User talk:Snow Rise

NAVI-HUB 3000 Community/Discussion/Oversight: Community portal · Annoucements · Village Pump · Requests for Comment · Central Discussion · AfC · AfD · Requested Articles · Requested Translations · ANI · SPI · Signpost · IRC channels · Mailing lists · GA · WikiProjects directory · List of policies · List of guidelines · List of essays · Noticeboards · Requests index · ArbCom Reference Desks: Science · Language · Humanities · Mathematics · Computing · Entertainment · Misc. · Wikipedia Library Utility Pages: Editor's Index · Department Directory · Help Directory · Upload · Special Pages · Useful Templates · Tools · User scripts · Help Desk · Color Tools · Color-Hex · GunnMap Portal: Wikimedia Index · Wikidata · Wikiversity · Wiktionary · Wikiquote · Wikinews · Wikispecies · Wikibooks · Wikisource · Commons · Meta-Wiki · MediaWiki · Other Wikipedias · Wikimedia Foundation

Please comment on Talk:Bonobo

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bonobo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You've been quoted

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Rambling_Man_forgets_the_IBAN_once_again my apologies. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

• News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers

• In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap

• Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide

• Op-ed: My issues with the Wiki Education Foundation

• Featured content: A bit fruity

• Recent research: Wikipedia in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:River Soar

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:River Soar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Tetra quark -- it's definitely an area of long-standing interest for me. I'll stop into the Wikiproject soon and see if there are any tasks needing doing to which I can contribute. :) Snow talk 05:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not pewter

Just for your information, the phrase is to "peter out", not to "pewter out". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Right, thanks. On another matter, let me ask you, had Medeis been agreeable to the proposal that she sit out of ITN in exchange for you avoiding the Ref Desks, would you have viewed that as a viable and reasonable solution to the conflict? Snow talk 00:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As you know I cannot discuss anything like that here. But as for you bringing rape victims into this, which now seems be spiralling into me being compared to someone who abuses women, I thank you not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Wrong. Medeis did that. Not only was I not the person who made that comparison, I specifically pointed out to Medeis that she was being hyperbolic when she did so (and I was the only person there to do so). Please do read the discussion more carefully. I do honestly think there are times in the past that you've hounded her, but that comparison was a little over-the-top and I only re-purposed it in order to highlight her own behavioural issues. And as for your not being able to discuss a reasonable compromise solution here, that's a dodge and you know it. No one is going come down on you with a sanction for violating the IBAN for answering a question here about a way to end these ceaseless ANIs, so long as your comments are civil and not directed to Medeis. Of course, you are perfectly within your rights not to discuss the proposal if you so choose, but I'll tell you in all candor (as I did with Medeis) that I think that the direction this thing seems to be moving in (judging from the tone in comments at the most recent ANI) is a ban or block of some sort for one or both of you the next time these issues come back there. It would be much better if you two came to a gentleman's agreement instead. Also, please do not start discussions of any sort on my talk page unless you feel you can see them through without falling back onto snarky and passive-aggressive comments, including in your edit summaries. I know you don't see it, but these comments are a big part of why you keep rubbing people raw from word go whenever you have a disagreement and why your name is all over threads at ANI. Snow talk 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As you should know by now, I cannot discuss the edits of those I am in an IBAN with, but at least two editors have discussed and compared the situation to rape or abuse victims, you included. To indulge in such crass and spectacularly out of scope chatter is a disgrace. Shame on all of you. One day you may understand, but in a sense, I hope you never have to. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what you think you're reading, but I'm the one who told Medeis that her comparison of your harassment to rape was an overblown one and don't you dare presume to think that you can speak for my perspectives on rape or how I came by them, do you understand me? I know you like to, shall we say, "re-interpret" the comments of others to frame your position as that of a victim (that's an issue that's been raised repeatedly in the ANIs about your conduct), but there are limits and you're pushing one with me on this topic. I was no more of a fan of Medeis leveraging reference to rape in order to make a point in the petty conflict between you two than you you yourself were -- and far from supporting her language, I was the only one who pointed out that it was an excessive (and I'll add here, borderline offensive) comparison and then used to the situation to point out that her own behaviour on the matter was not exactly winning anyone over to her perspective at present. So I don't know what you think you read, but if you persist in saying, anywhere on the project, that this comparison was my comparison -- or otherwise misrepresent my comments on the subject -- you can be sure my response will involve an administrator. I don't take this subject lightly, and I remind you that you have no knowledge of what it means to me to be making the assumptions you just did. Limits, TRM. Snow talk 04:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Medeis-TRM conflict

