Jump to content

User talk:Let us eat lettuce

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

Let us eat lettuce, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Let us eat lettuce! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 24)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please read WP:ESSAY and WP:NOT
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.
Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox

[edit]

User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert US politics

[edit]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment

[edit]

you posted at my talk page, but since the thread is already started here, I'll reply here. This is in accord with WP:MULTI. My answer to your question whether you "should cease and desist" is that any sanctions our admins impose are meant to prevent future problems. See WP:Blocking policy. We initially assume editors are both capable and willing to learn from mistakes. So sanctions start off small and for short periods. Persistent problems can lead to more severe and/or longer sanctions. And for the few who are unable or unwilling to change, admins might impose bans of various scopes, of which topic bans might be the most common. So, in answer to your question, I think you can choose to read all the guideline and policy related material that has been shared with you and try to edit accordingly, or you can choose not to and see what happens. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 25)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
See previous declines.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheSandDoctor was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
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.
TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at User:Let us eat lettuce/sandbox.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. tendentiously resubmitting a WP:POLEMIC after repeated declines. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This is an incoherent rant, clearly not a genuine attempt to create an encyclopedic article.
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.
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[edit]

Hi, I was looking at the sandbox and saw your work on the attempted impeachment of the current US president ad was wondering how it is a coup d'état. I also worried that your article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to articles having a nuetral point of view. Thanks The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I hope to develop this... I have added more, so help out if u canLet us eat lettuce (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have added additional info to support the coup d'état narrative. I have attempted to evolve this beyond the essay status into wiki format. meeting resistance... all factual w/ citations.....

@The Editor's Apprentice: The proper place for these comments is on Let us eat lettuce's talk page, where I have moved these. Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 12:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few words of advice

[edit]

If you can really write stuff about "the liberal biased news media" and believe that "there is no violation of neutral point of view" then it is doubtful that you have sufficient ability to see the nature of your own editing to contribute to Wikipedia. That may well be your own sincerely held point of view, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a neutral point of view. I strongly advise you to accept that posting content to advocate a point of view, as you have done, is contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether you like that policy or not. (There are Wikipedia policies that I personally don't agree with, but I accept that they are policies.) If you continue to refuse to accept Wikipedia policies then it is likely that before long you will be blocked from editing by an administrator, so please do start accepting them. Also, there is no place in Wikipedia for posting content on the basis that "it is speculated". Finally, I strongly advise you that if you keep on re-submitting the same draft without addressing the issue that led to its repeatedly being rejected before, then you will almost certainly be blocked from editing, to prevent you from wasting the time of volunteers who review it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

There are indeed attempts to remove Donald Trump from office by impeachment. It is a misuse of language, and a serious misuse of language, to refer to impeachment attempts as an attempt at a coup d'etat. Both impeachment and the 25th Amendment are constitutional mechanisms, and their use is not a coup d'etat. In fact, these are mechanisms that were introduced, in 1789 and in 1967, to remove a President from office by lawful means rather than by coup d'etat. Are you implying that the impeachment efforts are extra-constitutional, or are you referring to an actual coup d'etat, perhaps by General Dunford? Who are you saying would replace Mr. Trump in a coup d'etat? I don't think that Michael Pence would participate in a violation of constitutional principles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to rioting, I do not think that the rioting was intended to remove Mr. Trump from office, but to protest (illegally). Not every illegal or violent protest is treasonous. They may be only illegal and violent. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language such as "biased media" and "political feeding frenzy" should not be in the voice of Wikipedia. If someone has used these phrases, quote them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edits made were in attempts to adhere to wiki policies WP:NPOV,WP:SYNTH. Maybe, undoing the legitimate scrubbing could be disruptive editing?? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

housekeeping

[edit]

I think you made a comment before logging in, and the server was showing me your IP address. I think I fixed that correctly but would you look at this please? Can you verify that the comment was made by you? If not, I'll put it back to show the IP address instead of your user name. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits to talk page of Trump resistance wiki under title: Removed a.k.a. censored Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

[edit]

