Sy9045

Welcome!

Hello, Sy9045, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Antrocent (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Sy9045 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and thank you. Antrocent (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sy9045, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sy9045! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please participate in discussion ...

... rather than reverting. See Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Police_report_about_robbery. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Your recent editing history at Shooting of Michael Brown shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please oh please read the talk page. The neutrality issues of the article have been discussed. I've worked with the author in question and we reached a mutual understanding until he changed the position of the article hours later. At least three editors have already called out the biased editing. I also find it mysterious why you're calling out my reverts when the other editor has at least more reverts (because he initially reverted mine). Sy9045 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

3RR is a bright line rule. You are aware of the policy now, I take it. So please show some restraint. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Thanks for the notice on 3RR. Sy9045 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, these pages are always overly dramatic, the other editor is already aware of 3RR I believe. Its not my intention to template people - you haven't broken 3RR yet, but I don't want you doing so and getting blocked. I limit myself to the talk page whenever I can. I like articles that develop slowly and proceed carefully over a bunch of quick edits and reverts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate that Chris. Thanks for being so courteous on this and the caution. The news updates on the topic are certainly rapid and I will use the Talk page more. You've been great. Thank you.Sy9045 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 17/18 edits, Shooting of Michael Brown

Your recent editing history at Shooting of Michael Brown shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. Dyrnych (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is such a lie. I reverted one time today. Please don't try to libel me.Sy9045 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Libel? I'm posting this on your page because you appear to be edit warring, not because you're violating 3RR. 3RR is a bright-line rule regarding edit warring, but not all edit warring is 3RR. Please be civil, assume good faith, and work things out on the article's talk page instead of edit warring. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk: Shooting of Michael Brown. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Comments like "It's sad that you (and editors like you) are politicizing this article." are not helpful to collaborative editing and are considered personal attacks. Please discuss content, not contributors. - MrX 13:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muslim attitudes towards terrorism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Thomas Eric Duncan 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. 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. The article is also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan. Most of the article is duplicate from a section of 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at JournoList. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't play dumb with me. I'm reporting word-for-word what the leaked emails and the report uncovered. My edits are not vandalism according to Wikipedia's guidelines (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism). You seem to be the one who's trying to bury the leaked emails. Sy9045 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sy9045. I wanted to offer my apologies. I saw your first edits, and I thought that this was vandalism. Afterwards, I did some checking and also thought that your sources did not directly quote the content you added. I checked with another user, and he pointed out that it did. I apologize for causing any controversy. It was good to meet you, nonetheless :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That is highly honorable of you, Oshwah. Thank you. I apologize for lashing out at you and wrongly thinking you had ulterior motives. I should have cited the source more prominently since it was somewhat buried. I apologize again and thank you.Sy9045 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is forgotten :-) - Keep rockin' it! ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! You too :-) Sy9045 (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Dreadstar ☥ 04:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages

Do not discuss other editors on article talk pages as you did here, per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA - follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE instead. If you persist you will be blocked for disruption. Dreadstar ☥ 04:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate talk page... again

I answered your question about the source. Please WP:DISENGAGE. Ryulong is being incivil, but not making personal attacks. Moreover, the talk page should not be used to discuss other users, only the article itself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He's making personal attacks. What if I accused you of belonging to the KKK?Sy9045 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They're assuming bad faith, not making personal attacks. They did suggest you belong to the KKK or similar group. That would be a personal attack if they did. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When someone mocks you and accuses you of belonging to a "misogynistic" group, questioning your motives, you take that as a personal insult. The comment also showed that he's not being very objective.Sy9045 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

One more time

One more comment about others on the article talk page as you did here,and I'll ban you from the GamerGate articles per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. Dreadstar ☥ 04:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Ryulong's attacked me personally, which showed his clear biases. It is outrageous how you editors just removed the insult like nothing happened. What a joke and embarrassment to Wikipedia.Sy9045 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Then do I suggested above and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE processes, do not comment about others on the article talk page again. Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend not using verbiage such as "you think" or "you freely" as you do here, it may lead an admin to think you're talking about others. And, I think you are - despite my warnings....but I give you the benefit of the doubt this time. Dreadstar ☥ 05:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really trying.Sy9045 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

JournoList

added links pointing to Salon, The Hill, Daniel Levy, Richard Kim, Daniel Davies and James Galbraith

