Jump to content

User talk:Snow Rise: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiPlatypus.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,635,894 edits
Line 213: Line 213:


The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Talk:Park Yeon-mi#rfc_2670041|this request for comment on '''Talk:Park Yeon-mi''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 30936 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Talk:Park Yeon-mi#rfc_2670041|this request for comment on '''Talk:Park Yeon-mi''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 30936 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

== Your last edit to the ANI thread was unfortunate ==

You seem to have completely misinterpreted the dispute. Catflap's 88 reference, for instance, was never even mentioned by anyone other than me, until the last ANI thread, so you claiming he was rebuked and warned by numerous users was flawed. I'm not going to respond to the rest, but claiming that I should be "TBANned" (''de facto'' SBANned) for complaining that Catflap08 has been violating our IBAN without ever violating it myself (in the last thread you told Catflap08 that he violated it and I didn't -- has your opinion changed?) was way out of line.

You and I (I think) first interacted as a result of one of the botched RFCs in question, but to the best of my knowledge you and I don't normally edit in the same article areas, so I have no reason to come into conflict with you again. Should the present IBAN issue come up again I will not ping you, as I think you requested earlier.

Good bye and good luck.

[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:41, 10 August 2015


Notice: I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles.





The Signpost
4 July 2024


Dance image requests

Giordano has chipped in, too, with commons:File:GDC Feelin'Good.jpg and commons:File:GDC_onlywayaround.jpg (still waiting for them to send in the OTRS permission I gave them to copy-paste). I'll jog their memory tomorrow morning. FourViolas (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome photos! The second one in particular is really great for addressing that issue we've talked about before -- the difficulty of capturing the quality of movement in a single frame. And Ray Leeper's work no less. Thank you so much for acquiring these for the project. On a side note, how do I know that young woman in the foreground of the first photo; I'm feeling I'm familiar with her from somewhere, but it's ping-ponging back and forth in the memory association centers of my brain. Snow let's rap 02:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out permission had been sent, OTRS had requested a signed letter from the photographer, and he agreed but is out of the country for a little while. OTRS is faster than I thought! Also, it turns out if an image is deleted while awaiting permission OTRS can undelete it.
Does "Ashley Downs" or another name at http://www.giordanodance.org/dancers.html ring a bell? FourViolas (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not jogging any bells. Maybe she's reminding me of some other dancer with a similar face. But I did love the more recent Giordano media I found while looking. :) The choreo is a really great blend of jazz and what I'd almost call lyrical. Very cool.
But getting back to Wiki, I have to say that this is great work and these photos could find useful places in a number of articles now. :) I was also looking at your involvement on Carnism (having followed the link on your talk page) and, though I'm not sure that I completely share your outlook that it is definitely notable enough to warrant an independent article, I was really impressed by your efforts to move it towards more neutral, self-consistent and encyclopedic tone. I almost joined into the discussion, because it's a massive convergence of interesting policy issues, but the amount of work it would entail is just not feasible for me this week (work, work). But as usual I was struck by how solid your expression of your policy conclusions was; I hope this doesn't come off as patronizing, but I'm really impressed and proud of how quickly you have assimilated and internalized editorial procedure over the last year. You have a real natural gift for this manner of editing and the intellectual and social demands of the project -- please keep at it! Snow let's rap 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you! I'm glad you think I'm doing well. And I don't blame you for not wanting to dive into that discussion…
I'm grateful to WP because it shares many of my values—being fair, being logical, being useful—and it has created an enormous nuts-and-bolts guide to accomplishing those elusive goals. As long as I can steer clear of the flaming which is endemic to the Internet, I feel that the time I spend editing is as valuable to me as it is to the project. FourViolas (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I would put it myself. :) Snow let's rap 22:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just added the the only way around is through image to no-less a namespace than Dance; although it is technically a jazz dance company, I didn't think that still was stereotypically indicative enough of jazz movement to be a great fit for jazz dance, though the other image is perfect in that regard and I'll be adding it there next. On a side, and this is not the first time I've thought it, eeeeesh on the state of Dance; for the touchstone article of all of our coverage on dance, it's a wee bit embarrassing. I'm not sure if you are familiar with WP:WikiProject X, an effort to reinvigorate slumping WikiProjects, but I'm going to talk with its coordinator Harej about approaching WikiProject Dance. I'm not sure it will do a world of good -- the problem, as it has always been with coverage of dance topics on Wikipedia, is the small number of editors interested in the topic -- but it can't hurt to have some new tools at our disposal, all the same. Snow let's rap 23:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Haha, thank you, Rich.  :) Snow let's rap 21:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Please comment on Talk:Humanistic Buddhism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Humanistic Buddhism. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Daniel J. Caron

