User talk:Korny O'Near/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) participants

Category:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) participants, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eurospy film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr. No. 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) 08:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Battle Hymn of the Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Train of Thought (album). 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) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celesta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biophilia. 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) 08:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Porcelain Black bio

Hi, sorry for the mistakes. I put Porcelain first basing it on the Iggy Pop page, I don't know if he has changed his name legally though. Pbdetroit (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you've started editing! The Iggy Pop article is strange - I don't know the explanation for that, but it's in the minority as far as its handling of a musical alias. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roast (comedy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBS. 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) 09:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pachelbel's Canon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. 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) 09:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hollie Andrew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casey Donovan. 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) 09:13, 28 September 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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Illegal prime

I'm restoring the article you effectively "deleted" without consensus. If you feel that Illegal prime (a former featured article) really has no place in Wikipedia, please nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. I don't believe any such nomination will be successful, however, but you are welcome to try. As for the rationale that it might be of interest to only a small number of people, I think that this applies to many of our articles. The question is not how many people the article is of interest to, but whether it is notable and verifiable. This article met both standards. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I just nominated it for deletion. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon

I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but since you claim not to be able to find the extended discussion of bloated pop-reference entries on the Pachelbel's Canon article, let me point you to it, here. I respectfully suggest that you provisionally withdraw your edit, rather than have me revert it again per WP:BRD , pending discussion and consensus on the article's Talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - I skipped over that one because that discussion started in 2007, and I assumed you were talking about something more recent. I just added a new section. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have replied to your message on that Talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexis Conran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eye Spy. 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) 09:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Thing

I don't think "independent" is correct. See the talk page. Thanks for working on this, I think the article has been pretty confusing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Your editing can easily be mistaken for partisan censorship. Chez Pazienza is a notable journalist, and The Daily Banter happens to be represented in the White House press corps. Your editing totally deleted some good content and softened the POV found in the sources, which is an introduction of editorial bias. That is forbidden by NPOV. We want to document and include content bias, but are not allowed to include, or be motivated by, editorial bias. The idea is to follow WP:Preserve. Can the content be improved? Possibly so, but please don't be so brutal. We don't write hagiographies or sales brochures here. BTW, following BRD would have been a better option for you, rather than edit warring your deletions/changes again. When you are reverted, start a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That was a long way to say you disagreed with my edit. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
More like "why"... -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David French. 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) 10:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leela James, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TV One. 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) 09:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Lange discography

Yes, adding the tributes probably goes against WikiProject guidelines and the MOS, but I'm not convinced it's a bad-faith edit. As such, there's probably not an exemption to WP:3RR to be had for reverting the additions of the tribute songs to Jessica Lange discography. I trust you're familiar with 3RR, but if you're not, ping me in your followup question, and I'll be glad to explain. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Seems like you forget to post a similar message to the other side around, C.Fred

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jessica Lange discography 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.
It's bad enough that your edit is adding material that should not be found in a discography. It's worse that you're involved in an edit war about it. Please discuss the situation on the talk page, but do not add the material until/unless consensus is reached to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneeek (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brother Sun, Sister Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Hudson. 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) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK) contestants has been nominated for discussion

Category:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK) contestants, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! contestants has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! contestants, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Angelina Ballerina into Angelina Ballerina (TV series). 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. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vologda butter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Exposition. 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) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Up at the Villa (film)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Up at the Villa (film), Korny O'Near!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good. I've added some sources, also added a reflist and made the title italic. It would be nice to add some sources for the comment that subplots were added, as I don't see that in Ebert's or the Times's review.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Randy Quaid's real name

Hi. I noticed you edited the Randy Quaid bio. His full legal name is "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid". "Randy" isn't a contraction of "Randall", he has both names. He showed his birth certificate on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWUjmtbpcI) to prove it. The page is semi-protected at the moment, so I can't edit it. Would you mind reverting the change if you can? Thanks, Lugh Summerson (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that! I had just assumed that that name was too preposterous to be real. I just undid my change, and added a citation of that YouTube video. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Korny O'Near. 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)