OK... you're taking swings at others( e.g., equating reverts with censorship). Please read WP:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Principles especially the part about behavioral standards. You're on notice about DS, and so the relatively speedy sanctions procedures at AE are in play. See the DS alert I gave you a few days ago in an earlier thread, and click-and-read the links therein.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

taking swings at others? just replied to explain the edits. no malice intended... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to realize my edits on wiki will not be WP:Assume good faith. Too bad. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal commentary in articles

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to You Are What You Eat (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 149.254.49.45 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to warn you myself, but the IP beat me to it. Don't do it again, and please source all article additions with reliable sources. Thank you. SkyWarrior 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No bias, found the added data and film posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvXHSDgv4g8 Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the video description? Because that is not a reliable source and thus cannot be used to back up your edits. SkyWarrior 22:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay. that's alright. seemed legit, but not reliable sources. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the opening statement says "attempts to capture". I suggest that the NYT article confirms the film actually does capture the scene and my new edits were meant to show this. peace http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F0DEFDD1E31E034BC4D51DFBF668383679EDE Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"attempts to capture" NPOV Let us eat lettuce (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to engage in consensus decision making is one of the explicitly listed signs of disruptive editing

[edit]

FYI please read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. You keep adding problematic material at Trump resistance, I keep reverting with explanations in the edit summaries, and you should try to start a talk page thread (see WP:BRD) instead of disruptively repeating the cycle ad nauseum. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. You have been told repeatedly of the need to edit neutrally and to avoid making personal comments. If you honestly can't see that statements such as "Trump Derangement Syndrome set in and manifest itself in the continued efforts to respond negatively to every Trump initiative, every Trump policy, and every Trump idea" express opinions, then you have such a lack of ability to understand the difference between objective and subjective reporting that you are probably not going to be able to start contributing in the neutral way required. If, on the other hand, you understand perfectly well that such statements express opinions, but put them in because you believe those opinions are right, then you are here to use Wikipedia to promote a point of view. You really need to change your approach very quickly if you are not to be blocked: you have had plenty of warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, understand. The article clearly does state the content added to wiki. you may have missed this in the article.... Trump Derangement Syndrome[1] [2] Let us eat lettuce (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
considering the content of the 2 cited articles, I thought I did edit neutrally and to avoid making personal comments Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Justin Raimondo | Los Angeles Times, Do you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome?, December 27, 2016
  2. ^ Adam Gopnik | The New Yorker, The Persistence of Trump Derangement Syndrome, http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-persistence-of-trump-derangement-syndrome, April 21, 2017

Loretta Lynch

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Let us eat lettuce, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Loretta Lynch have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Let us eat lettuce, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to United States presidential election, 2016 have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to United States presidential election, 2016 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa I hope appearance does not equal proof of violation... The content was faithfully edited. btw, Is the article really under review for inclusion? or just elimination? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Anthony Scaramucci. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Anthony Scaramucci, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep, you're right... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore

[edit]

Your edits on Al Gore, both the article and the talk page violate Wikipedia policies on Biographies of Living Persons. Please use the talk page to try and get consensus for your edits. I also note that you've been warned in regard to the discretionary sanctions in place on articles related to American politics. Usually, if a user continuously fails to abide by Wikipedia policy on such articles, the next stop is Arbitration Enforcement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek just trying to add valid content. I do seek consensus / collaboration... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm TheGracefulSlick. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheGracefulSlick! I just found that cited article, which referenced Bernie Bro. The article seemed to make the illusive link to alt-left and its origins. Is neutral point of view violated when using actual sources describing the wiki subject matter? Have you checked the citation? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay.TheGracefulSlickokay, I am done, wish I had more to offer... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, restrict your comments at AfDs and indeed article talk pages to discussing the article, not your feelings about anything or other editors. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this alert carefully

[edit]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 10:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on a more minor note, the word 'wiki'

[edit]

See Wikie. A wiki "is a website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser. In a typical wiki, text is written using a simplified markup language and often edited with the help of a rich-text editor. A wiki is run using wiki software, otherwise known as a wiki engine." Wikipedia articles are simply referred to as "articles". Just thought you should know. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies on original research and verification