I look at those ANI threads and it looks like you have insightful things to say about the conflict, but your posts are so long that my eyes glaze over after a paragraph or two, so I never get to the conclusion. Do you think you could make your points more succinctly? That would increase the effectiveness of your posts by a lot, I'm sure. Thanks. 70.36.142.116 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not the first person to say as much with regard to that particular discussion. In part I'm finding it difficult because the issue has been so long-standing and (as is often the case in ANIs) some parties will only give the side of the story that favours their position at the time (either consciously or just reflexively). But all of that said, I recognize the value in your advice and I'll make more of an effort to that end. Thank you for your good-faith observation; it's always good to have feedback on where people are departing from your observations especially. Snow talk 00:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

• In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints

• Interview: Interview with Jakob, one of Wikipedia's more prolific waterway contributors

• Featured content: Kock up

• Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nested tables

Please look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Anyone good with nested tables?. (I'm afraid I pinged you incorrectly so it might not work.) --CiaPan (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Just replied on help desk, but it bears saying again: huge thanks for that! It seems obvious now but I was seriously beating my head against the wall there! Snow talk 12:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind the rowspan parameter makes a direct dependency of the right pane (the gallery) height on the left part of your table. If you ever decide to add some more sections to the main part of the page, the gallery will remain too short again, and you'll have to adjust the row–spanning parameter accordingly.
However you can workaround that in advance by using a nested table. See my sandbox for an example. HTH (Hope that helps.) --CiaPan (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged! Truth is, I'm used to using rowspan syntax in more conventional article tables and I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me as the obvious means of orienting the nested panes in this instance. The proper solution seems simple and obvious enough to me now, in retrospect, but I kept trying to affect the same same change by ordering and subordination of the nesting of the frames, if that makes any sense. Regardless, I owe you for your prompt and astute assistance (without which, who knows how long I'd have gone in circles), so a big thanks again! :)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

• Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you

• WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story

• News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Wikipedia community

• In the media: Wikipedia's birthday brings tributes, app, award; Castro death rumors

• Featured content: Citations are needed

• Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Astrophysics

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrophysics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Open question at ANI

The Binksternet thread has been archived by a bot, but there was an open question which interest me also. I have copied your Note and the following discussion to User talk:Collect. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the notice. Collect seemed pretty certain and specific about what had been said, but there's still a possibility that there was a miscommunication between he and the arbitrator. Were you a party to that arbitration process or do you know who the arbitrator is that he is referring to? I've seen a few of these "RfC + our self-defined project scope = policy" issues this last year and they generally do seem to originate from an honest misunderstanding about how policy is created, how local consensus is established, and how the two operate in relation to one-another. It's really not that uncommon for two sides to become locked in a typical version of a more exhaustive RfC struggle for ages, only to learn that all that slogging through strenuous argumentation was for nothing because they misunderstood the limits of the authority that discussion had -- based on where it took place and how broad the community involvement was. It's also not uncommon for some people to just not understand the meaning of the relevant sections of WP:CONSENSUS at first, even if its been explained explicitly several times. I guess it's just a very nuanced point for some; the principle has always seemed very straight-forward to me (and the reasons for it obvious), but I've found sometimes it takes several tries to get it across to everyone involved in such an issue. Point being, could be this arbitrator was misunderstood. Snow talk 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Snow, let me ask your ass something

Why do you care more about if someone drops a few crude words in a text or flames someone than imposing justice and common sense. I see this a lot in pseudo-academia (of course, not concerning insults, as that might even get you fired, but adherence to protocol) where losers who don't know much more than how to knock about statistics and cite just enough predecessors to get their bloody grants cling to this shit harder than a bloodsucking bat to a cows hind leg. All the way while brilliant people who actually indeed contribute don't. People like Tesla who barely kept a record or Nietzsche who could throw amazing tirades of mockery at his detractors or Strindberg the author with all his very strong opinions about everything, especially the fairer sex. You need not go into the past, take Slavoj Zizek, the brilliant Marxist sociologist/philosopher/psychologist. There's not one speech of his on the web where he not only insults his enemies but even his allies, even himself. He consistently calls his modest self promotion fits of narcissism. So let me tell you this, I'm giving YOU the benefit of the doubt. You see, if you think that my (and Jacks and Maxis) mockery of you and my unwillingness to follow protocol is what detracts potential followers from our positions then you indeed insult (!) the intelligence of all those men I mentioned and I'd like you to explain yourself 213.100.108.86 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem, my friend, is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a a beacon for justice, nor any one particular user's notion of common sense; rather Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one built by a large community that has developed, over years of experimentation and a massive amount of discussion, a series of best practices to pursue that end. See, the thing about the truth, is that, even at the level of first principles, it's hard enough to get any two people to agree on, let alone every one of tens of thousands of active editors, any one of whom might share an editing and discussion space with you on any given day. If we made the "Truth" our bare for inclusion of content material on a project where literally every person on the planet is, in principle, encouraged to participate, we'd all be sucked into endless debates on the nature of that truth. For this practical reason, amongst others, the Wikipedia community has adopted the principle of verifiability as it's main standard for evaluating the permissibility of content in articles, and Wikipedia editors are expected, in-so-far as possible, to avoid making content decisions based on their own personal opinions on a given matter, instead favouring a representation of facts and claims made in reliable sources. By taking ourselves and our own positions largely out of the equation, we drastically cut down on distracting debates about the "real" nature of a given topic and come a lot closer to a neutral point-of-view, another of our guiding principles.