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Gamergate controversy, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL. What an absurd and misleading statement. Please read the edits closely. Nothing was deleted. I just combined two of his bullet point paragraphs into one because I felt I could respond to it easier. I didn't even know that was a Wikipedia felony. I will stop doing that.Sy9045 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Interspersing your own comments to create point-by-point rebuttals/replies is overall bad practice and generally frowned upon, even if you had had copied their signature and they had agreed to it beforehand. It's bad practice because each message gets increasingly difficult to follow, complicates searching for diffs, and because it tends to discourage other editors from joining the conversation (which is, obviously, the point of Talk pages). If I had wanted to reply to either of you, for example, I would have had to break up the conversation even further until it's a series of nested indentions. It's basically a headache. (Sorry, I don't mean to belabor the point, just wanted to say why it's a bad practice.) If you do need to respond to specific points, it's best to use something like Template:Tq or Template:Talkquote instead. And don't worry about the felony, I'm not a real cop. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how Wikipedia works at times. I didn't know they were paragraphs of one statement. I thought each bullet point was a separate statement and something you could respond to. Sorry. I understand it now. Thank you for your advice.Sy9045 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Your recent editing history at JournoList shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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 your 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. The Banner talk 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You are violating Wikipedia policies by trying to bury information cited by multiple reputable sources without even an attempt to explain your reasons. You will be reported unless you stop.Sy9045 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess WP:NPOV means nothing to you. The Banner talk 00:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Does it to you? Because the sources I cited employed those same JournoList members. Are you even trying at a discussion at this point?Sy9045 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just stop this senseless edit war. There is no consensus for your version of events at all. The Banner talk 00:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even read Wikipedia content removal policies. Take a 1 minute look at it.Sy9045 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have read the stuff about reaching consensus, NPOV and the 3-revert rule. The Banner talk 00:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have read the stuff about justifications for content removal.Sy9045 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you should have reached consensus before you rewrote the article. You were removing content too, remember. The Banner talk 00:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What content did I remove? You are just making up things at this point.Sy9045 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sy9045 reported by User:The Banner (Result: ). Thank you. The Banner talk 23:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been reported to Wikipedia yourself for trying to bury information cited widely across multiple reliable publications.Sy9045 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at JournoList

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Sy9045 reported by User:The Banner (Result: Blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Banner for some reason is lying about me on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported. That is not my IP address. I have not attempted to evade any blocks. I have stopped editing since I was blocked. If you are an administrator and can check my IP address, you will see that. The Banner is lying about me and assuming bad faith. Sy9045 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The revert is identical to all the six reverts you have made earlier on. So I do not believe you. We will see if the admins will believe you or me. The Banner talk 11:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, when they find out you have falsely accused me, will you finally stop harassing me? Editors like you have ruined Wikipedia. Sy9045 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	These people are insane, showing appreciation before inevitable ban for not participating in openly hostile group-think Bishopssix (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha. Thank you Bishopssix!! Sy9045 (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rondel Melendez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Johnson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Net neutrality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corning. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

calling for discussion

You made these additions to Taliban Five. The new material you added is not properly referenced. They are merely allegations. It is not the wikipedia's job to take sides. Sorry, but you did take sides by repeating the US allegations as if they were established facts. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? Stop accusing people of having ulterior motives because you're too lazy to read carefully and check the references yourself. The reference was supplied in Politifact, WSJ and Time, which was properly referenced. It took no sides. It simply reported on facts. Read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/02/john-mccain/john-mccain-says-five-taliban-detainees-freed-bowe/ and this http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204136404577209391708596680. See this quote, "According to the documents, all five men were deemed to be of "high" risk to the United States and were recommended for "continued detention." (Politifact) and this quote: "Their identities are an open secret..." (WSJ). The Time text I added specifically said "According to Time...". Time is from a reputable source. In fact, both Time and the WSJ reported on the "suck it up and salute" reference (see http://www.wsj.com/articles/best-of-the-web-today-suck-it-up-and-salute-1401912754 and http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/) Sy9045 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AAGF -- Always assume good faith. Check again, I did not accuse you of "ulterior motives". I said nothing about your motives. I did say:

1. the material you introduced was not properly referenced;
2. the material you introduced was not written to comply with policies like WP:NPOV.

