User talk:SunCrow

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. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough?

WP:N means that the subject is sufficiently notable to be on any stand-alone list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SunCrow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of evangelical Christians seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sun Crow: I was very impressed with the Women's Commission report adding the appointment by Andrew Cuomo of Lt. Governor (Kathy Hochul, already on the site) to lead the 100th Women's Anniversary Commission on his wikipedia accomplishments, and the removal of entries on housing and the environment (2017 and 2018 State of the State Addresses). Of course, I was concerned about the original author of the wikipedia on issues and scandals, especially for a Governor who could then be our US President in 2020! In addition, Kathy Hochul (wonderful videos online, historic in their own right) is directly involved with "the opposition" (e.g., Republican sheriffs and county executives) and "non-profit service delivery" in which it's a political football on the opiod epidemic "in my home town and county". ````Julie Ann Racino ```` 2018

January 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Carly Simon. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the bologna, Binksternet. SunCrow (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You posted wrong, controversial information about a living person, misrepresenting a source which did not support your text. That shit'll get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word of that is true, Binksternet. Cut it out. SunCrow (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Kim Davis#Major cuts to the lead

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kim Davis#Major cuts to the lead. - Mr X 🖋 20:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Family Research Council

"That did not "resolve" anything"

Even if one accepts that, it means you don't add it, genius. --Calton | Talk 07:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But to refresh your memory: Talk:Family_Research_Council#Restoring_NPOV_to_the_article --Calton | Talk 07:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the discussion you referenced on the talk page did not address the clause in the lede that I tagged as POV. So you're mistaken. Second of all, I don't believe that consensus is needed on the talk page before an inline tag can be inserted. I didn't even change any content. Third of all, drop the attitude or don't post on my talk page again. SunCrow (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is the mechanism for all decisions on English Wikipedia. Also note the usage notes for the tag that you place in the lead:

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant.
Do not add this to a page more than a reasonable number of times, instead use one of the other templates mentioned below instead.

- Mr X 🖋 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spurious tags to articles

Hi Sun Crow Would you please stop TAGBOMBING Family Research Council? There are already discussions on the talk page and you have failed to get consensus for your contention that POV needs to be restored to the article. Tagging is not a consolation prize for being on the losing end of a content dispute. Also, edit warring when several editors have reverted your tagging is disruptive and can result in you being blocked. Please discuss any new concerns you have about the article content on the talk page and respect consensus when it is evident. Thank you.- Mr X 🖋 11:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a total of three (3) inline tags to a fairly lengthy article. Another editor removed a clause that I had tagged, which would indicate that the tag had merit. This leaves a total of two (2) inline tags that I am seeking to insert. That isn't tagbombing. I also wouldn't characterize the situation as being on "the losing end of a content dispute," because to the best of my recollection, the two sentences I am currently attempting to tag weren't addressed in any depth on the talk page. So I'm not sure what the "consensus" is that you want me to "respect." Finally, if there is a consensus that involves keeping blatantly POV language in an article simply because it matches the POV of most of the editors, that doesn't work. I can't respect a consensus that isn't respectable. If you want to try to have me blocked, that's up to you. But I think you're overreacting. The article is still flawed, but it is significantly improved from where it was when I started working on it. SunCrow (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are for bringing editors to the talk page. We're there now but you're not. You have not given an substantiation to why you believe the sentence is problematic. Tags are not for warning readers. If you have a policy-based argument about the sentence, please make it in the talk page. Also, you seem to assume that your opinion that the material is POV matters more than other editor's opinions. It doesn't.- Mr X 🖋 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just responded on the talk page. I never said or assumed that my opinion mattered more or less than anyone else's. However, I am not going to allow you or anyone else to pressure me into backing off, either. SunCrow (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I closed the thread you opened at WP:ANI. See here. If you fail to heed this warning, you risk being blocked by any administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process.SunCrow (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi SunCrow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I’m inviting you to join other people who edit conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can ask questions and meet new colleagues. You'll also discover DYK: the easiest and funnest way to get your article on the Main Page. I hope to see you there! – Lionel^(talk) 07:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the invitation, Lionel. I have just joined Wikiproject Conservatism. SunCrow (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism!

We are a friendly and fun group of editors dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:

Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
Keep an eye on the Project Alerts for important issues.
Working on a new article? Consider nominating it for "Did you know", a fun way to get on the Wikipedia Main Page.
Submit an article for the project newsletter The Right Stuff.
Check out the to do list and complete some of the tasks.

If you have any questions Just ask and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!
- – Lionel^(talk) 10:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Lionel^(talk) 10:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff June 2018

June 2018

FROM THE EDITOR

The Right Stuff Returns

By Lionelt

Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism Watch (Discuss this story)

ARBITRATION REPORT

Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

By Lionelt

After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.

Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)

IN THE MEDIA

Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

By Lionelt

Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)

DISCUSSION REPORT

Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

By Lionelt

President Donald Trump Speaks at Liberty University Commencement Ceremony

There are several open discussions at the Project:

There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion

Recently closed discussions include Anti-abortion movements which was not renamed, and an RFC at Trump–Russia dossier. (Discuss this story)

Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: July 2018

July 2018

DISCUSSION REPORT

WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

By Lionelt

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism Watch (Discuss this story)

ARTICLES REPORT

Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

By Lionelt

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)

RECENT RESEARCH

Research About AN/I

By Lionelt

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:

53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
"Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
"Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doug Hoffman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McHugh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Noerdlinger

A section of text was removed because it violated NPOV and OR. Quis separabit? 01:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of consent in the United States "age of consent for marriage" citation

In Ages of consent in the United States, for the following statement:

Each U.S. state has its own general age of consent. As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States is either 16 years of age, 17 years of age, or 18 years of age. The most common age of consent is 16.

you provide the following citation:

"State-by-State Marriage "Age of Consent" Laws". FindLaw.com. Retrieved 2018-08-01.

On the referenced page, the table provided is described as

a state-by-state summary of the "age of consent" for marriage

This is not relevant, since this article is about age of consent for sexual activity, not the age of conset for marriage.