Now, you're a big one for invoking the names of various populist, dissident, or generally put-upon individuals but the problem with this (aside from the fact that simply dropping their names into the discussion doesn't necessarily align their perspectives and circumstances with your own in the way you seem to feel it does) is that none of these references are really relevant or compelling arguments in the current context; our goals are not the same as those of various philosophers, political commentators, or even academics, even in areas where we touch upon topics relevant to their work. We have our own methods and priorities here and these "protocols", as you put it (we tend to use the term "policy" on this project, but it amounts to the same thing) are not as arbitrary as you seem to assume, nor are you automatically a victim of an overbearing bureaucracy devoid of critical thinking just because a number of editors disagree with you and are citing specific policies in doing so; as I noted above, and on the talk page, our policies have been formed over a significant period of time (nearing a decade and a half now) through a discourse involving countless voices in a collaborative and open process. You're the one who's come into this project and, without taking the time to familiarize yourself with established practices and the collective thinking that went into them, concluded that your way of doing things is more practical and reasonable than the conclusions reached through broad consensus by this large community -- so you might want to re-examine your feelings of victimhood and oppression in light of that. Regardless, note that Wikipedia is not an unqualified platform for free speech; when and where discussion conflicts with the process of creating an encyclopedia, it is curbed. On the other hand there do exist areas on this project where you are are free and encouraged to share your opinions at length about where you feel Wikipedia policy has parted from common sense (though I highly recommend that you first gain a more detailed understanding of the projects priorities and procedures before taking any particularly ardent positions into these spaces).

Regardless, the place for long-winded winded diatribes about the general state and perceived failings of Wikipedia is not an article talk page; those spaces are reserved for discussion about the content relevant to the connected article. Even more important, regardless of the space, you are not allowed to make arguments personal or uncivil. Honestly, if you read only one of the policies which I link to here in detail, make sure that it is WP:C. Because civility is a non-negotiable condition of your involvement on this project, and refusal to abide by it will result in further blocks faster than almost any other kind of disruptive behaviour. And aside from this concern, you'd be surprised how much more readily people attend to your perspectives if you avoid insults and keep discussion focused on the principle of the discussion (be it the relevant facts, sources or policies) than upon the personalities of those making the arguments. In any event, even putting aside Wikipedia's standards, I think you need to ask yourself just how strong your position is with regard to its intellectual merits if you can't make it without insulting someone. Regardless, I don't think I should really need to explain to you how this kind of chain reaction:

[1] ->[2] ->[3] ->[4] ->[5] ->[6] ->[7] ->[8] ->[9] ->[10] ->[11] ->[12] ->[13]

...is not conductive to getting work done on the encyclopedia. Taking your feelings of frustration from being on the "losing" end of a content discussion from one thread (which isn't even related to the original topic) to another and making petty back-biting comments about the contributions of other editors is neither productive nor acceptable. And note that I did not call out Jack and Maxls because they (or you -- I never even referenced you at all in my initial comments) insulted me; at that point I hadn't even been involved in the discussion. Rather I came to the page and found a couple of editors making personal attacks against others and, as would most editors in these circumstances, noted that this is not appropriate. For the record, and I've noted this ad nauseum on the talk page, I actually agree with both of them on this particular content issue and far from being a mindless beaucrat trying to forestall an opinion I disagree with, I have actually advocated that position for years longer than any of the three of you, as relative new-comers to that talk page -- albeit without losing my cool with my "opposition". But I just because I happen to agree with them does not, in my mind, free them (or you) from the obligation to abide by the same behavioural guidelines which we apply to all of our users. Ultimately, I advise you to assume good faith when collaborating with others on this project; in the case of the photo, we have very strict policies which highly restrict the use of non-free content and most editors stick to them very strongly, since, A) without these policies, the project's finite resources would be severely sapped in responding to legal actions brought by owners of copyrighted content and B) even more importantly, we want all of the content we produce and make available to be freely-accessible and usable by all, without condition. Those are the principles the other editors on that page were trying to impart to the three of you; they were not, from what I observed, ever trying to impose a bureaucratic rule on you capriciously, to get a rush of authority, nor reflexively because they are un-thinking automatons who care only for the rules.

So, I hope this serves to clarify matters some for you. Note that I have been under no compulsion to "explain myself" to you, but I do hope this explains our collective policies, procedures, and priorities some to you. I wouldn't have taken the time I have in doing so if not for the fact that I hope you can acclimate yourself to them and continue to contribute on this project; the fact of the matter is, we can use all of the help we can get, even from people who don't initially take to our way of doing things. Good luck to you. Snow talk 01:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)