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

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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Malerooster (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Identity Evropa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. It's IExistToHelp talk 00:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Z33

Please note that this notification does not imply that you have done anything wrong, only that you are editing in an area that has special restrictions applied that you need to be aware of. Because the area is contentious, you are more likely to run into trouble and you need to be aware of the restrictions in place. GoldenRing (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PerfectlyIrrational. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear that quite a few editors are upset by your username; would you consider changing it voluntarily to avoid disruption and bad feelings? GoldenRing (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no swear words in the username. I think Ethnic needs mentoring, not a forced username change. KMF (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it, although the name isn't racist, and it's frequently used by non-white speakers as well. I'm not going to invest all of my energy on a fight over an internet meme.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Auburn Riot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Auburn Riot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I am One of Many (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as 2017 Auburn Riot, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected your article to Aaron Hernandez as it should be covered there, at the very least until more coverage is available and the immediate news settles. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be jumping the gun on creating new pages. This isn't a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. This appears to have been a prison suicide, an event no more worthy of a stand-alone article than a fistfight at a college. If, at some future date it turns out there was a shadowy conspiracy to make it look like a suicide when it was really an intricate murder plot, maybe an article would be in order, but with the nformation we have now a stand-alone article is not appropriate.

On another topic, it seems clear from the RFC/N discussion that your username is going to be disallowed. The easiest way to deal with this is to go to Wikipedia:Changing username now, before the discussion is closed and make a request for a change. The discussion wil then be moot and we can all just move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about how to do it. EthnicKekistan (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple should be of some help. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, just tell us what username you want here and I can do the rename for you (though it's nearly bedtime where I am, so it would probably not be until tomorrow). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you going to choose a new username? I see you are continuing to edit with your current one, despite the overwhelming consensus that you need to change it. Please tell us what new name you want before you edit further, or it is likely that your account will be temporarily blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PerfectlyIrrational EthnicKekistan (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you banning kek usernames? I would like to make a new Wikipedia account and I want a kek username. Banning kek usernames is a very over-the-top SJW decision and will damage Wikipedia's credibility in the eyes of the internet. 108.6.166.60 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Colin Robertson (activist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-article on a non-notable "political activist", supported by non-significant coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 14:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin Robertson (activist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are going for a broad definition of alt-right. Would you be in favor of dividing up the 'alt-light' figures Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Faith Goldy, Steve Bannon, Ann Coulter, Raheem Kassam into a separate list from the extreme figures such as David Duke? Especially given most of the former group deny the label, but have reliable sources for being alt-right.--92.237.23.242 (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be favor of it, but I don't know how the groupings wouldn't be considered original research and up to interpretation. Personally, I consider alt-right anything that goes against consensus conservatism in the United States with a focus on immigration and support of anti-globalization. In my view, you can be a white nationalist and alt-right, but you also can be alt-right and not be a white nationalist/supremacist. Originally, and with Richard Spencer, I would agree with you, but it has expanded overtime to not just include white nationalism. A lot of figures such as Lauren Southern agree with aspects of alt-right ideology, even if they are not white nationalists/supremacists. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to 2017 Berkeley protests, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Accident, my bad. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PerfectlyIrrational. I just want to point out that a number of sentences you added in your recent edits to 2017 Berkeley protests were attributed to unreliable sources, including tweets and YouTube videos. Please refer to our reliable sourcing guideline and [[WP:INDEPENDENT|] for information on what is accepted as a reliable source. Though the YouTube video appears to be a clip from a reliable source, it also seems to be a copyright violation. If you wish to use Fox News as a source, please cite them directly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is the main means of communication in this. If the account is verified, wouldn't it be credible? If there is no non-primary sources, wouldn't it still be better to include it until nondirect ones can be found?PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verified Twitter accounts can generally be trusted to be operated by the person said to be operating them, but the issue is that they are primary sources. We should not be including information from primary sources. Think about it this way: if we included every tweet about the 2017 Berkeley protests from verified Twitter accounts, this article would be gigantic. This would obviously need to be pruned down, but it needs to be secondary sources doing this pruning and deciding what is and is not noteworthy enough to be included. Random Wikipedia editors such as you and I should not be making this decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 2017 Berkeley protests. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rally was titled that by Kyle Chapman, the leader of the rally. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not referred to in the sources following, except by the Twitter account (who I assume is Chapman?) Even the tweet does not make it clear that it's the "official name". Please provide a better source for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Chapman

Hi there. PerfectlyIrrational
In your edit here You linked to Kyle Chapman. But that is a guy from New Zealand, who unfortunately sounds like the right person, but I can't find any connection to the guy in the USA. 220 of ^Borg 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, it's meant to imply that an article should be created. Kyle Chapman, while arguably overzealous isn't a white supremacist. He has biracial children and is in an interracial marriage. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying that 'Stickman' was a white supremacist. (Far from it). I was merely pointing out the 'coincidence' and lack of connection, as it was the second time I have de-linked Chapman's name. I don't follow what you meant by "It's not,.." though. Regards. --220 of ^Borg 03:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lana Lokteff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-article on a non-notable "political activist", supported by non-significant coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 01:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lana Lokteff, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Calton | Talk 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