Please save me the trouble and self-revert this change. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I apologize for the oversight. I have made the appropriate edits. SunCrow (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not new

Regarding this, it's happening here, as well. It's not new behavior from that particular editor and has been ongoing for months. No one who can do anything about it seems to want to do anything about it even though it's been brought to the attention of several admins numerous times. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate, -- ψλ. Thanks for the heads-up. SunCrow (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I will be more than happy not to post anything on your talk page, provided that you don't post anything about me on your talk page and that you stop making false and ridiculous POV accusations against me. I am not going to put up with any of it, and I will respond each time you do it. You have been editing on Wikipedia for a long time and are well aware of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPT. From the way that you treat me and other editors, it is clear that you don't think those rules apply to you, but they do. SunCrow (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:TE:

One who "bans" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page

Some editors routinely tell other editors that they disagree with to "Stay off my talk page." The editors who do this tend to have long lists of folks that have been "banned." Talk pages are the fundamental medium used for editors to interact. Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others.

SunCrow (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, why did you post this notice on my talk page? SunCrow (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve recently made edits surrounding controversial BLP subjects. This is just informing you that there are special rules in the area, nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for clarifying. SunCrow (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS

You were involved in John Faso, where content about political attack ads was being added. I've removed the content for now as tit-for-tat editing around campaign ads inevitably runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This type of largely unencyclopedic content addition is sadly becoming routine as elections near. Marquardtika (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, Marquardtika. Thanks for letting me know.SunCrow (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi - I created the article ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team, which you nominated for AfD. I would have liked to have been notified that an article I created had been nominated for deletion and would ask that you do this in the future with articles you nominate (assuming the editor is still active). I actually agreed with your assessment and voted with you on this nomination. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Rikster2. Sorry about that. I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't sure how to figure out who created a given Wikipedia page... SunCrow (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to the oldest edit in the page history. It’s all good. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Additionally, it is premature to be making replica copies when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team is outstanding. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. SunCrow (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Regarding the AfD, WP:REDACT should be followed when you modify your own comments after someone has responded. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018/ October 2018

I fixed the dubious numbers under the nys 2014 gubernatorial election results and removed the dubious tags. I don't know if I should ask you to double check them since the talk page has your post about the tags. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, Dairyfarmer777. I appreciate you letting me know as well. I'll be happy to take a look, but am not sure if my review will be helpful. If memory serves, my problem was that I couldn't crunch the +/- figures vis-a-vis the previous election because the numbers on the Wikipedia page for the previous election looked off as well. SunCrow (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you on the talk page. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Wardlow

Hey thanks for your help on the Doug Wardlow page! Koncurrentkat (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, Koncurrentkat. And thanks for your good work on that page as well. SunCrow (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting discussion for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SunCrow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NYS 2018 Gubernatorial Election Page

I noticed this page is inconsistent with the previous years pages. Its missing the swings column and the numbers and percentages are reflecting total voter rather than total votes cast. The page is using a different election box code which swings can not be added. What would you suggest? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Maybe put something on the talk page about it? SunCrow (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martha McSally. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please engage on the talk page with Snooganssnoogans regarding this issue. I will be warning them next. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just engaged on the talk page, but in my (extensive) experience with Snooganssnoogans, it is a complete waste of time to do so because there is no willingness to work toward consensus. SunCrow (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I wish you good luck then. Thanks for engaging at any rate. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

Hello there, Mr. Crow. Have you tangled with this snoogans guy? I have recently acquanted myself with this character and have noticed that his edits are often riddled with mistakes and blatant violations of WP:NPOV. Snoogans obviously wants to impart his political opinion on Wikipedia, creating bad faith edits and spreading misinformation around the website. Just recently, he edited in some WP:NPOV-violating content into [[Paul Ryan]. Look at the page history, and you won't miss it. Here to talk KidAd (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Thanks for your concern about the integrity of the encyclopedia. While I don't like to think of anyone as an enemy, I have been at loggerheads with him many times, and you can see that from my user contributions. I've confronted him about his editing on multiple occasions with no results. It's a problem. I haven't had the time to solicit outside involvement, which is clearly needed with him. SunCrow (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding soliciting outside involvement, see Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By outside involvement, I meant involvement from someone outside the dispute via one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. (I thought the context made that clear, but maybe not.) I did not mean meatpuppetry, which is something I have never done. But who are you, Ian.thomson? And why are you monitoring and commenting on my talk page conversations? It's weird. And slightly Orwellian. SunCrow (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that almost all actions on this site (except WP:REVDELed or WP:Oversighted material) are public record, right? This isn't your house, this is a public space.

I came across KidAd at his topic ban appeal, where he demonstrated that not only was the ban necessary but that his actions needed to be monitored (as he was edit warring in the area of his topic ban while the appeal was clearly not succeeding). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that Wikipedia is public, and that my talk page isn't my house. For you to pop up out of nowhere on my talk page and start dropping policy reminders into conversations I'm having with other users isn't against any rule that I know of. It's just strange. SunCrow (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

polite admonition

Hello, I'm AndInFirstPlace. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AndInFirstPlace, I had no idea what you were referring to, so I searched my history and found that you had reverted an edit I made to the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries page regarding Andrew Yang. Contrary to your comment, I did explain the reasons I removed the content, both in my edit summary and in three separate entries on the talk page. In the future, please do not make false accusations against me or other users. SunCrow (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your anxiety and shame about being called out, but I hope that you can try to use this moment as a learning opportunity. Rather than feeling anger towards those you have harmed, think instead about how you can do better in the future and hold yourself accountable for the damage you cause. We are all here to help you become a better editor and person, and there are a lot of great resources on here like WP: Teahouse that can help you avoid situations like this one in the future. No matter how far you travel down the wrong road, you can always turn back! --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You are spot on, AndInFirstPlace. I am actually sitting here on the floor in my apartment, paralyzed with anxiety and shame because of your comments. But in spite of these deep feelings of woe, I appreciate your desire to help me become a better person. LOL. #DidYouReallySayThat #WikipediaIsNotATherapyGroup #AreYouOK SunCrow (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seniority