The individual paragraphs you added about each of the five men is unreferenced. Our readers are not mind-readers. Your fellow wikipedia contributors are not mind-readers. If Politifact, WSJ and Time are the references you used for those paragraphs then you should have referenced them in those paragraphs. Those paragraphs were not properly referenced. I am sorry if you don't like this point, but ask any fair-minded third party, and I believe they will back me up.

When you say another contributor should check your references more closely you can only be disappointed with them if they didn't closely check the references you supplied for the paragraphs in question. Sorry, since you supplied zero references for the paragraphs in question you have no grounds for complaint. Ask any fair-minded third party, and I believe they will back me up.

It is a fact that US intelligence officials made these claims. Time, WSJ, Politifacts can report the US intelligence officials claims as if they were established facts. Or they can report them as how US intelligence officials described the men. Either way, they remain mere allegations, not "facts". You lapsed from compliance with WP:NPOV by repeating the allegations without attributing them to a source. You lapsed from compliance with WP:NPOV by repeating the allegations as if they were a fact, not an opinion.

I am going to repeat -- I did not question your motives. I do question your compliance with WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:RS -- which might be due to inexperience, tiredness, or the normal human fallibility that I too experience sometimes.

Some people say "the best defense is a good offense". But this tactic is not really compatible with being a civil, collegial, cooperative wikipedia contributor. Our most important goal should be improving the overall quality of the wikipedia -- not defending our personal reputation. When someone voices a civil, collegial, policy-based concern to you I encourage you to make your first step to be considering whether the concern holds merit -- not interpreting it as a personal attack, to which you need to give an aggressive reply. Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got to be fricking kidding me right? The references on the five men were introduced BEFORE those men were described. See the references right before the men were mentioned ("The Taliban Five are listed as..."). There are FOUR references there from CNN, Telegraph, WUFT and Politifact. They provide the references for the 5 men described. Read them. Did you read them before assuming bad faith of other editors? Regarding Politifact, WSJ and Time, you can summarize their reporting as many other Wiki articles have been doing. Do you want to try a Google search of how many "According to Time" texts there are on Wikipedia. There are 8,700 results alone for that phrase. Should we remove those too? What a complete and utter waste of time we're even discussing this. Sy9045 (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I explicitly told you I was not accusing you of bad faith.

You are not addressing the points I made.

References for the paragraphs about the individual men belong in the paragraphs about the individual men. This is not complicated.

Listen -- we are all fallible. I am fallible -- and so are you. There have been lots of occasions where I added new material, that I thought was properly referenced, only to have someone tell me it wasn't properly referenced. When I was in the position you find yourself in I go and check the references I used. Guess what? Sometimes I lapse, and the other guy or gal was right. Sometimes I thought I had supplied a reference that backed up a passage I contributed, but, when I checked, I left that reference in a different paragraph. Because I hadn't added the reference to the paragraph in question that other guy or gal was right to voice a concern.

This is the situation you are in now. I don't think there can be any dispute that those paragraphs needed references. That means they were unreferenced. This is not an insult. This is not a personal attack. Could you please try harder to recognize that when other contributors voice a concern over one of your contributions they are not attacking you personally? Even if they turn out to be wrong, and you turn out to be correct their civil expression of concern was not a personal attack. Please remember that. Geo Swan (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It was referenced in the preceding paragraph, which introduced the paragraphs. The summaries of each person was an aggregation of those sources. If you want the references to appear at the end of each paragraph (which I think is overkill), please do so. Otherwise, we do not need to waste any more time on something so trivial.Sy9045 (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Each paragraph needs references.

We don't, we can't, control how our readers read our articles. They may read just one paragraph, the one they think addresses the question that brought them to the article. The one or more reference that substantiates what that paragraph says should be cited in the paragraph itself. Geo Swan (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Providing citations

I saw this edit. This is not how we cite references.

Only one instance of the reference needs to be fully populated. Do you know how HTML tags work? Some tags are used in pairs, with the closing tag having a slash "/" at the beginning of the tag. <ref name="" /></ref> is an example of an HTML tag that is used in pairs. You repeated several references, full populated, WITHOUT giving the tag a name. What you should do is populate all fields in the {{cite}} tag of the reference once, and, in subsequent instances you place a slash at the end, as with the politifact reference -- <ref name="politifact"/>. Someone else wrote that politifact reference, didn't they?

