User talk:Korny O'Near

ă

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

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.

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 climate change. 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.

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 22:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: renaming Sun-Sentinel, see the prior name change proposals on Talk:Sun-Sentinel. Renaming the article should be proposed via Template:Requested move, if you wish to do so. - Donald Albury 16:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Dinesh D'Souza that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This edit summary.[1] You should know better than that. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually removed it, but then, I don't think it was all that uncivil. Is it because I didn't assume good faith? You didn't assume good faith either, in the comment you made to me a week ago. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an edit summary - not eligible for revision/deletion. " please make sure that your apparent deep dislike of Dinesh D'Souza is not clouding your editorial judgment" is definitely showing a lack of good faith as well as being an inappropriate edit summary. Yes, I made a mistake and accepted your explanation. That's not an excuse for your edit summary. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ixocactus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tucker Carlson 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. Ixocactus (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this edit? I had a pretty long edit summary there. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RELTIME which explains why you should avoid using words such as "currently" in your edits. -- 109.79.162.197 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this in reference to? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Korny O'Near (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Is this a mistake? I don't understand this at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were unambiguously edit warring at No-go area. You were warned, and you've been previously blocked twice for edit warring. There's no mistake. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I only made two reverts on that article in the last week; and I've only ever been blocked once before. Are you sure you're not thinking of someone else? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've inserted substantially the same content six times in the past twelve days, and you've been blocked twice before for edit-warring. You've been blocked this time for gaming 3RR by spacing out your reverts. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess you are talking about me. But I'm almost positive that I've only been blocked once before. And whatever it means to "game" 3RR, that wasn't my intention, and I don't think I ever came close to that. And the last edit I made was the revert of a deletion of sections on two countries, Sweden and Poland - and there seemed to be a consensus that Poland, at least, should stay in the article. Plus, these edits didn't happen in a vacuum - I was active on the talk page, like here, the whole time. (A perusal of that talk page will show that there's no consensus either way on the inclusion of Sweden.) Korny O'Near (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log [2] Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! Quite the contrary, there is no consensus for your changes whatsoever, particularly Poland, that was first added by now perm-ban user who performed a broad "coat rack" tricks on multiple articles. Clearly you forgot about this discussion. [3] I think once your block is completed just raise your doubts on the talk page again and work to get some consensus with a wider editor representation (good luck with that). This ridiculous article is so questionable that I already get neurotic goosebumps when even I look at it.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion - okay, thanks; I completely forgot about that first block (I still have no memory of it).