So, what, we can't add information to a page that was obtained by doing math? I tried to find where someone tallied up the combined seniority of outgoing House members, but I couldn't, so I did it myself. If someone does count it all up and puts it in, say, a Washington Post article, what makes their math better than mine? I assume if I'd cited such an article, you wouldn't have removed it. ShorinBJ (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShorinBJ, I do not know what you are talking about. Please explain. SunCrow (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking of your edit on 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. I took a long time counting up the combined seniority of the Republican and Democratic members of the House whose terms just ended, and you summarily removed it. ShorinBJ (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShorinBJ, thank you for the explanation. It appears that you are referencing the edit I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections&diff=878617899&oldid=878617764. With respect, it appears to me that the material you want included may violate WP:OR. I also question whether it is significant enough to include in the article. If you believe I am in error, please feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for this user, after reviewing the particulars of this situation! --AndInFirstPlace 01:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs)

I have no clue what the user is talking about, AndInFirstPlace, so I am a bit surprised that you were able to figure it out. #ThingsThatMakeMeGoHmmm SunCrow (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AndInFirstPlace 1. Please sign your edits with 4 tildes ("~"). 2. Stalking other edits/conversations of a user you have a dispute with is hounding and is strongly discouraged, and may get you blocked. Do not edit on SunCrows's conversations just to try to get revenge. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 02:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt for revenge; I just saw this and had thoughts. AndInFirstPlace 02:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, just letting you know. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Captain Eek, for attempting to re-establish some shred of normalcy on my talk page. It was starting to feel like bizarro night on here. Or the beginning of a really bad horror movie. #TheCallIsComingFromInsideTheHouse SunCrow (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are traveling through another dimension

Welcome to The Twilight Zone

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call SunCrow's Talk Page. ^Leviv_ich? ! 15:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ^Leviv_ich. I needed the chuckle. :) SunCrow (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Been a couple weeks since we beat this dead horse

I'm thinking of proposing this (yet another) revision to see if it will make everyone happy. What do you think of it: fine/not fine? Changes? Several Republican campaign advertisements were criticized for hypocritically expressing support for provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted to repeal, while others were described by various media outlets as having engaged in racist fear-mongering on immigration and crime. Note addition of "hypocritically", "racist", and removal of scare quotes around fear-mongering (which is a commonly-used word, right? and some editors might oppose b/c they think the scare quotes are diminishing). The reason I bring this up now is that the prior RfC on that page has now expired, so a new one could be started (though I'm not sure if it's worth it really, but at least it's an option, and we have A/B language to propose). ^Leviv_ich 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ^Leviv_ich. Thanks for your note. What do you think about these suggested changes to your proposed sentence?

Several Republican campaign advertisements were criticized for supporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act that most Republicans had recently voted to repeal, while others were described by media outlets as having engaged in fear-mongering on immigration and crime. SunCrow (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first clause should do it to sum up the third paragraph. The purpose of the second clause being to sum up the second paragraph, I think editors will bay if there isn't a word in there that starts with the letters r, a, and c, and that will become the singular, unproductive focus of any discussion. To sum up the second paragraph now: 1st sentence: "...race." 2nd sentence: "...racially tinged..." 3rd sentence: "...nakedly racial terms..." 4th sentence: "...dark-skinned foreigners." (What do you mean, "undue"?) How about:

...while others were described by media outlets as evoking racial fears on immigration and crime. ^Leviv_ich 03:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^Leviv_ich, works for me. SunCrow (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CMR and JHB

Hello.

First, thank you for your edits to Jaime Herrera Beutler. That article has been in need of a serious copy edit for a long time. It is never good when an article is written largely by one author and I am not so arrogant to think I am an exception.

Second, given your areas of interest and recent edits to that article, I was wondering if you might chime in on a discussion here regarding JHB and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. It is an extremely long discussion but essentially another author and I disagree over what ought to be included in the lead of both articles. Any chance you could chime in? Thank you. PrairieKid (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PrairieKid. Thank you for your kind words and for soliciting my input on the lead sections of these two articles.

So, here is my input, for whatever it is worth. First, I would recommend that you create two RfCs--one on the Cathy McMorris Rodgers talk page (already done) and another on the Jaime Herrera Beutler talk page. I do not believe it is a good idea to ask for input about the Jaime Herrera Beutler article on the Cathy McMorris Rodgers talk page. (Does that make sense?) Second, MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that lead sections of articles of fewer than 15,000 characters be one or two paragraphs long; that lead sections of articles of 15,000–30,000 characters be two or three paragraphs long; and that lead sections of articles of more than 30,000 characters be three or four paragraphs long. The Jaime Herrera Beutler is (narrowly) in the first category, so I would suggest keeping the lead to one or two paragraphs. Third, per MOS:LEAD, a lead section "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". On that basis, I would generally recommend that lead sections of shorter articles omit biographical information like high schools attended, early career experiences, &c. Others might see the matter differently. Finally, it seems to me that the now-current version of the Jaime Herrera Beutler lead (which I just tweaked a bit; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaime_Herrera_Beutler&diff=883893820&oldid=883849680) could stand to be beefed up with an additional sentence or two, while the current version of the Cathy McMorris Rodgers lead (which I also tweaked a bit; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers&diff=883894514&oldid=883894304) is about right in terms of length.

Hope that helps. One other thing: It looks to me like you are now entitled to a Yeoman Editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards#Yeoman_Editor_.28or_Grognard_Extraordinaire.29) service badge. :) SunCrow (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Republican Party (United States)

Can you please tell me that:

(1) you understand the difference between "climate change" and "human-caused climate change"? (2) you understand that Bill Clinton was impeached by the House?

If there is something unclear, please ask questions on the talk page. You've now repeatedly edit-warred long-standing content out of the article, even though it has been repeatedly explained to you how "climate change" and "human-caused climate change" are not the same things, and how the House impeached Clinton. And even though this content is sourced to RS. At this point, this is frankly bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, I have responded to your bologna concerning Gingrich on the talk page of the article in question. Your other question does not deserve a reply. SunCrow (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love your editing.

I came here to thank you for this and have just looked at your contributions history. Thank you for all the work you do here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Anthonyhcole. It is kind of you to say so; I appreciate it. I do my best. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia as well.

I see from your user page that you experience a lot of physical pain. That must be very difficult. Hope you are doing well. SunCrow (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SunCrow. Pretty good at the moment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thanks for adding references to A Long December and removing unsourced claims, etc. Can you please add more details than just bare links? Thanks either way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Kennedy

Hi @SunCrow: I removed that blp sources tag as you were updating fairly heavyily and I noticed the reference count went up from 34 to 44, with a good spread and figured it would be only a matter of time before each statement was references. Good work. Cheers. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, thanks for explaining. SunCrow (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...