Kevin O'Leary

I'm not sure why you believe O'Leary is Canada's Trump. They have complete opposite views on almost every political issue (immigration, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, healthcare, marijuana, the military, etc.) Anyway, you need to achieve consensus on the talk page before making such a massive edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.236 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant, and anyway the article doesn't say that he's Canada's Trump - just that press reports frequently refer to him as that. Which is undoubtedly true, and well-cited. And consensus is nice, but I don't need it, any more than you do. (There was no consensus for the previous wording either.) Korny O'Near (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Korny,
I have noticed you are tying to input some changes to the O'Leary article in an attempt to draw parallels between Trump and O'Leary. I advise you to research O'Leary's policies first/family history. I read in your profile that you are American. Most Americans know quite a lot about Trump, but absolutely nothing about Canadians, like O'Leary. If you were to read a few articles on O'Leary's policies/personal history you would note that that are quite different. As an example, you might not know this. but O'Leary grew up dirt poor with a single mother in Montreal. Trump, on the other hand, was the son of a multi-millionaire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.174.11 (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Memories

Hi Korny. I will stop reverting the edit for now. But please, update the article into an acceptable form before you decide to merge the article. The new article has a lot of new information that is not available in the old article which is in poor quality, hence why it was a standalone article in the first place. Please don't merge just for the sake of merging and cause the whole article to be lowered in quality. SyFuelIgniteBurned 02:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I "merged for the sake of merging", because cover versions don't get their own article. (I challenge you to find one article on Wikipedia that's just about a cover version.) If you think the non-Siti Nurhaliza part of Memories (Hugh Hopper song) is in poor quality, you should feel free to improve it. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I will take charge of improving the article. Good day. SyFuelIgniteBurned 02:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Isaac Newton in popular culture.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Isaac Newton in popular culture 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 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. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah - why didn't you put the same warning on Headbomb's talk page? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, never mind - you did, and he deleted it 10 minutes later. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RM: Hijra (South Asia) → Hijra (transgender group)

You recently participated in a move request discussion at Talk:Hegira. I have now proposed one of the suggested moves independently. Please it discuss at Talk:Hijra (South Asia) if you care. —  AjaxSmack  00:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Night Life

Rather than edit war, it's probably better to discuss this. You're saying "title and chorus", which is not backed up by your reference. I don't agree that the single line you're talking about constitutes a chorus, and by using the word "chorus", you're suggesting a musical similarity. Your reference refers to "copping" Nelson's tune, which is shaky at best. It's absolutely not an adequate reference for what you're saying. I suggest you revert yourself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. I just created a new section here about it; let's talk about it there. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI re copyvio issues

Hello Korny. I saw your work in splitting info from the Oh, Dad... (I'm too lazy to type the whole thing-heehee) and I wanted to let you know that there are a couple steps you need to take to avoid copy vio issues. The first is to make an edit with a summary like this one to leave an explanation in the edit history of the new article. The second is to add a template to the talk page explaining what has been done as I did here Talk:Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feelin' So Sad (film). This is necessary because the new article does not have any information in the edit history as to where the information in the article comes from. These two edits take care of any questions regarding the proper attribution of the material involved. If you have any questions about this you can ask Diannaa as she is the person who helped teach me about this. Thanks for your time and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW I think this is one of the greatest titles for a play/film ever invented :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Irish showband

I see you copyedited this quite a bit. I don't have much knowledge of the topic and no sources. Perhaps you have some sources that could be used as citations which are seriously lacking. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No, unfortunately - I did add one source, but that's all I could find. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on Robert Mitchum

Hi Korny,

I do appreciate what you're trying to do regarding balance on the Robert Mitchum article. My concern is that you've gone so far on the other side, as to make the article too heavily focused on this one thing. Can you please condense it, per WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT? I'd prefer you do it so I don't need to take a stab at it. Right now, it's just too much. Surely we can convey the same info with half the narrative. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I certainly think brevity is a good idea. However, I went through the four sentences currently dedicated to the 1973 Esquire interview and couldn't find anything that could be removed without removing important information. I also don't think that four sentences is undue weight for this interview - yes, it's one interview out of no doubt hundreds that he conducted over his lifetime, but this one had an impact that none of the other ones did (as far as I know), and he made the kind of statements that could easily kill someone's career these days. I also think this interview is interesting because sheds light on his famously cantankerous nature, although I suppose that's a more minor point. Anyway, feel free to try your hand at shortening it if you think there's anything extraneous there. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok then, done. X4n6 (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