GizzyCatBella - I have no idea who originally added the "Poland" section. I know a different user re-added it, before someone else deleted it without discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News has been accused of misinformation/downplaying of the coronavirus by its anchors, pundits, and guests, and I'm pretty sure the president himself (who we know for a fact is an avid viewer,especially of its morning show.) definitely counts as a guest if he's doing an interview with, say, Hannity. It's very intertwined with Trump's overall strategies, Fox is basically being an enabler for them by allowing him airtime. Plus Trump basically forcing the media to air a clip from a Fox News program as well. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think interviewing the President of the United States can count as a controversial move for a news outlet. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for your opinion on the Art Laffer RFC. Sadly, the other editor involved seems hell bent on picking a fight and deleted my attempt at a compromise. I have re-added my proposed edit and, if you are willing, would appreciate your input. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good - but then again, I already said there that any wording that doesn't include "falsely" is probably fine with me. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[4] is a violation of the editing restrictions on the page. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, and it's a blatant disregard for consensus. Korny O'Near please self-revert immediately so that we don't have to sort this at WP:AE. - MrX 🖋 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine... there's no consensus either way, by the way, but sure, let's discuss on the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The forum post came from a Russian IP who has been bouncing around posting commentary on current events, claiming to be a logged-out admin, and generally stirring controversial pots. They're not up to anything good, and I'm blocking them as I encounter them. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, then. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are doing you the courtesy of warning you to self-revert and back away from edit-warring. I hope you will do as they are asking. Otherwise you're likely to end up with a substantial block or tban. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What edit-warring are you talking about? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[5] - this. On the talk page, I already objected twice to the WSJ opinion piece being worded as is, and I objected twice to the New York Post and the National Review. I objected once to the first sentence not being cited. You added the disputed material back without addressing any of my above concerns. starship.paint (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the material I added addressed some of those concerns, by adding in additional references, and also did some rewording - I think the text was different enough that it wasn't a revert. I also addressed others of the concerns in the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Unbroken Chain (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaged in an edit war. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Morrison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rocket Man.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Maximilian (miniseries), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is surprising. The article already has three citations - how many more does it need? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit cracked me up. True, though that is a great album. I used to (kind of) know Damon, he gave me a copy one night he grabbed from his car after an animated conversation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool! I'd never heard of this group, although I do know Don Caballero's music. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know Speaking Canaries via Don Cabellero; Mike, Don's original guitarist, approached me in a college class when he saw me wearing a King Crimson t-shirt; we hung out for a bit and exchanged music finds (he turned me onto Big Black, among others). Lots of great memories from those days. I assume you like Battles as well? I've never seen them live, but I saw Ian play in Storm & Stress a few times. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you have a lot of connections! I do like Battles; I didn't realize there was a Don Caballero connection. Back when I was listening to those kinds of bands, I was listening a lot to bands like Joan of Arc too - I don't know if you've heard of them. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heard of Joan of Arc, but surprisingly they escaped my radar back then; has that post-rock vibe I like. I largely depended on the record store clerks at the places I haunted for new leads; "hey, I love this album, who else should I check out?" Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Black, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Korny O'Near. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Maximilian".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hartley Sawyer 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I'm not sure why you want to whitewash Sawyer's article, but no. You don't have consensus for your changes. Jorm (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? The consensus seems to be clearly on my side, since the wording was more or less the same for nine months (June 2020 to March 2021), until you went to change it. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledge the article text you deleted is widely verified by RS, but you delete it ra th er than improve the citations? I remind you this article is under Discretionary Sanctions. Instead of edit warring, please self revert and add whatever additional source you feel is sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically are you talking about? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your rv of my reinstatement of text you removed. Review your own past 2 hours edits and edit summaries. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this edit. I wouldn't call it a deletion - it was a change of wording. Your wording, that Carlson's statements were "widely condemned", is not backed up by the sources cited, which mention just two people who condemned it: journalist Philip Bump and the head of the ADL. (And actually, Bump's column was more a criticism than a condemnation.) So no, it's not true, and I don't know where you think I acknowledged it. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Project Runway (franchise), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am currently working on Draft:List of most expensive sports films just wondering if ypu want to give me a hand P+T Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian (miniseries), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on COVID-19 misinformation. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. I strongly suggest you take up further objections to the current text on the article talk page. Multiple editors have objected to your recent changes, and you are already at the maximum of 3 reverts (per WP:3RR) - note that you may be blocked from editing, if an admin so judges, even if you don't break the limit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not at the maximum, although I think you are - see 1, 2, 3. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Ryan O'Flanagan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this possible? Every sentence in the article is referenced, and with a reliable source. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ryan O'Flanagan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ryan O'Flanagan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Korny O'Near! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 complementary and alternative medicine. 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.