In this edit you removed material I added with a laconic "remove minutae".

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?

Did you read the article in question yourself? It mentions Bronfman by name three times. So, no, it is not primarily about her. But that article does show she continues to be part of the ongoing legal battle. Which I think means it is worth using in her article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I responded to you on the article talk page. I didn't honestly see the issue as controversial or complex. I do have a tendency to make bold edits. Please don't take that personally. SunCrow (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange priorities

You add the important fact "he was an avid hunter" (Scalia), but remove "introduced legislation to eliminate the inheritance tax" (McConnell) as 'unneeded'? Rather blunt. Shenme (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh? SunCrow (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human Life Protection Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For choosing to edit in contentious articles, to ensure they are neutral and not devolve into heavily biased non-neutral content, I hereby present to you this barnstar. Keep up your valiant efforts. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very kind words, RightCowLeftCoast. It was nice and thoughtful of you to post that. I've never received a barnstar before! I appreciate it. :) SunCrow (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precocious

I found your probably correct edit on Nude swimming‎ a little hasty, on a page like this I would have liked some reason for a deletion. Do I care- yes, do I care enough to revert it- no. Thanks for looking at the page. Do you have a hidden useful source you could share. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClemRutter, my recent edits to that page all have edit summaries (except for one that was relatively minor). So I'm not sure why you think I didn't give a reason for deleting that material. The material I deleted was unsourced. Most (if not all) had been tagged as unsourced. If you have sources supporting the deleted material, please feel free to re-add that material with appropriate citations. I will have no objection. SunCrow (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would have held back a little longer- maybe till mid July. I missed the edit summaries- sorry. If I had had the references I would have already added them during my last sweep. Being positve, I know that someone else cares, and you know that your improvements have actually be seen by a genuine reader! --ClemRutter (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positivity. I acknowledge that I am not especially patient when it comes to unsourced material. SunCrow (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 Kansas City Royals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wade Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra

Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, FriendlyRiverOtter. I don't have anything to add to that discussion, but I appreciate being included. SunCrow (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erastus Corning 2nd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Kennedy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg at Boy article

Hi, SunCrow,

I appreciate your attempt to reorganize the section hierarchy at Boy. Please don't take offense, but I ended up undoing those changes and trying another approach, and have made numerous other changes in an attempt to bring some order to this confused article. However, now I think that neither your attempt, nor mine, as far as just organizing the sections is enough, because the problem at the article is much, much bigger than that.

There are two huge problems: the poor organization and structure, which you identified and tried to repair, and secondly, massive unsourced content which has been there literally for years. In fact, much of the content still present dates from 2006 and even earlier, back when sourcing was considered optional. Before I was fully aware of that, I moved large amounts of unsourced OR out of the article to the Talk page, where it could hopefully be worked on, pared down, sourced, and organized. But now I think even that isn't enough to rescue this article; the problems are too big.

This may be one of those rare cases when starting over from scratch is really the way to go, and I'd like your feedback on that. Please see this discussion on the Talk page, Talk:Boy#Blow it up and start over. I'd really like to know your thoughts. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, thank you for posting this explanation. I am not offended, and I appreciate you taking the time to let me know about your edits and request my input. It would be great if all Wikipedia editors (myself included) were as considerate. Also, thank you for taking the initiative to propose starting the article over again. It's possible that people who have worked on the article will push back, but I think you are right. Your willingness to ask the tough question is laudable. SunCrow (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for this. And hang in there. We won't ever get good work done if we shy away from complicated questions. Maybe this discussion will be productive, and maybe we'll have to put the question down and try again later, but you did a good thing by starting the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, thank you very much for the Barnstar and the kind encouragement. Also, I really like your user template message about correcting comma splices. They drive me nuts, too. :) SunCrow (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Emphasis on the It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. Sending this to everyone who has added or removed tags from Woman in the past couple of days, so (b) applies. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 16:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Marcelle

Hi,

Can you explain to me why you re-wrote the whole article and removed valid sources? Snickers2686 (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SunCrow: Okay, yet again I'm asking, why did you do a whole re-write of the article? What was wrong with it? Snickers2686 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snickers2686, please see my comments on the talk page. I would ask that you kindly self-revert your (second) attempt to erase all 26 edits I made to the article. SunCrow (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have 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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Elizabeth Warren

Other editors do not agree with your wish to remove the Julie Hubbard quote from Elizabeth Warren, which you have now attempted to do three times:

8/22 "nope. it's an inaccurate quote. look at the source. it's a WP:BLP violation." [1] (NorthBySouthBaranof reverted this)
8/22 "remove misleading and unnecessary partial quotation" [2] (Your second revert of the same material inside 24 hours clearly violates the 1RR rule.)
8/23 "replace quotation. who cares what somebody says Sen. Warren does or doesn't understand?" [3]

This notice is my effort to let you know about the problem in a civil private way rather than bringing it to the Edit Warring noticeboard. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Carlson

Please see talk if you would like to comment about the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bangles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In Your Room (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation at E. Warren

Oops, my bad; didn't read closely enough. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, YoPienso. SunCrow (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YoPienso (talk)

Wierd tagging

I wonder why you tagged the Kathy Boudin article at "The School of Law maintains a video of her lecture.[19]" Following your tagging edit, this now reads "The School of Law maintains a video of her lecture.[19][better source needed]" The reference is to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez9s8Hvmamc. If not dissuaded by your tag, the reader who follows the citation will see the following as standard YouTube poster's information, under the video of Ms. Boudin's lecture:

19th Annual Rose Sheinberg Lecture

NYU School of Law 9.6K subscribers Kathy Boudin, director of the Criminal Justice Initiative, gave the 19th Annual Rose Sheinberg Lecture on March 4, 2013.

Ms. Boudin speaks at a lectern marked NEW YORK UNIVERSITY. Off to the side is a board labeled NYU LAW / NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW.

Please explain why you consider the cited source inferior.