7 Days in Entebbe

Hi, I've noticed you renamed the article, however you haven't provided any source about the new film title. At IMDb it is still called "Entebbe", so I was wondering why would you rename the article. I will appreciate if you provide any citation. I would also like to know, what made you decide whether the role of Lior Ashkenazi was significant or not, since the film was not yet released and I believe you haven't watched it. Many thanks and have a nice day! Kreecher (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I only saw this now. Yes, my rename was a bad edit. You're right, I don't know how big Lior Ashkenazi's role is, but his name's not on the poster, for what it's worth. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reality TV

You deleted my reference to the Anna Nicole Show in the reality tv article. Watching Anna Nicole was my first exposure to reality TV and I was shocked. I was embarrassed to watch and wondered if she was being used. After reading the article I could not believe that her show was not mentioned in the article. Her life and her death captured unbelievable attention. Reading the talk page and edits, it seems you claim some ownership of this article. I would like you to add a reference to this show anywhere you deem proper. I know everyone can edit whatever and whenever in the Wikipedia world. I would never edit war so I will let you decide if Anna Nicole should be mentioned in "your" article.Eschoryii (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never claimed ownership of it. Sure, this show merits mentioning in the article - I just don't think it belongs in the intro. There have been thousands of reality TV shows, and possibly hundreds of them have had as large an impact as this one did, or more. You may be biased here by your own experience. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought the ownership phrase may offend and you returned offense by pointing out my bias. I am definitely bias because in my mind the Nichol show tops the exploitive genre. If you want to add it, please do so. I'm done with the issue.

Eschoryii (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with the "National Memo" article

Dear Korny, I noticed that back in 2007 you edited Joe Conason article so I assume that you know the field. I kindly ask you to take a look at the The National Memo article. It has been undergoing dramatic edits and I ask for your assistance in editing/improving the article.

I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor. At that time the article had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, improving categories and adding some well-referenced info. The article started to look like a normal website/media article. After that it got heavily edited in two waves by editors deleting large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.

A lot of what is going all around this article is plain nonsense. So if you are interested in the subject / in improving the article, please take a look at January 10th version or January 29th version. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the article, please share. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cruise (song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please do not make your own interpretation of the lyrics, nowhere does it say that he was comparing her to a song he heard on the radio, You are connecting "you a song", radio and Chevy and linked them into your own interpretation. Find a source that interprets this way. Hzh (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Dancing with the Stars winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dancing with the Stars winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 08:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 08:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Article 13

Hi. Sorry to be a pain, but I spotted your new DAB page on Article 13 at WP:NPP. I'm afraid I'm minded to propose it for deletion as I really don't think it serves any purpose, and I wondered what you thought? There must be dozens of pieces of international legislation with an Article 13 in them. Your first link seems valid enough, but "Article 13 of the proposed European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which would expand legal liability for websites" only serves to confuse in my opinion,and it's not disambiguating anything. In fact, I would have preferred to have seen a WP:REDIRECT from Article 13 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, if you actually thought it's notable enough. i.e. very much like Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights redirects to the main article.

Let me have your views before I take any action. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new redirect page sounds like a good idea. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, so you perhaps you would add some more info and especially citations to make that section notable enough to need a redirect to it, and especially properly referenced, then make a redirect if you absolutely feel it's needed. After that I suggest you put {{db-userreq}} on Article 13. I'll pop back in a few weeks and see how you've got on. Please don't think I'm trying to be awkward - I'm, just keen to ensure the encyclopaedia works as well as it can for users who seek information. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Imran Awan

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban for Korny O'Near". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Reboot (fiction) - Soft reboot

You might want to read the article's edit history and its' talk page here. The Den of Geek ref you used was added and removed several times. 2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:F51A:F931:79D7:D760 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please join talk page discussion

I started a thread at the Franchesca Ramsey talk page. If you haven't already done so, please read the previous discussions of the same issue so that you are up to speed. Please explain your arguments over there on the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a new discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Paramount Pictures films, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, on Angelina Ballerina (TV series)