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at talk:Snake oil. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said "it doesn't seem like you've given this that much thought" - which is a mild insult at best, but sorry if I offended you. Speaking of transgressions, following around an editor from one article to another, which is what you did with me, is known as wikihounding, and it's frowned upon. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snake oil. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know I've actually had that page on my watch list ever since I joined WikiProject Skepticism in 2016. I am sorry for any appearance of hounding you, and I am not interested in doing so. We appear to have similar editing interests, so we should probably learn to work together.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. No, I don't think we have similar editing interests. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You are the bestest editor I have ever since my all 27 lives and through my last astral travel :) Keep up the great work! V. E. (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenn Kessler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was a revert in that it removed a tag; this edit was a revert in that it removed several sentences. Unfortunately the article is under a 1RR restriction, which makes trying to reach a compromise in the article itself fairly difficult, but you should self-revert the edits in the last diff for now. Just as a note, since it's clear there's no agreement on how to word things (or whether to have it all), I'm probably going to blanket-revert back to the last stable version in a day or so unless some sort of clear consensus emerges on talk; trying to edit it out in the article isn't working and is too tricky with the 1RR on account of how easy it is to violate it accidentally. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange way to count reverts; that first edit removed a tag that was no longer relevant because it referred to wording that was removed by another editor - that's not a revert, it's an obvious fix. By my count, the 1RR rule was indeed broken, though - not by me, but by that other editor, Soibangla (1, 2, 3). Korny O'Near (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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-1992 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.

Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User KON: you have made extensive changes to the Andy Ngo article today without any discussion at talk. Please slow down and discuss the aspects that you disagree with. You have also violated the 1RR restriction at Andy Ngo by removing the same content twice within a 24 hour period. Please self revert to avoid being reported for the violation. Cedar777 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I self-reverted; I didn't realize that this was a 1RR article. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check and verify that was your only violation. You are rather hyperactive on that article, and it might be a good idea as Cedar says to slow down. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MYOB. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the business of all editors on that page to ensure that the page sanctions are followed. Anyone can report a violation, and that's an outcome I would have thought you'd prefer to avoid. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dreaming of You (Selena song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Title track.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Korny O'Near, I want to discuss an issue I have with one of your recent comments. You said "There's now a small group of editors apparently working to keep this information out of the article - they're some of the same editors who fought at certain points to keep other such relevant information out before." To me this seems like a fairly WP:ASPERSIONy and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy way to say "Some people disagree with me." I would describe my concern as a minor one, but given the DS in this contentious topic area, I submit that both you and others would benefit if you can "focus on content" more, especially on article talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international Project Runway spinoffs, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see that you restored the original "Let's Go Brandon" paragraph on the BB article. Another user broke the 3RR rule on that page, and is adamant on removing it for some reason. I previously added some sources to it, and from what I can tell, it's perfectly valid in the article. Not sure if you want to get involved or anything. I've been told to stay away from the Admin's Noticeboard. Not sure if a talk page discussion will be sufficient, given that the user's last edit summary said that the policy brought forward allows for the content to be removed "without discussion". Cheers. Cable10291 (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally not a fan of reporting people, unless there's really no alternative. I just started a talk page discussion; let's see what happens. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Korny O'Near. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ryan O'Flanagan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brandon Brown (racing driver). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does one revert now count as an edit war? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another edit war of an unnecessarily repeated word at Time Out (album). Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Everybody Plays the Fool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Neville.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously [6]. You should see the discussion here [7]. A lot of the same.

I don't know what you're talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess the intended tone was lost in the web. I see your confusion in the first link. I share a similar frustration with that editor based on my discussions at the second link. Springee (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Now I get it. Yeah, some people seem to view Wikipedia talk pages as just another Twitter, basically. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i pray for you is billed as a clipse song, pusha confirmed it Nickiandyeoutsold (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Everybody