[edit]

I think you need to read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY carefully. That might help you with your other problems. Also WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe source

[edit]

Please do not add fringe sources as you did at Unite the Right rally, in this edit, as well as this one. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Unite the Right rally.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you have been advised of potential sanctions relating to the politics of the United States - beyond the disruption posed by poorly-sourced edits, you may be subject to editing restrictions if this continues. Acroterion (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, I thought I was adding valid content, that was omitted from the wiki. The edits were not meant to be disruption. The main stream media sources wikipedia approves of just don't report the content. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sooner you understand that Wikipedia is not a forum for fringe material the easier you wiki-life will be. Several editors have told you this. If you persist in ignoring them you will face sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: I've been acquainted with Lettuce beginning with this misadventure. I've concluded that in his own mind he genuinely means well but the WP:COMPETENCE issues are severe. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, [[User talk:Acroterion|"> Acroterion (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Acroterion(talk)]]The further you distance yourself from the subject matter ,the more clarity, however, I shall refrain.... this misadventure.... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 03:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Let us eat lettuce (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Frederica Wilson, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Rapid fire editing, clogs up the recent changes log and page history logs, and exposes you and other users to edit conflicts. Even if you haven't made a mistake, it's a courtesy to the community to limit serial edit commits over a short period of time. Thanks! GS ⋙ ☎ 05:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Al Franken. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Fleischman, >>> Warring? I edited my contribution to indicate solely Franken's latest response. Maybe others are warring, but I am contributing factual info... This 'liberal' is just as much due his day, as anybody else Let us eat lettuce (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
btw, who has the right to police wiki articles and delete??? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE. You need to be more specific though, do you mean delete entire articles so that they are not there, or simply to delete text? Doug Weller talk 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thanks Doug Weller !! I was referring to adding to evolving content about any given wiki article. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

At Sam Hoyt where you copied from a source, and at Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy where you copied material without attribution. You are heading for a block if you do this again. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

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

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

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

Peter Strzok‎

[edit]

Don't ever use Daily Mail for sourcing material regarding living persons. The cases where Daily Mail can be used as a reliable source are very few. What's even worse, you wrote that living persons lied the FBI. Lying means telling an untruth with intent to deceive. That's not what the source says. Politrukki (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lettuce! I also came here to comment on something from the Peter Strzok article: Please do not add the false claim that Strzok signed the document opening the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. elections "after the 2016 presidential election." I think you've done that twice now but it is incorrect. The investigation was not opened after the election. It was opened in summer 2016, and that's what the source says. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also you shouldn't have marked those edits as being minor - see WP:MINOR. This is a minor point (heh) but you should keep it mind. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Ross (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) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Matt Lauer are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Human Wasteland (January 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dial911 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Needs more sources.
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.
Dial911 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Human Wasteland (January 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dial911 was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The tone of the article can be tightened up more to make it an encyclopedic entry.
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.
Dial911 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source for the last line you mentioned? Dial911 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Human Wasteland has been accepted

[edit]
Human Wasteland, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dial911 (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Quant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stoned and Donovan Leitch (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) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eric Roberts filmography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Race Against Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation

[edit]

Your edit at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has been reverted as a BLP violation, and a pretty serious one at that. It's unsourced and non-factual, a partisan attack on Comey. Don't do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh

[edit]

Hi, Lettuce! Your addition of Limbaugh to the Summit article is still not properly sourced. You put in the article a vague comment about the kind of thing he was saying, and you listed a 1) primary source with 2) nothing specific to actually back up what you said. You would need a secondary source, a Reliable Source, reporting that "Rush Limbaugh said such-and-such". I am going to have to remove the Limbaugh sentence. I understand your desire to include more commentary from the right, but it's got to have secondary sourcing. For that matter, it would be better if the commentary was actually supporting Trump's performance at the summit, rather than complaining about the negative coverage. Can you find anything where a commentator praises Trump's performance, AND a secondary source quotes them? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you re-added Rush. The problem with the Rush sentence is not that he is not notable; of course he is. The problem with that comment is that it does not have a proper secondary source. And the way you re-added it, it still doesn't. It's still your own summary of the kind of thing he talked about, linked to a general archive of every comment he has made on every subject. I'm not going to re-remove it (the article is not under 1RR but I will treat it as if it is). But I suspect someone else will, and they will be justified. We NEED proper secondary sources for what we put in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanx Melanie --MelanieN (talk) , just trying....
[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read these reminders carefully