I presume I had not checked to see if there were new changes to the page before reverting the vandalism. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I figured that was it. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am sorry that you seem not to understand a very basic guideline (WP:BRD), which is designed to avoid edit warring. When you add something new, and are reverted, don't put it back in! Even if you 100% sure of its value. Go discuss on the talk page. If its a 100% win, you will find consensus there to have it added. You tried, but found no consensus: then please leave it as it is. This is especially true for high-quality articles (FA) which have a little star in the upper right corner. I won't revert you, trying hard to avoid edit warring even when I'm 100% sure I am right ;) - I suggest you revert yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss it on the talk page, but the other editor seems to have stopped wanting to discuss. If you personally disagree with my change, it would be great to hear your opinion on the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You presented your argument for the addition of a section. Now two scenarios were possible: 1) the main editor is convinced and happy, ideally even adds himself. That didn't happen. 2) At least five editors come along who are convinced of the proposed addition, to be a majority against the main editor and (unconvinced) me. That didn't happen. So you found No Consensus for your addition, but still added it again. Repeating: I won't revert you, trying hard to avoid edit warring even when I'm 100% sure I am right ;) - I suggest you revert yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Software bug, Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and William Borah shows that you are currently engaged in edit warring. To resolve a content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of re-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 WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT for how this is done.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material or page each time—counts as a revert.

You really need to learn to use article talk pages for discussion before reaching for the revert button. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Two of these three so-called "edit wars" are just you going through my recent contributions, making silly and poorly-explained reverts. It's obviously you who are breaking the rules here, by wiki-hounding me, and you should really stop. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You should really stop calling others' edits "silly" and "poorly-explained" when they just follow the guideline WP:BRD which you seem not to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
A revert can be silly. (And can also, in this case, be a form of harassment.) Korny O'Near (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
No doubt about that a revert can be silly. We are talking about reverting when someone like you persists in making the same edit twice (or even more) although reverted. To revert then is silly. You should discuss instead, even if you think some revert was silly. If it was indeed silly, the discussion will show. We have time enough for that. - You are taking up an awful lot of the communitiy's time, and for me that borders harassment. Will you revert the Borah addition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As I said before, I'm trying to discuss that Borah "popular culture" section - no one else seems to want to discuss it. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
See thread above: If nobody wants to discuss, it should stay as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Therefore, I suggested you self-revert and find something more productive to do than forcing one person's pet topic in a featured article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
If a revert is final until it's fully discussed, then that seems like an easy way to "game the system": revert a change you don't like, then refuse to discuss it, and you're done (especially if it's a less-popular article). I don't think those are the rules, according to WP:BRD or anything else. But what you said about "featured article" is interesting - clearly you do have an opinion on this William Borah edit. Why not bring it to the talk page? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I commented on the talk page, or why do think I am here? I noticed you with that edit, which felt like something by a newbie, and am surprised that in more than 10 years you have not learned how consensus can form, ideally. I could point you to several discussions where I wanted a change but found no consensus. Still waiting for you to revert a change which you alone support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Your only comment on the William Borah talk page is that this TV episode about him is "rather of minor interest, - at least for me". Hardly a strong statement. But now you seem to be saying something stronger, which is that it doesn't belong in a featured article. It would be good to know if that's actually your opinion. As to consensus - it usually forms through discussion, but in this case I seem to be the only one who wants to discuss the issue. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. One person wants a change, and sees all who resist on an "easy way to game the system". Good luck with that approach, you will need it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't understand this, but anyway, it looks like the other editor found a compromise in the meantime. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I sent him a thank-you-click ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018; WP:EDIT WARring

Please do not WP:EDIT WAR, and, per WP:V, do not add assertions without references. See also WP:BRD. I have deleted your repeated attempt to add unreferenced material to Kiss Me, Kate. Also, one should never add anything to the WP:LEAD section that is not already discussed and referenced in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, there was nothing in your edit that made it clear that the deletion of that content was done on purpose. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors make changes on purpose. If you add material that is opposed by someone, you MAY NOT simply add it again. You will be blocked for edit warring if you keep editing the way you do. If you really think an editor has made a mistake, you can ask them about it on their Talk page, or start a discussion on the article's talk page. It is not "fair" to just make the changes you prefer and then make assumptions that justify this bad behavior. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors usually make changes on purpose. They also usually don't put in misleading edit summaries. Clearly not always, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You continue to ignore our most important policies, WP:V and WP:EDIT WAR. Other policies and guidelines you ignored in making your edits were WP:OR, WP:LEAD and WP:BRD. If you don't add sources for your assertions, your work will be reverted over and over again. Many people have tried to tell you this. Don't you want to be a constructive editor? In this case, what you wrote might be of encyclopedic interest if you added reliable sources that verified your assertions, and if you put it in the body of the article where it belongs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
BRD is neither a policy nor a guideline, but you probably knew that. I don't think the change violated WP:OR (though it was unfortunately uncited) or WP:LEAD either, though those are more debatable. My edits aren't reverted that often, so clearly your advice here is not that relevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That's true, and I didn't violate that one. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