She did background vocals on this LP and is credited with being in the band; check it out. I will do a revert on your edit. Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see evidence that she's credited as being in the band? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She did background vocals on this LP and is credited with being in the band; though it was for a short time, check it out. I will do a revert on your edit; i will not get into a "war" over this and, only make 1 revert. How do you wish to define members of the band if not by being credited with contributing music to the LP? As far as I can tell, there is no other definition. Lovett was very proud of his Large Band, and artists came and went frequently thru it. Some on only 1 LP; check that out as well. Even if only once they considered them a member, even for just that appearance. [[User:Mwinog2777|Mwinog2777]] ([[User talk:Mwinog2777|talk]]) 17:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we won't likely get Lovett to answer this question.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this conversation to Talk:Julia Roberts, instead of having it in both places. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no formal band with formal listing; simply people coming and going thru the years; if you find a formal list, let me know. The band were the people who were in it at the time of the recording; some were in once, check it out, and some were repeaters. Some like Ray Herndon, were in many times, but not all. He had a band, it was called the Lyle Lvett Large band. Yes, he did. There was never a formal listing of permanent band members, because there were very few if any, on every recording. I don't think there were any. At this point I will retire from this discussion, and leave it up to you. If you play 1 major league baseball game, you a major leaguer for life. If you win a lottery, you are a lottery winner... etc., etc.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruption by User:CreecregofLife was created today. Feel free to share your experiences if you want before they close it Anon0098 (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see why this [[8]] did not violate a number of policies, including wp:npa I suggest you read [[wp:soap] and wp:TALK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's some strong language there, but I don't see anything there that violates any specific policies. What did I miss? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It is entirely appropriate to address you directly here on this page, for any intelligent reader can see from the material that is already here, let alone the deletions in the history, that wikipedia policies are being grossly abused in the bullying of other potential contributors and the prejudicial presentations." might be seen as violating "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." as can "It is clear to me, having read this talk page, and having read your personal talk page, that you have an agenda and distort wikipedia policies to suit your agenda." (which may also violate "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"). "Alas, maybe I can get through to a man who seems to use precisely the tactics that WP:NOTDUMB and Civil POV pushing, as well as other policies try to prohibit. Indeed Mr. Slater, it seems to me you are WP:Wikilawyering" also violates our rules about not making serious accusations.

As well as the PA's much of this is a screed against (what it claims is "in service to the current vogue for neo-liberal propagandist language (neo-conservative propaganda is equally anathema) degrade the credibility of the wikipedia as a general reference source. ", as well as " I have concluded that many who scream 'racist' most loudly are, in fact the most racist among us, or worse, they are the true fascists: utterly intolerant of views that deviate even slightly from their own." (which also violate the rules against "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view". Which violate wp:soap .

