TomReagan90

Your submission at Articles for creation: Natural regions of France (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CaptainEek was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TomReagan90! 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! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you following me and reverting me?

You will find too many articles with editors trying to use religious texts to make a point, one reason why we try to use secondary sources interpreting/analysing TomReagan90 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)the religious texts. We try to avoid original research - please read the link. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read it, and I disagree with your view that it applies to the Kafir article. I'ts not original research to quote from the Quran about Kafir amidst two scholars doing just that. And calm down, I'm not "following" you. I reverted you once, because I believe you are mistaken. Don't take it so personally. TomReagan90 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I don't take it personally. If I took any actions here personally the various death threats I've had would have me avoiding Wikipedia like the plague. It's just a bit odd that you show up at that article having not edited it before. Still, we have a noticeboard where you can raise the issue, it's WP:NORN. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you reverted. I took this to NORN. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Man, don't go about reverting an admin. There are some rules to Wikipedia. If you don't follow them, the admins will block or ban you!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you go to WP:NORN#Using quotes from religious texts in articles as examples without reliable sources and apologize and ask to be forgiven as you are a new user!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Souniel Yadav: I'd be a terrible Admin if I blocked someone just for reverting me. In fact. I'd probably be an ex-admin. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note these special rules for biographies

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

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC).

Your draft article, Draft:Natural regions of France

Hello, TomReagan90. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Natural regions of France".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

May 2021

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Sarkar. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. In this edit you removed this comment. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It came up as "edit conflict". I clicked "back" on my browser, and clicked "publish changes" again. "Such edits" are decidedly not disruptive, but accidental. I do hope this is the last accusatory, threatening message you leave on my talk page, as such edits may appear to other editors as WP:HOUNDING or WP:HARASS. Thankyou. TomReagan90 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nesrine Malik, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. The removed content can be viewed here: diff Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

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

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cedar777 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Information regarding articles under a 1RR restriction

Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with information about articles under 1RR by reading the content at the top of the Andy Ngo talk page. Keep in mind that "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." One revert per 24 hour period is permitted by any editor. Additional linked information can be found here: WP:1RR and WP:NOT3RR.

The series of edits you made to Andy Ngo on July 1, 2021 violated the 1RR in place. Slow down and discuss the material you don't agree with on the talk page before reverting the work of other editors. Cedar777 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Maybe I'm a bit dull, but, which edit/s were in breach of WP:1RR? TomReagan90 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit Diff 1 reverted an entire section that was sourced using RS per WP:RSP and was your one permitted revert for 1RR. By my count you have made nine reverts to the page today, several of which are unsourced modifiers to existing well-sourced language or outright deletions of entire sections and their sources respectively. All the reverts after the first linked revert above are in violation of 1RR. Please self-revert ASAP and discuss your proposed future changes in the talk page. Cedar777 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cedar777:Wait, what? So WP:1RR actually means 1 edit per day? Are you sure you're reading that correctly? I think you may be mistaken... are you an admin? If so, can you check with another admin? lol. I'm pretty sure edits and reverts aren't the same thing... right? (I would also kindly invite you to peruse the Talk Page of said article, and the Incident Noticeboard [1]) TomReagan90 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There were nine edits; one wasn't a revert but instead an addition of a link to Amazon that is against policy, another was a simple edit to a single term. However, in the other seven, you made a number of major changes that were unsourced or poorly sourced. Cedar777 (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, so you understand now the difference between a revert and an edit? Good lad. TomReagan90 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cedar777: For context, my intention was to adhere strictly to a close reading of WP:BLP, which states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." and "The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." and most specifically and importantly to the deletion of the two sections ("Credibility" and "Doxxing"): "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." TomReagan90 (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cedar777#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion - Ah, I see now. Why bother. Wiki policy is overall extremely sound IMHO, if only established editors would pay attention to it... Every time I or any new user dares edit a BLP of a topical journalist-y type figure, the Guardians and the True Believers round upon the out-group intruder, with threats, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and non-existent breaches of non-existent policy made up on the spot to scare the newbies. To think, I actually thought this person was an admin. Just another WikiWarrior in the US-centric, last-week-centric Culture Wars. TomReagan90 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