[edit]

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 any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

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

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

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

  • You have been editing both biographies and American politics topics in a way that people have been questioning on this page, and I see you have just made a lot of small but sometimes opinionated changes to the highly controversial article Presidency of Donald Trump. That is the reason I'm giving you the above reminders about discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

To ping me, you need to actually link my username. Two links to my talkpage won't do it, so I only accidentally noticed you had addressed me here. I don't agree that you mainly added content to report factualness. More than additions, you made removals and changes, and they were tendentious. What do you mean by "white-haterd"? Please explain very clearly, because I don't like the sound of it. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

BishonenPing again... good to hear from a collaborator... I am trying to correrct the representasion of the story with items that fefunct Trump Derangemment Syndrom. seems light existing wiki article is very slanted....
"Fefunct"?? I don't know what that means. Are you typing on a phone with mittens on your hands? Please explain what you mean by "white-haterd". There's no need to write a lot of other stuff, if you have trouble with the writing. Just explain the one word I asked about, please. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

On second thoughts, never mind about the white-haterd, I can guess. I've taken a closer look at your edits to Presidency of Donald Trump, and they are completely tendentious. You have been blocked as not being here to create an encyclopedia but instead to push a particular point of view, many times in defiance of the sources already in the article. I know you have been here over a year, but I'm not highly impressed by your previous editing either — certainly not enough to make up for recent edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Banned from an article = sensorchip

[edit]

Bishonen too bad for wikipedia... YOU don'ft know Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not banned from an article, you are blocked; you don't get to edit at all, except this, your own, user talkpage. Note the instructions above, in case you want to appeal the block to another admin. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • BishonentalkThanks for the tip... was just adding content to report factual-ness. I read the prior account, it seems so slanted towards white-hatred... Is this what Wikipedia is all about? what about the facts? why not document the counter-protesters and their hatred? bring balance to two paragraphs... why is a Wikipedia article so trying to paint a hatred picture and naming Trump as somehow advocating the hatred from only one named side of the hatred. Bigotry is rampant on Wikipedia and your reversion surely exposes your bigotry. Maybe you'd like to blow whistles or a blow horn at anybody with a voice different than yours. I know about your type. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville

On August 13, 2017, Trump condemned violence "on many sides" after a gathering of thousands of white nationalists and others supporting retention of monuments depicting American history in Charlottesville, Virginia, the previous day (August 12) turned deadly. A Unite the Right activist drove a car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one woman and injuring 19 others.[513] According to Attorney General Sessions, that action met the definition of domestic terrorism.[514] During the rally there was other violence, as several counter-protesters charged at the white nationalists with swinging clubs and mace, throwing bottles, rocks, and paint.[515][516][517] Trump did not initially express mention of Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or the alt-right movement in his remarks on August 13.[518] However, the following day (August 14), he did denounce white supremacists while still failing to mention the counter-protestors.[519] He further condemned "the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups".[520] Then the next day (August 15), he again blamed "both sides".[521]

Many Republican and Democratic elected officials condemned the violence and hatred of the counter-protestors and the Unite the Right activists.[522] Trump came under criticism from world leaders[523] and politicians,[524][518] as well as a variety of religious groups[525] and anti-hate organizations[526] for his remarks, which were interpreted as muted and equivocal.[524] The New York Times reported that Trump "was the only national political figure to spread blame for the 'hatred, bigotry and violence' that resulted in the death of one person to 'many sides'",[524] and said that Trump had "buoyed the white nationalist movement on Tuesday as no president has done in generations".[527] The news media later reported that the White nationalist groups felt "emboldened" after the rally and planned additional demonstrations.[514]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Let_us_eat_lettuce&oldid=1143132928"