As the first line of NPA says "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". How much of that comment would be left if I took about all the personal comnemnts? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this listing. I wouldn't have personally said any of these things, but I'm also not sure that any of these examples are direct violations of the policies you listed. (I don't think that "screaming 'racist'" counts as an affiliation, for example.) These are all fairly borderline cases. In my view, the best action is just to ignore the screeds and move on. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced you are making the most of this learning opportunity, Korny. restoring personal attacks on Talk pages isn't a good look for you, even if you wouldn't have personally have said any of these things (might you have said them "impersonally"?). WP:CIR, even when managing content on contentious Talk pages, and multiple other editors have now clearly indicated that this content was over the line. I trust you will show more care in future, so as to minimize disruption to the project. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by pointing out WP:CIR - am I incompetent, or the other person, or both? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking me whether it is more of a CIR issue to place NPA violations on a Talk page, or to reinstate them after removal, I'm afraid I don't have a ready answer to that. Either would be problematic if they represented a pattern of behavior IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so both I and the other guy are incompetent, got it. I just have to point out the irony of making personal attacks against two people in the midst of defending the sanctity of talk pages from personal attacks. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that there is such a thing as a person who is incompetent to edit Wikipedia? Likely not. So it is not impossible that any single editor might be one of those, and the strength of an assertion of incompetence is an empircal matter as to verification of fact. It is not on its face a personal attack. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, there are people who are too incompetent to edit Wikipedia - just like, to paraphrase the original talk page guy, I'm sure there are Wikipedia editors who "scream 'racist' while also being racist". But to call someone either of those directly is indeed a personal attack, even if it's true - a mild one, in my opinion, that's not worth deleting, but still a personal attack. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer confident that I know to whom you are referring, but just so that we are clear: I never called you anything. I have scrupulously commented on the content, not the contributor, when discussing past edits. I am of course encouraging personal growth in future. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, and I hope you're making the most of this learning opportunity. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope so. Newimpartial (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, the allegation that x is involved with Antifa/BLM, is indeed a right wing conspiracy theory, usually associated with the "false flag" subset of Alex Jones, QAnon, and Trump. For one of many examples, you can see how Fox and other news outlets spread the conspiracy theory that the Jan 6 attempted coup and insurrection was not perpetrated by Trump supporters, but Antifa/BLM protesters dressed up as Trump supporters. It isn’t clear to me if your edits improved the article or not, but the claim that x is Antifa/BLM is most defiantly a known conspiracy theory. Also, you somewhat weakened the text by inserting weasel words (some users) in place of conspiracy theories. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow - are you saying that calling anyone Antifa- or BLM-affiliated is a conspiracy theory? What if it's just one person - where's the conspiracy? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korny, there is an entire subset of right wing conspiracy theories that deal solely with blaming Antifa/BLM for false flags. There are right wing people, groups, politicians, and media outlets specifically associated with this claim. I could probably write an entire dissertation on this topic alone. Are you saying you’re not familiar with this subject? If you aren’t, that’s fine, but it could take me some time to give you an entire background history on it. It’s also somewhat complex, as it involves many different types of groups. For example, a lot of fuel for this conspiracy theory came from extremist groups like the boogaloo movement, who advocated for going to Antifa/BLM protests, dressing up like them, and causing damage to property and engaging in violent acts. There’s even documented police reports demonstrating this happened. Every accusation they make is an admission. This is an old Roy Cohn tactic that Trump and the alt right use against their enemies. They are the ones doing exactly what they are accusing Antifa and BLM of doing. This is part of a larger tactical strategy called far-right accelerationist terrorism. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be conspiracy theories related to alleging that people are involved with Antifa or BLM - but that doesn't mean that every allegation of someone being involved with Antifa or BLM is a conspiracy theory. In the case of the Whitmer kidnapping plot, I don't see how it adds up to a conspiracy theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a standard right wing conspiracy theory about Antifa/BLM:

Conspiracy theories about the alleged plot emerged on social media, falsely claiming the Wolverine Watchmen were anarchists affiliated with the antifa and Black Lives Matter movements. Some social media posts promoting the theories were flagged by Facebook as part of its anti-misinformation campaign, while PolitiFact rated the posts as "Mostly False".

This theory is used repeatedly by right wing conspiracy theorists to deflect blame and responsibility from their acts. In the case of the Jan. 6 attempted coup and insurrection, it was used hundreds of times by right wing politicians and media outlets to deflect any blame from Trump supporters. This is no different. It’s clearly and quite obviously the same conspiracy theory. More disturbingly, it’s a strongly held belief adhered to by 50% of Republicans, indicating that they have replaced logic, reason, data, and evidence, with an ideology based solely on conspiracies. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, in the case of the Wolverine Watchmen, what specifically is the conspiracy being theorized? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "theory" is that Antifa/BLM is trying to false flag the right wing. In addition to being promoted by right wing pundits and politicians, there is additional evidence that this is part of an active measures campaign by Russian intelligence. See also Russia and Black Lives Matter. The more important takeaway is that Republicans are promoting Russian-made conspiracies. There is a lot of evidence supporting this idea in general. Several studies have found that many of the most popular Republican conspiracy theories, including QAnon, may be homegrown, but Russian trolls will pick and choose which to amplify on social media. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore the fact that, in the midst of warning about conspiracy theory, you're bringing up a conspiracy theory involving Russian intelligence - other than to note that it's amusing. But as for the Wolverine Watchmen: is the theory that they were Antifa/BLM-affiliated, while pretending to not be? If so, that is indeed a conspiracy theory - but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. And I haven't seen any of the original Facebook, etc. posts. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article on Russia and BLM? It’s not a conspiracy theory. There’s an enormous amount of evidence regarding how these claims and conspiracy theories are amplified on social media. Again, it’s possible you aren’t aware of how this works, which is why you think it’s a conspiracy. I’ve already addressed the rest, as you and I are repeating ourselves at this point. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're repeating ourselves with this: I really would like to know whether the theory being spread on Facebook, etc. was that the Wolverine Watchmen were secretly or openly Antifa/BLM-related. The former is a conspiracy theory, while the latter is not, so that makes all the difference. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were truly confused by this. The conspiracy theory in question clearly (always) hinges on the x groups being accused as being secret members of y. It’s always been this way. How would it make sense at all if the members were open about it? I’m very confused by your thought process. Two linked samples of this conspiracy theory in the article are highlighted by PolitiFact:

1. "Notice how the Whitmer kidnapping story disappeared after we found out the perps were ANTIFA and BLM anarchists," one post says.

2. "Antifa members arrested for plotting to kidnap a governor," another post says. "13 Antifa members ARRESTED for trying to KIDNAP Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to START A CIVIL WAR."

This is exactly how I described it in my previous post. I’m curious how you’ve missed the dozens of iterations of this conspiracy theory in the last several years. It’s been all over the news, discussed by scholars, and the topic of discussion by researchers in almost every major publication. Please also notice how it is the exact same conspiracy theory that Antifa and BLM are behind the Jan. 6 violence. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those two quotes indicate that the Facebook users thought the Wolverines were Antifa/BLM, but pretending not to be? I don't see that in either quote. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Some even baselessly assert that the Michigan investigation was a test run for what they claim was a false flag operation conducted on Jan. 6." [9] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shibbolethink - that's a good try, but I'm pretty sure the false flag allegation there is FBI agents pretending to be right-wing extremists, rather than Antifa/BLM pretending to be right wing extremists. Anyway, the article doesn't say, I think, so we can't be sure. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"that's a good try" is what I would describe as a patronising comment, verging on incivility. For someone who represents themselves as a neutral editor more concerned with policies and guidelines, this is unbecoming, in line with recent instances where you failed to see consensus or reason. Please be more mindful of this in the future. I would summarize the article as describing the entire affair (investigation, court case, and kidnapping) as a proposed false-flag. But we may have to agree to disagree. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attention to keeping the list tidy. Just catching up with a few weeks of changes, glad you're removing unnecessary words though I would like to know what James Bond stories would read like if Fleming had written some of them in verse. JesseRafe (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't even notice the word "prose" in the part I took out! Yeah, the lack of James Bond poetry is a real loss. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting too specific, may I ask where you're from in New York State? I grew up in the Southern Tier, and though I live far away now, still have a lot of nostalgia for the place. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question, and I apologize that I'd rather not say, because I'm trying to stay anonymous for now. I will say I'm not from the Southern Tier, though I have visited Binghamton a few times. But I share your love for the state. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all--perfectly understandable. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Madeline (part of me) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Libs of TikTok 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who's curious, this is what this supposed edit war is about. Two users (well, maybe just one at this point) want to add the word "allegedly" into a section header I created, apparently not aware that if you have quote marks around a term, you don't need to also put "allegedly" before it. That's the important dispute going on right now. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the preceding thread is also an edit warring notice, and not the only one on this page, I won't bother posting another one. As there are still issues to be resolved, I would suggest you self-revert and then use the talk page, instead of back-and-forth edit summaries to commumicate. There are is a potential copyright issue with the image in question, and that aside, your contention that the image you added is "clearly better" is your personal preference. There are obvious problems with it and as such, the "better" picture should be decided by consensus. - wolf 17:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Better" is not really a matter of opinion here, is it? Here is the edit being discussed. The article is Harry Bosch, and the question is whether it's better to have a photo of Titus Welliver in character as Harry Bosch or simply a photo of the actor. Unless there's some major technical issue with the former (there isn't), there's no way the latter photo is better. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your opinion is well-noted (if not well-supported). - wolf 18:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One actually is an image of Harry Bosch, the other isn't - there's no way this is just a matter of opinion. If that doesn't convince you, how about the fact that the image from the TV series was in place in the article for (apparently) years before you changed it, without explanation, a few days ago? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might mean something if the article was viewed or edited more than it is. It's a pretty quiet page, have you even bothered to look at the stats? - wolf 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libs of TikTok. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but only two of those five edits were reverts. Next time you try to get me banned, you should check more carefully. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word to the wise, your recent edit strikes me as a second revert within 24 hours -- I don't intend to take any action on it and don't think it was any sort of grave sin, but wanted to give you a "heads up." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This? It's not a revert. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I thought it worth bringing to your attention. The nomenclature is unnecessarily confusing, but per WP:3RR, An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. It need not be an "undo," or the like. And if you're right about no more 1RR, then of course you can safely disregard. Also, apologies for the back-and-forth; I thought I had somehow accidentally removed your comment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just me being a curmudgeon again, as you've clearly made two reverts today and the page is still under 1RR -- again, I am not bothered at all, but just wanted to be sure you were aware in case someone else is. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so... do you mean this? Does every deletion count as a revert? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does if it is another editor's text being deleted, so in effect yes. I know it is terribly confusing terminology, but see my quoted definition above. I think you're fine letting this one go, but forewarned is forearmed, just in case. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really true? If so, it would mean that no one is allowed to delete more than three things from any article on any one day - which is a rule that's broken all the time, I would think. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The key is that it can be a "series of edits." So if you delete something, and no one intervenes, you can delete something else, ad infinitum. It's only when another editor steps in that the chain is broken. Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for acting the schoolmarm! Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you - that was helpful. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:38BA:9EC8:F884:8AB0 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to this edit. That wasn't a personal attack, it was a comment on what I felt was improper behavior - the same thing you're trying to do right now, by the way. Read the comments above mine there, and tell me whether they were attempts "to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream" (to quote the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard header), or whether they were attempts to get like-minded editors to join them in policiing certain articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures (TV series), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, The Masked Dancer (Russian TV series), is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬 18:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you're self-reverting to stay within the bright line of 1RR does not mean you're not engaging in edit warring on Libs of TikTok. 1RR is not a license to wait exactly 24 hours and make another revert, it's to keep the article somewhat stable while changes are discussed on the talk page. Please keep this in mind as you edit the article, especially as you already have three blocks for edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually been edit warring, slow or otherwise, in that none my most recent edits have been reverted (yet?). Given that, I actually don't think I need to follow the 24-hour rule for my edits - but I figured I would, just to be safe. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies, but way too many changes at once, especially changing the lead from a focus of the topic to the film. The lead wording worked well. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the change to the intro the only part of this edit you object to? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The See also should also stay the same. As for the rest, except the lead which seems fine as is, there really is too much to keep good track of it. Why don't you put your text back if you feel it covers everything (but not total emphasis on the film, the concept has become larger as a societal meme and separate from the film) and I'll check it out as well as give others a chance to study the changes. I can tell you put a lot of work into it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Libs Of TikTok) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you about the slow edit warring on Libs of TikTok and the behavior continued. continuing an editing dispute from before the protection without affirmative consensus, continuing annother editing dispute from before the protection without affirmative consensus, reverting another editor, continuing the same dispute from the last diff, another revert with no discussion. I thought the warning was clear, but it seems not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Korny O'Near (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the additional explanation. You linked to 4 reverts I made; the 2nd one, I would argue, did in fact have consensus on my side, and the 4th one was a revert of a new and unexplained change. But I'll grant that the other two edits were contentious. Whether that's enough to justify a block, I would dispute. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is enough to justify a block. Yamla (