I notice also that you have a large number of edits to your credit. I have inspected very few of them, but I wonder how many are like your nine edits of Kathy Boudin on 19 May 2019. Please explain why you felt it necessary to generate nine edits to your credit in one day instead of repeatedly using the page editor's Preview facility and generating a single edit.

Finally, the Kathy Boudin article has a standard heading: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." The very numerous "[citation needed]" tags inserted into the text (mostly by you, I would assume) seem both largely unnecessary in light of this heading, and get in the way of a coherent read. Better would be to try to source the various assertions yourself. A truly great Wikipedia editor would build up an article rather than take a long step towards making it unreadable. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Koenigsberg:

To your first question: Please see WP:YTREF.

To your second question: I have no explanation, but am not sure what difference it makes whether I make one big edit or several small ones.

Regarding the Kathy Boudin page, I think you are right that my tags were a bit much. I have made some more edits that I believe fixed that problem.

Hope that helps. SunCrow (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:YTREF and observed that at the very beginning, this article states: "There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable such as that of the Associated Press on YouTube." I would assume that NY School Of Law, the video's uploader, would be just such a reliable organization. I wonder if you do not think so (as I infer from your tag). Why would you not consider NY School Of Law reliable enough for a WP citation?

Larry Koenigsberg, I withdraw my objection to the YouTube video from NYU School of Law (not NY School of Law, as you called it). I am not satisfied that it fits the definition of a reliable source as set forth in WP:RS, but I don't think it's worth arguing about. Next time, I'd recommend that you post a question like this on the article talk page, not a user page.

"what difference it makes whether I make one big edit or several small ones" -- I mentioned this when I saw that you have accumulated kudos for your ample WP editing. The copious and presumably praiseworthy quantity of your editing might perhaps be exaggerated if you make several small edits when one would suffice. That is the difference it makes, in my view, although perhaps my reasoning is ad hominem. I also made several small edits at various points when I did not know what I was doing, but with your much more substantial experience, you ought not to have that excuse. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Koenigsberg: Regarding making small edits vs. larger ones, another editor once chided me for making edits that were too big instead of splitting them up into separate edits. I suppose it's a matter of preference. Anyway, I am unaware of having accumulated any kudos for my ample WP editing, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I think it's unfortunate that you would accuse me of trying to inflate my edit count. That is not something that ever entered my mind. Have a good night. SunCrow (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re kudos, see "This editor is a / Veteran Editor / and is entitled to display this / Iron Editor Star"

on your User page. Regardless, please accept my apologies for doubting your motives. I understand that between chiding for one thing and then for its opposite, the object of these remonstrances has a right being irked. Then also, thank you for willingness to conduct this dialog with me.

Incidentally, I restored Kathy Boudin's YouTube video to her article, which it seems you deleted during your wholesale (and most welcome) removal of your excessive tags that motivated me to contact you in the first place. Regards -- Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Koenigsberg, apology accepted. Regarding the Veteran Editor designation: It is one of the many designations to which Wikipedia editors are automatically entitled based on years of service and number of edits. Please see WP:SVC for more info. Regards, SunCrow (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tenors in non-classical music

Hey, I noticed your edit to the List of tenors in non-classical music, and there is evidence that George Harrison was a tenor. Though its been kinda tricky to find strong sources to support the claim. I am aware that George did sing a lot of earlier songs in a high baritone register – I thought he was a baritone disguised as a tenor for a very long time myself – but there is still evidence supporting his voice type. If you are doubting that he was a tenor, what voice type do you consider him being? ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C.Syde, baritone. SunCrow (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I can see why some people would think that he's a baritone, since though his voice was pretty deep for a tenor, and I always used to classify him as a baritone myself. Until I discovered that while his natural pitch was probably more like a baritone's, the timbre and tessitura of his voice was more ideal for the tenor range. But each to their own I guess. I guess George will remain one of those singers and musicians whose voice type will remain debatable.

P.S. I always used to classify John Lennon as a tenor but then I realised that his timbre and tessitura were actually lower than George's, though the pitches of their respective voices are very similar. I've actually found both John and George sounding deeper or higher than each other in separate interviews, though John's voice sounds more raspy and less smooth, while George's voice sounds lighter and clearer. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C.Syde, let's take this to the article talk page, OK? SunCrow (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republican Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elias Koteas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Some Kind of Wonderful (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making the news?

Please see [4]. I have very little idea what's going on here, but you seem to be at least tangentially involved. Any comment for The Signpost? Just drop a few words onto my talk page or send me an email. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

Smallbones, thank you for the information. I have no comment for The Signpost. However, if you're interested, the discussions that led to the selection of that image are available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Man/Archive_7#Should_the_current_lead_image_be_replaced_with_this_one? and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Man/sandbox. SunCrow (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work on Mary Glasspool. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Bearian! SunCrow (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edits to Nudity

Wholesale wordsmithing without discussion will likely lead to wholesale reversions.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marriage Equality Act (New York), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Foley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on House of Representatives elections

Hello, since you have recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 United States House of Representatives elections, or 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, I am inviting you to an ongoing discussion taking place at Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections#RFC on inclusion of House elections. Orser67 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion seems rushed and improper

The speedy deletion of Elysium Growth Press seems inappropriate given the large number of references to it within Wikipedia. IMHO improving it would have been a better contribution to this body of knowledge. naturist (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

naturist, I hear you. I was unaware that there was a large number of references to that page. On the other hand, the page was (if memory serves) only three sentences long, so people who clicked on it didn't get much information. Perhaps some information about the topic could be added to the naturism page. SunCrow (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the deletion was rushed or improper, but I understand that you see it differently. SunCrow (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SunCrow, if an article has a large number of articles referencing but the content is lacking, isn't a better tactic to ask to improve it rather than delete it? --naturist (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Buttigieg Page

Am curious why you believe a sentence that says an 18yo Buttigieg "traveled to Boston to accept the award and met Caroline Kennedy and other members of President Kennedy's family" is more relevant to the article than a sentence giving background to the state of South Bend politics? I notice you did not find consensus on the talk page for your deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Harmony Fanboy, there is no requirement that an editor obtain talk page consensus for a deletion. As to the reason for the deletion, the material did not mention Buttigieg at all and I did not believe it was relevant. There may very well be other material in the article that isn't relevant, either; if you believe that's the case, you can feel free to delete other material that you find irrelevant. If you feel strongly that the material you added should be included, please feel free to raise the issue on the article talk page. Regards, SunCrow (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Pat McCrory

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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what on Earth is "nebulous" about the concept of "gender identity"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you clearly have no interest in following WP:BRD, I started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard where you can elaborate on your views about the concept "gender identity".[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of like Joan Rivers chiding someone for undergoing too much plastic surgery. But thanks for the chuckle, Snooganssnoogans!! SunCrow (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit-warring on the exact same issue.[6] You've been reverted by two editors, and two additional editors on the NPOV noticeboard fail to understand what is supposed to "nebulous" about "transgender identity"[7]. No one has expressed support for your edit. Zero participation on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that there was talk page dialogue. Thanks for letting me know, Snooganssnoogans!! I just posted some comments there.