TomReagan90, I understand why one would look at the Andy Ngo page and question it's neutrality. However, I think if you want to make a lasting impact on a contentious page like that one the best plan is careful, even temperament and not pushing too much, too fast. A first problem is even if you feel that this article seems to only focus on the negative and that often the sources aren't really supporting their accusations, removing large blocks of text is almost always a plan that will end in failure. It's better to really look over things like WP:V, wp:NPOV, wp:BLP and some of the policies/guidelines etc linked to/from those articles. A related one is the various rules related to WP:CIVIL. A number of editors, who may be right in their overall assessment, come in and make accusations against other editors (hypothetical examples "your objective is to slander a journalist you don't like" or "you are an antifa sympathizer so of course you feel that way"). I'm not saying you have done this (I haven't read all of your recent talk page comments as of the time of writing this). I'm only cautioning that this is a topic where many editors who felt this article wasn't impartial often found themselves topic banned from editing the article because people on the other side of that debate could go to the notice boards and point to behavioral reasons why the new editor was a problem. To avoid this really stick to clear arguments related to things like verification, weight etc. You were spot on to question "widely" just make sure you stick to fact and policy/guideline based arguments, never comments that question the person on the other side of the argument. Also, it is reasonable to question sources even if they are marked at WP:RSP "green" if a reasoned argument can be made that the source got it wrong. This would tend to discredit that specific source article for use in this wiki article. However, don't put such reasoning in the article itself as that violates WP:OR. Also, TFD is a straight shooter. They are one of the editors who seems to see through the BS. If they disagree with you in some way it's probably worth trying to better understand what they are saying. Hope that is helpful and not pedantic! Springee (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, such civility Springee! First time I've encountered it on Wikipedia! But honestly, if you look at the policy, and then what the likes of NorthBySouthBaranof have found themselves defending (a whole sub-heading/section entitled "Credibility" which purports to outline how "Ngo's credibility and objectivity as a journalist has been extensively criticized"), it's a no-brainer. But yeah, I've wasted enough of my lockdown hours on this. I literally have no dog in the fight at all: not American, not Rightist (quite the opposite, if only these people accusing me of being shills for Ngo knew my ethnicity, citizenship, and political allegiances!), only heard of Ngo as a result of the Mumford & Sons fiasco... this is more like an experiment that proves a hypothesis: Wikipedia is awesome, just not for politically or religiously sensitive topics - because then actual Wiki Policy goes out the window, and it's just mob rule. Peace out Springee. TomReagan90 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately a number of editors assume that if you are trying to make an article seem more like a dispassionate encyclopedic article (as if we were writing about farming practices of an extinct culture) vs an article meant to sell you on the idea that a person is a bad person, you are often, quickly assumed to be a member of one camp or another. It is frustrating. Springee (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Infuriating. The one guy accused me 3 times of being somehow in cahoots with Ngo. I'll be glad to never hear/read/write/speak of him ever again. The ability to maintain a disinterested objectivity on political/religious/moral issues is so rare it seems, it's like it should almost be regarded as a superpower. Like, they could do deep, months-long psychological testing and probing of these precious few (I'm one of them of course), polygraphs, sleep-deprivation, LSD, the works... and then once they've proven their ability to adhere to reason despite any personal distaste, their sacred reward from democratic society? Official induction to Wikipedia's hallowed halls of Administrators! :-D TomReagan90 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jumping in here - your ethnicity and citizenship are irrelevant to your political persuasion. There are white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and other Republicans just like there are white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and other Democrats - not to mention the millions of apolitical non-voters. Modern political division has gotten so bad that people are being told who they should and should not vote for based on their skin color alone (see: Joe Biden's infamous "you aint black" comment). 'NorthBySouthBaranof' appears to be a troll, I have officially warned him/her of their policy breaking behavior, how it wont be tolerated here. Hopefully that solves things. Cheers.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hopefully this will help you through these trying times, as a new editor. Welcome.

DN (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BULLY, WP:WIKIHOUNDING

I was indefinitely blocked (from an article I had no interest in editing any further, and hadn't attempted to do so for at least 10 days) for, I kid you not, using the honorific "Agha Jan". admins ^🍁 and Bishonen thought it was an insult. I've documented the epic saga over at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Iran Talk Page to clear my good name! :-)

I reproduce it here below for your convenience:

• [2] - "Couldn't agree with your more there Agha Jan." I say.
• [3] - admin ^🍁 - "could you please explain what you mean by "Agha Jan"? Many thanks." An admin who can't Google... curious!
• [4] - ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants - "I seem to recall that Agha Jan Motasim was a ranked Taliban member who advocated for diplomatic rather than military interactions with the Afghan government. Make of that what you will. In any case, Tom can no longer reply here, as they've been page blocked by Bishonen. FWIW, it reads to me like a PA [Personal Attack] to me, with a highly subjective severity (an Afghan vet might find it extremely offensive, whereas others mind find it rather mild).
• [5] - admin "Bishonen" blocks me from article (but not Talk page, for 3 months)
• [6] - ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, still incapable of Googling: "Then they should definitely explain what they meant by that."
• [7] - Me: ":-) It simply means "Sir" in Persian. As always, a few seconds Googling could've sorted this out..."
• [8] - admin "Bishonen" lists "Agha Jan" as evidence of my... incivility?
• [9] - MjolnirPants: "Note that Tom is either lying or mistaken: "Agha" Jan is a given name, not an appellation. "Agha" by itself is an appellation, cognate with the Arabic "Ali"
• [10] - Ten days pass... (I've already made it clear I'm not interested in editing the article anymore, but confusing an honorific with an insult, I surely can't let that stand! lol) Me: "Well done for teaching me about my native language! lol!"
• [11] - admin ^🍁, who initially accused me of using "Agha Jan" as a pro-Taliban (?) insult, still unwilling to Google, blocks me from the article indefinitely, saying "your tendentious editing and trolling are disrupting the conversation".
• [12] - Sockpuppeteer ValarianB reverts my last edit with the description "trolling".
• [13] - initial blocking admin (^🍁) attempts to remove all evidence of embarrassing misapprehension.
• [14] - admin (^🍁) now feigns ignorance. "What are you talking about?"
• [15] - admin "Bishonen" returns to redact my personal page with an extremely dubious WP:BLP justification (I refer to an individual for rhetorical purposes), threatens a permanent block if I restore it. The last time I actually made an edit to an article was 26 days ago. Yet my own User Page and Talk Page has been monitored and edited ten times in that time, by 3 editors, including the two admins above WP:TALKSTALK. The saga continues I guess... And simply by documenting their obvious and embarrassing error here, I continue to incur their wrath and threats. I'm not actually editing Wikipedia articles at all, so they're stuck at messing with my Talk Page and User Page. WP:BULLY, WP:WIKIHOUNDING - TomReagan90 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• [16] - admin (^🍁) returns to yet again remove all evidence of their mistake.

A very amusing case of "Lost in Translation" (or, more like, "Too lazy to use Google Translate"! https://translate.google.com/?sl=fa&tl=en&text=%D8%A2%D9%82%D8%A7%20&op=translate - lol!) - TomReagan90 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Doug Weller talk 14:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)