Hi. I appreciate what you are trying to do on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza, and I certainly don't mind that you renamed that section which I slapped a rather hasty name on, but I would ask you to bear in mind that there is a lot of completely intentional trolling going on there and we do need to discourage that. This is probably only going to get worse now D'Souza's new "documentary" movie is out. On many articles about far-right subjects we get an endless succession of IPs and SPAs all making the same (non)points as eachother over and over again. Sometimes it is the same people coming back. Sometimes it is a succession of different people all being sent here from who knows where.

If people want to discuss specific sources, making coherent arguments for their inclusion or exclusion, then that is fine but there is nothing productive in allowing people to start a thread where they accuse the Universe in general of "bias" because everything they see and hear fails to agree with the screaming voices inside their own heads. Cutting off such threads is also helpful to anybody who does have a substantial objection to make as it leaves space for them to be heard above all the nonsense. It seems like a kindness to all involved. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing about it here. I don't see a need to discourage such comments - my view is, if 20 people want to write poorly-worded comments about the article, let them write them - as long as they're focused on the article, and not making personal attacks, it's not harming anyone. (And the guidelines forbid us from deleting those comments even if we wanted to.) If you want to prevent it from being unproductive, just ignore the comments and don't let them affect your productivity. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, 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. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer (November 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). 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.
Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
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! Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Korny O'Near. 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)

Draft:Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer

It appears you've been around Wikipedia for over 10 years. Any reason you prefer (or are compelled) to use Articles for Creation for stuff like Draft:Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer? Otherwise I would you can create mainspace articles yourself, if you judge them notable (though we all can get challenged). --Milowent • hasspoken 19:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Oh oh, I see now, someone MOVED it to draftspace for you. If someone did that to me, I'd go ballistic, but i'm not a model citizen!--Milowent • hasspoken 19:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer has been accepted

Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Milowent • hasspoken 19:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your Washington Times talk comment

I just thanked you for this. I'm pro-Washington Times and I'm in favor of putting the info on global warming etc. in the lede. It goes to show how out of touch WP editors are with the real world.  :-) PopSci (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Steve King

Your edits on Steve King appear to be pushing a particular POV. I did ask, after I reverted your first attempts at these edits, that you discuss the edits before attempting them again. Yet, you ignored that, and made two edits (this and this) without opening up a discussion. I went ahead and opened up a discussion for you. I hope you will discuss your attempted changes before actually making them again. Thank you. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those edits pushed a POV, but, okay, sure. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, consecutive reverts count as one, see WP:3RR. wumbolo ^^^ 22:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

You've now made the same edit (which removed sourced info) twice at the Steve King article. The first time, your edit was reverted. You did not attempt to discuss this reversion, but you did just make it again. I reverted it this time. As you did not attempt to discuss the change, and you knew it was controversial, it could leave the impression that you simply waited to make the edit again in order to try and sneak it in. I would strongly suggest that you discuss this change on the article talk page, rather than unilaterally attempting it again in the future. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It didn't remove sourced info, it removed a duplicate of sourced info, but alright. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

You have recently shown interest in 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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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 recently 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Steve King 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 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 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. - MrX 🖋 18:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan Omar