It really is a mindbending experience being lectured about edit-warring by you, of all people. I'm not going to take it too seriously. You're probably just sore and sulky because of that 1RR restriction you're under. If it weren't for that, you'd likely be pushing the outer limits of 3RR just like you used to. By the way, what ever happened to making "an honest effort to understand the concerns of other editors" and "ask[ing] how those concerns can be reflected in the text without undermining the content of the sources and NPOV"? That's actually my favorite part of your restrictions!! Still waiting to see that respectful, conciliatory approach, though... Fortunately for me, not holding my breath. LOL. SunCrow (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Turner and WP:LQ

Hello. I have been looking and it appears before you began your extensive contributions to Tina Turner's article, the punctuation was correctly placed outside of most quotation marks in regards to song titles and sentence fragments. It appears that in your copyedits and contributions, you've reinserted punctuation inside of quotation marks where it should not be. We have a guideline for this, WP:LQ. Please attempt to follow logical quotation in your edits to the article and elsewhere. There is no reason a full stop or comma should go inside of a song title where it wasn't originally. Thanks. Ss112 04:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see MOS:NUMBERSIGN. We should not type chart positions as "#8" but rather "number 8" or "No. 8". Ss112 04:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the rush?

We had established a process for doing work together, suddenly there is massive unilateral change. Since I can revert, this is a waste of time.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that this is a waste of time. How did we get our wires crossed on this? You consented to the merge, there was no other discussion, I waited a week, and I did the merge. Your initial revert said that the public nudity article was too messy. I was already in the process of incorporating the two articles, so I re-merged and assured you that I would clean it up. I see that you have now reverted again, restored the merged text back to the public nudity article and are continuing to edit there. I don't see this as productive at all and wrote you both on the article page and on the talk page. We need to get on the same page here. What seems to be the problem? SunCrow (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consented to a merge, not a hack job. My last posting on the merge discussion was that I was proceeding with a thoughtful removal of content from Public nudity to prepare for copying what remained. Rather than replying you proceeded to copy all the garbage to the wrong location in the Nudity article and proceeded to do a cleanup there. Differing paths to the same end, perhaps, but I do not see it that way.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, WriterArtistDC. I did not realize that you hadn't completed whatever pre-merge cleanup you wanted to do on the public nudity page, or I would have waited to complete the merger. I do take issue with the "hack job" comment. Also, it would have been preferable if you had created a dialogue with me rather than reverting all of the (considerable) work that I did to merge the two articles (which was not appreciated). I am not interested in doing the legwork of performing the merge a second time, so I will leave it to you or other editors to handle that if you/they so desire. SunCrow (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for "hack job", it was my immediate reaction to seeing all the merged content dropped in without editing which negated the work I was in the midst of doing. After I merge the remaining protest content, "public nudity" will be empty, and I will redirect it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, WriterArtistDC. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Elaine Chao

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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#ConsiderTheSource SunCrow (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Man

Your recent editing history at Man 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.
Apparently you've been warned a number of times now. Please don't edit war. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe you should put a warning on your own page as well, Bacondrum. SunCrow (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

By the way, they did place a warning on mine before you raised the issue on Talk, SunCrow. You might want to pay more attention to your environment before casting ASPERSIONS. Newimpartial (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I will retract. However, you reverted Bacondrum's warning from your talk page, which is why I didn't see it when I checked. SunCrow (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should calm down. You've been warned repeatedly, if you are going to get aggressive and unreasonable about a fair warning perhaps we should just go straight to the ANI instead? Bacondrum (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initials

FYI, I removed O. J. Simpson's initials that you added to the lead sentence per MOS:INITIALS. Usually not needed when they're based on a person's name. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. SunCrow (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

When you make an edit and somebody else reverts that edit, it is your responsibility to provide compelling reasons for changing the status quo. You can read what the reverting editor said in their edit summary and modify your edit to account for their concerns. Or you can use the talk page to discuss further or build consensus for your edit. You should not just revert the revert. Snooganssnoogans has taken on some commitments to change the way they edit. That doesn't mean that you're allowed to engage in the bad behavior, taking advantage of Snoogans commitments to win content disputes with your extra reverts. I expect you to also respect WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. ~Awilley (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, thanks for sharing your concerns and for your reminder about WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. I have posted an additional response to Snooganssnoogans on your talk page, which is where I discovered his complaint. SunCrow (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a happy time of year - let's make the most of it!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Sidestep the challenges, and be MERRY! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing speedy deletion to avoid discussion?

The nominating of Toronto Helios Society for speeding deletion less than two day before Christmas seems, once again, rushed. The timing also suggests to me that you are trying to avoid discussions and that you prefer to make unilateral decisions on the content in Wikipedia. Otherwise, why would you not just propose for deletion? From Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." --naturist (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

naturist: First of all, the Toronto Helios Society page has been redirected to Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park. So users who search for "Toronto Helios Society" will get relevant information. Second, if the articles I've been proposing for speedy deletion didn't fit the criteria, they wouldn't get deleted. (If these articles had given any indication of notability, I wouldn't nominate them in the first place.) Third, most of the articles I've nominated have been around for a while. If the subjects of those articles really are notable enough for inclusion, how come those articles don't say anything that would indicate that notability? Either the articles should be worked on and improved to establish notability or they shouldn't be here at all. Having them languish for years doesn't make sense.