Were you unaware that using duplicated, fully referenced, unnamed references, causes unnecessary and distracting duplicate entries in the reference list?

But the real problem with your work on these men is that you seem to have made no effort whatsoever to look to see if other authoritative reliable sources voiced an alternate point of view. There are alternate points of view, voiced by authoritative reliable sources, and, in my opinion, by not looking for those references, what you supplied did not measure up compliance with WP:NPOV. Sorry. Geo Swan (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are reputable sources. Time, WSJ, Politifact, Washington Post, etc. are all reputable sources. Those publications have all won Pulitzer prizes. There are many citations on Wikipedia that cite in my manner. If you want it corrected based on your own OCD tendencies, please do it yourself. This is your last warning. Stop harassing me now. Sy9045 (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the Incident section really necessary?

I don't believe the incident section is necessary because it already describes what happened earlier in the article. Yours Truly (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think so. The article of this type is usually very long and the intro just serves as an executive summary while there's almost always a section similar to "incident". If you read the incident section I added, I went into more detail (like the items the gunman used). Sy9045 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Your recent editing history at Ryan Lochte shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's absolutely unbelievable how a credible source and investigation from USA Today is being removed. Stop it with your blatant disregard for intellectual truths.Sy9045 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sy9045 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd better slow down

These warning to you came while I was writing this.

You threaten me with reporting because you disagree with my edit?

No question to me just a threat when you revert me. I find that incredibly rude and dismissive. I'm no rookie here.

And what give you the nerve to suggest that I have some motive more than what I think is reasonable and objective. You don't even bother to argue why I said I did it.

Obviously credible sourcing is not the only criteria for something being in an article.

Very obviously not every judges opinions on cases they are not even remotely connected with belong in a source like Wikipedia. And even more obviously not every dime a dozen lawyer's opinions are to be taken as fact. This case was investigated. At least one fo the guys took a plea bargain. You have to be dancing on the head of a pin to argue that vandalism of public property is not a crime.

The way I see it, only an Rudi Giuliani style apologist could have even written that article. And we both no that credible sources have such apologist writers.

Credible source or not we don't use everything printed in the New York Times either.

Credible source is not reason enough unless you want this BLP to descend into conspiracy theory. Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW.. I am smarter than I spell. :) Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• You are removing an INVESTIGATIVE piece and a highly credible source from USA Today. You are determining what's right, what's wrong, why an expert on the case (a Rio De Janiero judge) is irrelevant, and why a veteran 25-year attorney is "clearly wrong" without providing any evidence to back you up. It's absolutely unbelievable.Sy9045 (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• You quote, "The way I see it, only an Rudi Giuliani style apologist could have even written that article. And we both no that credible sources have such apologist writers." Wow. You think you're objective enough to determine what should be included on Wikipedia? I'm just shocked at the blatant disregard for credible sources because it seems like only you can determine what's credible based on your own "common sense", whatever that means. It's shocking how this is allowed on Wikipedia. Sy9045 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm reading the usa today article again. I'm getting the same red flags I got the first time I read it, but reading it in detail I see even more of them.

First thing I notice is the text at the start of the video it reads to the effect "surveillance fails to show near bathroom." If you look at the 2 or 3 New York Times stories I refereed to with my edits or the dozens of others I think they all have videos that clearly show them all going between the 2 buildings, 1 or 2 of them going into the bathroom, then things flying out of the bathroom into the space between the buildings and someone near or just beyond that space pissing on the ground.

So the claim "video fails to show" them is a huge red flag.

The 600 word piece is not investigative journalism.

"An extensive review of surveillance footage by a USA TODAY Sports videographer who also visited the gas station supports swimmer Gunnar Bentz’s claim that he did not see anyone vandalize the restroom"

I don't think many could look at the video in the Times and claim there was no vandalism with a straight face. The USA saying they didn't find a broken mirror or soap dispenser does not mean that they could have repaired things. Like putting a pulled of soap dispenser. These things are meaningless dance on the head of a pin that can be argued on way or another but it's clear from the video they threw things out of the bathroom door. There is a preponderance of evidence. Multiple sources from the gas station owner to the Rio police chief said they did and it's clearly the reason gas station employees got the security guard involved. And the guard was not waling around with his gun out.

