's extremely weird that a newly created account immediately shows a familiarity with Wikipedia policies, noticeboards, and talk pages, while also showing familiarity with Wikipedia usernames and proceeds to copy-paste blatantly NPOV-vio text to the page of every Democratic politician who has expressed support for the

talk) 23:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

talk)Well, what I know about Wikipedia policies is from reading about them. As for talk pages, I was told to go there to discuss edits. It isn't hard to figure out - there is a little tab at the top of every article that reads "Talk", and it's not hard to select that tab. As for the noticeboard - on Talk pages of people there is a link, and a statement to the effect that you should go to the noticeboard to discuss any issue with another editor. As for the Green New Deal - I was just including important information about the huge cost to implement this program. And - does it matter which articles I choose to edit? It was my understanding that anyone can edit any article that they choose. As for NPOV-VIO - it would be more helpful if you would write in words rather than strings of letters. I assume NPOV is "neutral point of view", but I have no clue what "VIO" stands for. BattleshipGray (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Snooganssnoogans: the fact that this user consistently pings users by copying their signature gives me pause to say that this is a returning user. That's something a lot of new users do: [1] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

BullRangifer: [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, that was the right diff. I was trying to demonstrate that I did that when I was new. No clue about what editor you could be referring to, though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

BullRangifer: [Thank you for the ping] Since folks keep bringing this up - how do you refer to someone, and make sure they get the message, without copying and pasting their name from an earlier post? I don't want to talk about anyone behind their back. Thanks. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

BG - see my post below re:pinging (echo). Regarding whether or not you know if your ping worked, click on your "Preferences" in the top menu bar - when there, look to the far right, click on Notifications, and check the ones you want under "Notify me about these events". I can't remember if you have to enable email or not but you will get a notice if the ping fails. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Kamala Harris page is under the following restriction: "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts."

You should self-revert immediately.

Here[[2]] you are literally restoring pro-Kremlin disinformation.[3] It's such fringe nonsense that the individuals involved now admit they were conned. You should self-revert immediately.

In such a circumstance, self-reversion is allowed. Just use a good edit summary to explain what you're doing. --

talk) 15:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Simple way to ping: {{u|Atsme}} or {{yo|Atsme}} or if you want to blue link their user name but no ping them {{noping|Atsme}}. Also see Help talk:Notifications Oh, and I use <nowiki> as evidenced in edit view so the code is ignored. Hope that helps. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create false or misleading edit summaries as you did on Project Veritas. The literal first sentence of the cited Associated Press story is A disabled North Carolina woman is suing the right-wing group Project Veritas. Therefore, it exactly does call the group "right-wing," contrary to your false statement in the edit summary removing the sourced statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The first source states "right-wing" only in passing, and is not the focus of the article. The other 2 sources are not reliable sources. If the term "right-wing" is going to be in the opening statement, there should be more support for the statement that just a passing statement in one article, and articles in a couple of British tabloids. -BattleshipGray (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "passing statement," it's literally in the first line of the article. The Guardian is a widely-accepted reliable source on Wikipedia. You're welcome to open a

Request for Comment if you disagree with the sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Awilley (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural block, since the user has lost access to this account and created a new one at User:GlassBones ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Awilley (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I accidentally left 2 templates ~Awilley (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]