I do not plan on nominating any more articles for speedy deletion at this time. If I see an article that I think deserves speedy deletion, I will consider opening a discussion instead. SunCrow (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have 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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 San Antonio Spurs season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nude weather reports

I've changed your PROD into a full deletion debate (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude weather reports). The reason is that an article deleted by PROD can be restored on request by anyone, whereas one deleted via AfD can't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ritchie333. Thanks. SunCrow (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor beard 🧔

While it is a minor detail the article has a "Physical appearance" section and the new text had references to articles on https://www.theglobeandmail.com/ and https://www.thestar.com/ and should be kept. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SunCrow (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey dear Dear SunCrow, I appreciate your contributions on the Tina Turner Wiki page very much. I am curious to know, if you are interested in an addtional entry in this page. I am working for a German publisher an we just published an interesting new book on Tina with ISBN number. Would you like to contact me for further details? Rdunker72 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind Barnstar, Rdunker72. As to your proposed edit to the Tina Turner page, the best approach is to suggest the edit on that article's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tina_Turner) and ask for input from others there. Hope that helps. SunCrow (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind answer and your advice. As you suggested I posted the edit suggestion on the talk page with ISBN reference. Is that enough for resulting in an entry or can I I do something else? And I checked that the entry is already on Tina Turner's German Wiki site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdunker72 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rdunker72, I see what you posted on the talk page. A quick Google search doesn't reveal any reliable sources that have information about this book (see WP:RS). If there aren't reliable sources out there about this (i.e. reviews of the new book, info on a book tour, etc.), then it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article. If there are such sources, you might want to mention them on the talk page as well. Regards, SunCrow (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of references to the book, I hope that helps. Concerning the BUNTE magazine article: It is not on the web but I have a pdf of the print I could present. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdunker72 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph P. Kennedy

Just adding a tag doesn’t really help. As articles go, it’s not badly cited. The better response is to go find some cites. KJP1 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, the template message does "help" because it signals to other editors that more sources are needed. I count a total of 19 "citation needed" tags on the page. That's a lot. Also, I posted something on the talk page about the need for more sources back in October, which doesn't seem to have made much of an impact. (I've done a good amount of work on the page, too.) So I added a template message. Rather than removing the template message, why not go ahead and add some sources? I think it's strange when other editors give me blowback for tagging an article for having sourcing problems. The problem isn't my tag; the problem is the lack of sources. That should be the focus, in my opinion. SunCrow (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t help at all. And it could sit there for years. I‘ve spent the last few days hunting down sources for an FAR. Try and improve it, rather than just tagging it. KJP1 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WNTRMT, leave the template message where it is. We can both try to improve the article. SunCrow (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for Abortion

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Doug Weller talk 12:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So let's clear the air.

What's absolutely adorable about your editing habits is that you sincerely believe that replacing articles' left-wing biases with your own right-wing bias is going to solve the problem. That's akin to believing that frostbite is the remedy for third-degree burns.ModerateMarv (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ModerateMarv, your accusation is a complete and total load of horse manure. SunCrow (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my comment

SunCrow, I reverted my comment. Yes, it was out of bounds, and I apologize to you. I'm sorry. My comment was insensitive and offensive to you, and I'll make no such comment ever again. Thanks for your time, and best regards. ModerateMarv (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ModerateMarv, apology accepted. We're good. Thank you. Have a good night, and best regards to you as well. SunCrow (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ModerateMarv, if there is a specific instance where you believe I am tilting the encyclopedia toward my own POV and you let me know in a respectful way, I'll be willing to listen. I reserve the right to disagree with your assessment, but I will listen. I truly do want a neutral, impartial encyclopedia. SunCrow (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SunCrow. I understand, and I was wrong to blindly assume that you were actively inserting your POV into articles. I guess I got caught up in the heat of the moment and made an assumption that was completely off-base. I apologize to you for that. I'm glad to see that there are people like yourself who are committed to keeping Wikipedia factual. I don't want articles skewed to the left either, so I appreciate your work to reverse that trend. And in a world of such volatility and polarization, I say to you now that, whoever wins on November 3rd, whether it be President Trump or the Democratic nominee, may all Americans (and all people of the world) accept the final result, move forward together without acrimony and focus on people's best intentions rather than their most-unfortunate mistakes. Thanks for listening. Peace.ModerateMarv (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Alex Azar

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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the warning tags again, are we? LOL. SunCrow (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#MEDRS problems at Spermarche. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation required

Hey SunCrow, I have a little issue with your edit on Ilhan Omar [8]. You stated that "Per the talk page, the content satisfies the portion of WP:BLP regarding public figures.” I was the only one who mentioned BLP in the relevant discussion on the talk page at the time you made your edit and I just wanted to let you know that you misinterpreted my statement, in fact you completely twisted my words. How you interpreted "no RS refers to them as anything besides allegations so per WP:BLP we aren’t anywhere near where we would need to be to include this information.” as "Per the talk page, the content satisfies the portion of WP:BLP regarding public figures.” is completely beyond me and requires an explanation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, I was referring to my own comments about BLP on the talk page--not yours. SunCrow (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in New York

Hey SunCrow, I also have an issue with your reversion of my edit to Richard Grenell. There's other U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN's - the other-most significant being in Geneva (there are other U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN at the U.S. Permanent Mission to the UN in regional offices, in, for example: Vienna, Addis Ababa and Santiago de Chile, but NY and GVA are the most significant installations, New York being the headquarters and Geneva being the location of the original League of Nations, and home of around nine other UN bodies).

Differentiating between New York and Geneva (which is the objective) is actually quite relevant.

One can also use the term, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at UN Headquarters, New York.