Perhaps LGB is the acronym for Laser-Guided-Bomb, so please restructure the LGTBQIA elsewhere than under the section on critique of Israelis as they are a militant country with forced conscription and dangerously armed and The use of the term "cyber" and "harassment" may be interpreted as indications of cybercrime. Edward Snowdon explicitly mentioned that the Israelis and Saudis had conspired to, and executed, a plan of high-tech-cybercrime using a backdoor-method of complete remote control of the cellphones/smartphones. It seems that a reader of the article would have been able to read-through to the Snowdon revelations (about the malicious Israeli software NSO company owned (and certificated) by Francisco Partners in the USA) by way of the Greenwald link in earlier versions of the article, as the now-infamous acronymic tweet ("AIPAC") had been spurred by a Greenwald tweet. by a random IP is the kind of of delusional, paranoid rambling you find engaging, but on Wikipedia it is disruptive and has no place on a talk page. Your efforts to restore[1][2] this material is as disruptive as the initial comments by the IP. Policy allows for comments of this nature to be removed. Please stop what you're doing and exercise some common sense. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPO for the (rather strict) rules regarding deleting comments on talk pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Another user just identified the (multiple) IPs this individual was using to disrupt Talk:Ilhan Omar as part of a long-term abuse pattern. Sometimes when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this person has been engaging in long-term abuse, but these specific talk page posts are neither abusive nor against the rules. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Wrong, they violate WP:NOTFORUM, which is enough of a reason to remove them. Also WP:POINT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the WP:NOTFORUM violation - the user was making specific critiques about the current state of the article. And I don't know what WP:POINT means in the context of talk page edits. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Conspiracy theories about cybercrime have nothing to do with Ilhan Omar. If you look at this IPs contributions, as detailed on the long-term abuse page, they go around spouting the same nonsense on every article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The person was objecting to the use of the word "harass" in the article. You can say a lot of things about their argument, but it wasn't off-topic. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I know we disagreed here, but on a separate note, I thought I'd notify you (if you weren't already aware) that Ewen Douglas was a sock of Rockypedia and has been indeffed. I read some of your interactions with him Talk:Steve King, and I thought you handled yourself well by not responding to personal attacks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I didn't see that before. Thank you also for the kind words, and I respect you also for keeping it civil during our disagreement. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the Ilhan Omar and Jamal Khashoggi differentiation

A barnstar-type award would most certainly be appropriate, for diffusing a loaded wikipedian, or indeed a load of loaded wikipedians! Sometimes good folk give up on wikipedia because of overzealous editors who sometimes seem to ganging-up, and when the admins are coopted and become overzealous, it can become downright hostile. Thank you for the simple fix of the Ilhan Omar victimisation, although the root of the matter lies with non-wiki media and journals, which doesn`t seem likely to improve soon. I shudder to think that being victimised on twitter is made to sound worse than what happened to Jamal Khashoggi`s Iphone.126.243.120.184 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of actor-politicians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Power Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

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

Tucker Carlson

Please see talk if you would like to comment about the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit waring

You are edit warring and are very close to WP:3RR. You are experienced enough at this to know this is a bad idea. You do not have consensus for these edits. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to achieve consensus on the talk page, if you hadn't noticed. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Stefan Molyneux. 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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 20:30, 9 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't violate 3RR, and my edits, far from being disruptive, add additional citations and an unbiased tone. I believe the previous wording of the article Stefan Molyneux was a WP:BLP violation: the very first sentence said he had "white supremacist views" (something Molyneux denies), with not a single one of the cited sources directly backing up that claim. For what it's worth, the admin who blocked me was also involved in the talk page discussion, on the "anti-Molyneux" side, if you can call it that - I don't know if there's a conflict of interest there. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After your intial edit here, you reverted here and here. You then rewrote a passage here and after being reverted, you restored it here. Perhaps this does not violate the letter of 3RR, but it is still in my opinion edit warring. 3RR is a bright line to not cross, but you can still be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts(in this case, of the same content) and that I so determine in this case. However, while I am declining this request, I would not oppose an unblock if you agree to take any further disputes to the article talk page until they are resolved. In addition, I don't personally feel that Doug Weller posting to the talk page makes him involved(I would have if he had performed one of the reversions of your edits) 331dot (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2019 (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.