And really, did your experience of making up stuff in advance at 2017 Auburn Riot teach you nothing? --Calton | Talk 01:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What stuff did I make up? A protest did happen, did it not? The topics of my edits is not important. It's pretty low of you to accuse me of being a white supremacist. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people don't understand the difference between white separatism and white supremacy, unfortunately. Kekballer (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2017 Pikeville protests has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Are we really going to have articles for every single demo?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 2017 Berkeley protests, you may be blocked from editing. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Quinton Feldberg, that removal was alright: I accidentally nominated the article for deletion, deleted the AfD, and removed the notification. When PerfectlyIrrational did the same thing, they were only correcting a mistake for which I was the reason to begin with. Thanks, and PerfectlyIrrational, my apologies: this was not your fault. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2017 Berkeley protests 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 Pikeville protests, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Front and National Socialist Movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lana Lokteff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Lokteff (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calton | Talk 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Pikeville protests is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Pikeville protests until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there could've been a list article, though. Kekballer (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conservatism in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please see WP:BRD. Do not re-add content into an article which has been removed, without first achieving consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conservatism in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The content which you've added has been reverted twice by tw separate users. I encourage you to rather than boldly continuing to re-added the reverted content, to build consensus on the talk page of the article in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just a minor thing and FYI, the manual of style says that references should be directly after punctuation without a space (WP:REFPUNCT). So fubar.<ref> instead of fubar. <ref>. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing in such manner in Wikipedia and stop including terms and links of for instance alt-right in articles, especially bio, without consensus, references or discussion. --Joobo (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC) @Joobo: Thank you, but this user does not seem to get the message. He tried to insert an "alt-right" sidebar in Eugenics without any basis, and it is frustrating to see the absence of warnings on this user's page. They clearly have a PoV, and they are not being held accountable for the degradation of quality caused by their insertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) [reply]

Everyone has a POV. Kekballer (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please be aware, when editing English Wikipedia articles, for the various ((cite)) templates, there is no need to use the language parameter when the language is English, as you did in this edit of Dismissal of James Comey. This is implied, if not explicitly stated, at Template:Cite web/doc, where in the "trans_title" bullet, it says "Use of the language parameter is recommended", which implies that it's not needed when there isn't a foreign language. Also, in the "language" bullet, it says, "Note: When the language is "English" (or "en"), no language is displayed in the citation." Why add a parameter that adds nothing? It just clutters up the citation for no purpose.

Carry on! —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful to adhere closely to what reliable sources write when adding content to articles. This is especially important when living people are involved. This edit of yours misrepresents what the the sources wrote. Please read WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, and ask if you have any questions. Also, don't simply restore material that was removed in good faith. Please use the talk page to justify the material's inclusion and seek consensus.- MrX 17:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Dismissal of James Comey. You have again added information to an article that is not verifiable in sources. You added that "Trump... revealed an existence of a White House recording system", which is not found in any reliable source. I am giving you final warning and strongly advise you to adhere faithfully to reliable sources and use the talk page to propose edits until you have more experience. If you continue to make edits like this, there is a very good chance that you will be blocked from editing or topic banned. - MrX 20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-sean-spicer-won-t-deny-that-trump-is-1494614381-htmlstory.html

Is that a response to my warning? What are you trying to communicate here?- MrX 20:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was providing the source. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source for what? You added contentious unsourced material to the article. Your source doesn't change anything. It does not say "Trump... revealed an existence of a White House recording system". - MrX 20:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant to write "did not deny it." That's a fault on my end, my understanding. I got it from the title, and they changed it. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We were editing Dismissal of James Comey at the same time. In my edit of 21:35, 12 May 2017, I attempted to preserve all of your changes except in your edit of 21:10, 12 May 2017, I didn't accept your change of "The termination letter to Comey read as follows" to "The Donald Trump termination letter given to Comey is read as follows". If I reverted any other change you made, feel free to try again. Please note that I made many intentional changes to your edits, and my edit summary explains all of my changes, which may have been to portions created by you or anyone else. In my edit summaries, -XXX+YYY should be read as "minus XXX plus YYY", in other words, XXX changed to YYY. My edit summary, broken down:

• -which+that — "which" changed to "that"
• -which+who — "which" changed to "who"
• rm |language=en and issn= parameters — removed these parameters; |language=en not needed in general; |issn= not needed to identify newspapers.
• ''The'' Washington Post — the word "The" is part of the newspaper's name
• straight apostrophes — Wikipedia:Manual of Style says to use straight apostrophe ('), not curly (’)
• wikilinks — inserted or removed or modified existing links
• italics — added italics; if I removed any I would have said "italics/not"
• dash — changed a hyphen (-) to an en dash (–) in this case
• headings in sentence capitalization — changed "Trump warns Comey (May 12–Present)" to "Trump warns Comey (May 12–present)" per Manual of Style
• mdy dates — in any one article, all dates should be either mdy dates, i.e. month day, year — or dmy dates, i.e. day month year. This article uses mdy dates.
• rm space before <ref> — removed a space to the left of <ref>, as required by Manual of Style

So that was my edit, some of which related to your edits. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had to revert your edit at Dismissal of James Comey. I think the content is more appropriate for Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump. I have started discussions at each of those article's talk pages in case you care to weigh in.- MrX 00:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2017 Trump-Russia Intelligence Disclosure. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. WikiVirusC (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PerfectlyIrrational: when editing the Donald Trump biography today, you added some material about the Comey memos,[1] which was later reverted.[2][3] Then you added it back,[4] making it even longer: this constitutes a violation of the DS provisions in force at this article and several others in US politics, namely "Do not restore any edit challenged by reversion without first obtaining consensus". The appropriate action would have been to open a discussion on the talk page Somebody has reverted you back,[5] so you don't need to take action, however please be more careful when editing controversial topics in the future. If an editor files a legitimate complaint at WP:AE, you may be sanctioned by administrators. As they say, "when in doubt, don't make the edit." Happy editing! — JFG ^talk 20:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me second JFG's note while lodging my own complaint about your edits. You seem to be trying to shoehorn the daily news into the Trump article, adding paragraphs here and there without any regard for WP:DUE WEIGHT. ~Awilley (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG ^talk 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]