" USA TODAY Sports does not find any showing the swimmers going near the bathrooms."

I should really stop right here. The video SHOWING them in the corridor and in and out of a room and throwing things out of that room remove any credibility from the article. But to continue, the judge is unnamed and not related to the case and the lawyer doesn't have the charge right, which was false testimony not filing a false police report, and what the police and their prosecutors think, is important as is what the attorneys for the kids being held thought is way more important that what I lawyer not involved in the case thought. There is no reason to give what they say much weight unless, as investigative journalism would do, they went much further into the reasons. As far as I can find they didn't file a police report, they just spread their claim around the world through the press.

There's a lot of talk from them about drawn guns. Available video show them arriving, going to the restroom, trying to get back in the cab, getting out of the cab, milling around, a couple of them with their wallets out wth nobody near them, sitting because the guard called the police and possible giving up some cash before you see them get in a cab and leave. Not once does anyone have a gun out. I though I saw one at one point but I zoomed up the vid and it wasn't. What I thought I saw happens when they got in cab to leave after obviously being told not to. At the right of the frame you see the guard move quickly to the driver window with an arm straight out. I thought that was point a gun. Looking close I notice it's his left arm out and his hand looks like he's holding out his badge. I can just make out his right arm and it looks like his hand is on his holstered gun. All of this would be the right way to stop them. Tell them to stop, show your badge and have your hand on the gun in case they put you in danger. Remember everyone admits they were drunk and they didn't like being held. Strong drunk athletes are dangerous. Especially famous ones that may feel a sense of entitlement along with being drunk. You see it all the time with drunk professional athletes. I shouldn't even have to say this is Rio and he has to be ready for anything because it looks to me to reflect the way American cops are trained. His weapon was not drawn, just shown. He was rightfully preventing them from leaving. BTW, as the USA article points out that guard is recognized in Rio as legitimate law enforcement. The day job for many of them is prison guards. It's not like some minimum wage rent a cop night watchman.

"Police have not accounted for why the guards allegedly showed their law enforcement badges". What? Why would the police have to account for that? After employees found the damage the guard had the right to retain them. He simply showed his badge to show he had that right. Looking at the vid it looks like they aren't in easily recognized uniforms. The one I saw most closely had on a fairly heavy black coat with some kind of stripe around the middle. Showing his badge would be the right thing and obvious thing to do and "Police" don't have anything to account for regarding it.

It's on an on like this in the whole article.

I feel bad about your ban. I know it's short but it doesn't look good on your record. If you'd contacted me, especially after the second time or put something on the talk page you could direct me to I think this could be avoided. I may have seemed like a flip wholesale deletion but it wasn't. I just went way out of my way to explain the thought process I went though before I deleted it. What are your thoughts on my take? Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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).

Sy9045 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I used credible sources from USA Today. The editors who removed content based their decisions on their own definition of "common sense" and why a 25-year veteran Brazilian attorney is "clearly wrong" and why an independent Rio De Janiero judge is "irrelevant" on a legal case in Rio De Janiero. I quoted directly from a USA Today investigative piece without any injection of my own opinion. Why is the content being removed and why is this allowed to happen on Wikipedia? Jackhammer11 quoted "even Lochte now admits it happened", without explaining what "it" even means. Vague citations should never pass as a legitimate reason for removing content from credible sources such as USA Today. It's unbelievable how factual truths can be squashed simply due to what an editor thinks is "clearly wrong" and giving absolutely no credible justification for his view.

Decline reason:

This may all be true, but doesn't permit you to engage in edit warring. See WP:EDITWARRING. Yamla (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Hi Sy9045. I was going to decline with something similar to what Yamla wrote. To expand slightly, the issue is not whether the material should or should not be included. Not at all. The issue is the manner you were trying to include it, which was by edit warring (and violating the three revert rule)--reverting multiple different editors and not gaining consensus first. You were even referred to the very highly thought of essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD), but continued. You may be right or wrong on the underlying issue, but you were not blocked based on that at all, and so you block request grounds are irrelevant to the actual reason for your block. That is what you need to take on board. When your block expires, seek consensus. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your lengthy reply and great help on explaining the rules here on Wikipedia.Sy9045 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sy9045. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sy9045. 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)

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 10:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)