Thanks. BlueSapphires (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps: For reference, I'm a former UN officer, was for many years, now representing an NGO at the UN. The nomenclature in the UN/diplomatic realm is a bit particular, i.e. specific. BlueSapphires (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSapphires, thanks for explaining. I have no objection to you adding "New York" now that I understand where you are coming from. However, the entire section on Grenell's State Department tenure is unsourced. So there's no basis in the article for saying which permanent representative he was working for. Are you aware of a source that might be helpful? SunCrow (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be blocked, so not sure if you are around, but........ to answer your question..... For Grenell to be working as the U.S. Government Spokesman for the USMissionUNNY he would "de facto" be employed by the State Department, even if he was being seconded from another branch/office/whatever from any branch of the U.S. Government. There's a State Department phone-book, but sometimes with diplomatic appointments names don't figure in there (also with undercover operatives who use state department titles). To simplify matters: if he was the U.S. Spokesperson at USMISSIONUN-NY, then he'd have been a State Dept officer. BlueSapphires (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found the UN "Bluebook" (addresses/names of all diplomats in New York) from 2003, which lists him as a Minister Counsellor. In fact he wasn't a "Spokesperson" (which is a low-level title) he was a Minister-Counselor, which is a position which can sign treaties, and is sort-of-kind-of the level of Ambassador, but not the Ambassadorial role (like Deputy Ambassador). It's here: https://books.google.ch/books?id=ESwgkyOuuvwC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=richard+Grenell+state+department+phone+book+2001&source=bl&ots=-CQ245jKaG&sig=ACfU3U3UBCas46kK3K3RGGBp2XDOlHJpJA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0tOHJs6_oAhW_wAIHHUVJDo0Q6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=richard%20Grenell%20state%20department%20phone%20book%202001&f=false BlueSapphires (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE

I have brought up your repeated addition of your personal POV on safety abortion, to article space, at WP:AE. Guy (help!) 12:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense. SunCrow (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nudity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agrarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a pity. SunCrow, do you think you could request reinstatement (assuming you wish to come back) with an offer to an unblocking admin of a self-imposed, voluntary topic ban (e.g., like these) on articles and discussions touching on abortion? You have plenty to contribute on other topics, and since this one seems to be the stumbling block, why not just quarantine it for a while, and concentrate on all the other topics? I think that could work for you, although if you do do it, make sure you can stick with it, because if you violate that, a second unblock request would be much harder, imho. I'm not an admin, but an overture like that on your part would get my vote. Afaict, you're not Talk-page blocked, so you should be able to request unblock in the normal way, here on your page. Here's hoping you come back, under those, or whatever circumstances. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I also have the opinion that abortion is murder, but I am not a troublemaker in this area because I readily admit that it isn't an objective truth, but a subjective opinion. So, yeah, I would not change WP:MEDRS content based upon my own subjective views, this is a line I do not cross as a Wikipedia editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Tgeorgescu. You may be better placed than I am to be an effective intermediary with SunCrow, since you seem to hold the same opinion that SunCrow does, whereas I hold the opposite one. But I stay away from such articles for the same reason as you apparently do. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your post, Mathglot. It was nice of you to reach out. I appreciate it. For now, being away from Wikipedia (and the attendant drama) is working just fine for me. If I feel the desire to edit again at some point, I'll be sure to consider your suggestion. Hope all is well with you. Best, SunCrow (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation (Feb 2021)

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SunCrow#06_February_2021 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

	Nice to meet you ~
	Thanks for your work ~ ! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrecting Mens Issues Wikiproject ?

Hello! I noticed that you have expressed that you would like to participate in the men's issues Wikiproject (I have too) and wondered if you'd like to help revive it? I'm still new to Wikipedia but I feel that men's issues (could rename it to men's lib to reflect the current name for men's progessivism?) can become more inclusive if we revive it? I'm a trans man myself and I can cover issues relating to trans men.

Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Transandrosupport:, SunCrow was blocked (here) so won't be able to help you directly with that, unfortunately. If they retain talk page access, they might be able to offer you suggestions here on their Talk page, but I'm not sure of their status. Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation (Oct 2021)

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SunCrow Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation (Feb 2022)

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SunCrow Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy paste this statement of mine from the SPI

SunCrow, as you're likely reading this I just wanna say that this is one of the blocks I'm in no way happy to make. You have clearly shown that you can be a productive editor and I've seen many good edits from you. My suggestion here is that you request an unblock on your main account potentially after a bit of a break as that will likely make the unblock request easier. I know that I'm not alone in thinking it would be good to have you back with Mathglot giving you their advice back in March

I hope to see you return to productive editing on your original account someday. --Trialpears (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trialpears, thank you very much for your kind advice concerning a potential unblock request. The chief reason I have not pursued that avenue is the fact that I do not believe that the original block was justified and do not believe that the process underlying the block was fair (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264#SunCrow). I doubt that anyone considering an unblock request from me would agree with me on those points. Given that, it seems unlikely that an unblock request would be fruitful. But I do appreciate your input. SunCrow (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are now 3X sitebanned. I was going to warn you not to sock further, but I am too late. If you want to get unbanned, you should just appeal on your main account and accept a topic ban from editing articles about controversial issues. However, you should probably wait at least 6 months. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. It does not appear that you are sitebanned. Sorry about that. I hope one day you do decide to pursue an unblock. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation (March 2022)

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SunCrow Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Not notable enough?

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

December 2017

January 2018

Discussion at Talk:Kim Davis#Major cuts to the lead

Family Research Council

Adding spurious tags to articles

Warning

Thank you

The Right Stuff June 2018

The Right Stuff: July 2018

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Rachel Noerdlinger

Ages of consent in the United States "age of consent for marriage" citation

Not new

Hello

Important Notice

WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS

AfD

October 2018

September 2018/ October 2018

Doug Wardlow

Spliting discussion for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

NYS 2018 Gubernatorial Election Page

November 2018

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

polite admonition

Seniority

You are traveling through another dimension

Been a couple weeks since we beat this dead horse

CMR and JHB

Edits at Republican Party (United States)

I love your editing.

References

Ethel Kennedy

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...

Strange priorities

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

A barnstar for you!

Precocious

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Reorg at Boy article

A barnstar for you!

Discretionary sanctions alert

Thomas Marcelle

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read

Edit warring at Elizabeth Warren

Tucker Carlson

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Punctuation at E. Warren

Wierd tagging

List of tenors in non-classical music

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Making the news?

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

A barnstar for you!

RE: Edits to Nudity

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Invitation to comment on House of Representatives elections

Deletion seems rushed and improper

Pete Buttigieg Page

Edit-warring on Pat McCrory

Tina Turner and WP:LQ

Whats the rush?

Edit-warring on Elaine Chao

Edit-warring on Man

Initials

Warning

It's a happy time of year - let's make the most of it!

Rushing speedy deletion to avoid discussion?

Categories

Important Notice

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Nude weather reports