I counted 4 reverts in 24 hours. You've been warned before. The first was at 21:57. I'd forgotten that I'd edited the talk page but I don't think that makes me involved. However if a reviewing Admin thinks I was they can unblock you or even take over the block. Of course if they agree your reverts were covered by our BLP policy you'll be unblocked. I don't see that myself however. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, the number depends on how you look at it. I don't think this edit counts as a revert, because I made a number of changes from my previous text, incorporating feedback from the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No mention in the unblock review of the apparent WP:BLP violation. It's not surprising, but it's disappointing. Let me point out that the Stefan Molyneux article is currently in the category Canadian white supremacists, despite there not being a single cited source in the article that calls him that, as far as I can tell. That's grounds for a defamation lawsuit, I would think. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Could you please read WP:NLT and state explicitly that you do not intend to take legal action or encourage others to do so? Because your statement reads as though it might be intended to have a chilling effect. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
No, that wasn't a legal threat - I'm not the one being defamed. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Saying "you could be sued" is no different than saying "I'm going to sue you" under WP:NLT. I strongly advise you to stop making such statements. If you want to argue the article text is not supported by the sources, feel free, but do so without the chilling effect of telling other editors they will be sued. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that white supremacist may fail catdef, but you didn't address that with any of your editing, so why would that matter? If you want to get that changed, you should drop all the other frivolous nonsense and the over-the-top rhetoric about defamation and just try to make a policy based argument for that change. The other stuff (e.g. whitewashing the scientific racism, or striking a false balance between his views and the views of RSes) is not going to get implemented, and it only serves to undermine your credibility. Nblund talk 15:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
331dot - you may be misreading WP:NLT; it seems to specifically be talking about statements made by people who are the subject of Wikipedia articles, or who otherwise have grounds to sue.
Nblund - WP:BLP is policy. Anyway, I'll see you on the Stefan Molyneux talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
331dot is correct, I've been an Admin for almost 11 years and seen it enforced many times. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
If so, then the wording of WP:NLT is very misleading. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why not discuss it on the talk page when you can? Doug Weller talk 21:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the wording is fine as it is? Korny O'Near (talk)
Whether you are the one threatening to sue, or you tell editors that they could be sued by someone else, it has a chilling effect on editing as editors will then fear legal action and refrain from editing anything at all. This is why the two statements are treated equally. If you feel this should be more clearly spelled out in WP:NLT, you are free to request that on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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:Korny_O'Near reported by User:Levivich (Result: ). Thank you. – Levivich 15:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Block

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, again, at the same article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 16:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by the admin with the Lenin and Che pictures (and quotes) on his user and talk page. Sounds about right. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Zero introspection and reflection to go with that unwelcome innuendo. El_C 17:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a lot of thoughts about this, but would rather have shared them on the noticeboard page. But I do think there's a lot of political bias at the heart of this entire dispute. I'm trying to keep Wikipedia politically neutral, not everyone is. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Some friendly advice (take it or leave it). When you acknowledge responsibility for your edits (rationale is irrelevant at this point), then future editing will be less troublesome for yourself. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I am responsible for my edits. (?) Do I win a prize? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we both do, but the constituents that make up the prize (and hence, the prize itself) must forever be kept secret. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The rant

I was typing a reply when it was removed again. It's not really on-topic, it's a bad-faith rant against Wikipedia and its editors, one that I've seen on many articles. Almost a template rant. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The basic rule is not to remove or modify talk page comments, with exceptions outlined in WP:TPO. Which of those exceptions does this fall into? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"Do not use the talk page as a forum..." Doug Weller talk 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thankfully there's a whole essay about the "forum" exception, WP:NOTFORUM. I think that essay makes it pretty clear that what should be removed are discussions about the topic itself, not discussions about the article. If you disagree, what specifically in NOTFORUM are you referring to? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." Which I guess is slightly circular. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This strengthens my point, I think... that person's comment was not a discussion brought in from elsewhere, was not a general discussion about the article's subject, and was not a request for instructions or assistance. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's subjective. I see it as a general discussion about Wikipedia's bias and an attack on editors, which could be placed on hundreds of not more talk pages just changing the name of the subject. Nothing concrete to discuss given the profession of bad faith, and just likely to attract more forum style posts. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That's not true - the person specifically mentioned the use of the phrases "far right" and "conspiracy theorist", which are indeed valid criticisms of the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd, I must've forgotten to save. Pointless anyway as I see I've blocked you before so I'm not surprised you reverted me. I am surprised you haven't been given the appropriate DS alerts so I've posted them. Doug Weller talk 22:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You may or may not believe this, but I didn't remember that you were the one who had blocked me, although your name looked vaguely familiar. Please assume good faith. I reverted you because I thought the person made a valid - and, dare, I say, helpful - contribution to the talk page, and that removing it violated Wikipedia guidelines. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, I accept that. After all, I'd forgotten entirely. If anyone including an IP had gone to that page with what looked like a serious complaint that they hoped would be taken seriously, particularly with something concrete, I would have left it. But I still believe that they didn't expect to be taken seriously and were only there to rant. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Korny_O%27Near/Archive_2&oldid=1088338407"