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daniel J. Caron. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Thank you for ref desk answer

Thank you for your excellent ref desk answer to me on pregabalin. That was so helpful! I couldn't get here for a couple of days so have answered here so you don't miss it - thank you. That was exactly what I wanted to know and at the right level. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to have been of help! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. :) Snow let's rap 19:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty contest

Just look at Talk:Cantata academica. None of the people talking edited the article before 2013, so for a change the mighty influence of a "principal editor" is no concern ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty nibbles

I really am sorry to have brought you into that, and to have failed to address the concerns so far. I like dance rather a lot more, but once I'm invested in an article it's hard to leave before finding consensus. I can certainly make myself take things slower per Deadline; I think I've been a little too earnestly engaged for everyone's peace of mind. Please don't feel obliged to stick around if you get sick of it. FourViolas (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, nonsense, it's not a problem at all. Truth be told, I should have commented sooner, as I have some useful understanding of the scholarship involved. As I said on the talk page, any sourcing I provide will probably come piecemeal, as my editing time is limited right now, but I will do what I can try to help the disparate parties come to some kind of functional consensus that sorts those issues out. Like you, I'd much rather be putting my limited time towards working on Dance, but sometimes if you can save a large number of editors a lot of wasted time with the proper sources, its a better use of your time than working on the article which is of more direct interest to you yourself, and I think this certainly qualifies as one of those cases. A truly massive amount of discussion has taken place on that page in just the last couple of weeks but, despite the fact that most of the parties seem cordial and civil and to genuinely want to find a middle-ground solution, there has been slow development to that end. Some extra sourcing and some nuanced arguments on how they ought to be approached might pay dividends. Snow let's rap 06:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise, progress has been slow (actually, non-existent) because of the extensive talk-page discussion, not despite it. We're expected somehow to read two or three books and at least a dozen papers in the blink of an eye, and write the article and respond to endless comments. If you have any influence over FourViolas, I hope you'll impress upon her the importance of giving people space to do the research. If the article is still a problem in six months, criticism would be very helpful, but at this stage the only thing it has achieved is to halt the work. Sarah (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Well I can't really claim to know 4V's mind on this matter in detail, as we've barely discussed the article, but my observation of the current talk page discussion seems to suggest that her main concern at present is that the article's present title, and the general approach it dictates, are deeply problematic with regard to several key policies. That's no minor issue, and it really is one that ought to be addressed before proceeding with overhauling the articles content, for two reasons: 1) so as to save a lot of work on the part of you and other good-faith editors on content that may have to be significantly altered or even discarded if its found that this article topic is misleading, and 2) so involved editors don't become attached to their preferred model for the article should they do that work, if, ultimately, an alternative approach is found necessary. And honestly, having reviewed the present sourcing, and contextualized within what I know of the broader research on this field of inquiry, I'm finding that so far I strongly agree with her assessment that this topic represents a kind of POVFORK to the core topic, that the current title is inappropriate and that the severe neutrality issues that arise from this approach are probably not something that we can just leave be for six months. Under those circumstances, I don't know that I feel comfortable advising her to hold her peace on the matter, even though I recognize a couple of experienced editors presently involved in the page at present, yourself included; not only do I think she is within her rights to object strenuously in this instance, I think she's doing the right thing by you, the other editors, the article and the project broadly by raising this particular issue now, rather than later.
What I can do is give you some time myself, despite my own considerable qualms. As to 4V, given her comments above, I suspect she is already planning on backing off the talk page for a spell and probably only got drawn back in by my own comments. I think you'll have your space, for a time, but I can't promise anything, not even with regard to my own involvement, certainly not on the timeframe of months, because I think there are some fundamental policy issues with regard to the article is being approached by a number of the more active editors there, and not just in terms of things that editors have not yet had time to address, but with regard to perspectives on how they view the article moving forward. Both of the two camps which represent the extremes on this issue have proposed approaches which seem to me to fail various guidelines, and neither is really reaching for a middle-ground solution which means just proceeding with working on the article without further discussion is likely to result in further furor, and maybe even edit warring.
But perhaps I can make a suggestion of quick fix that would probably buy you the breathing room you need. I can't guarantee it will still 4V's concerns outright, but she and I seem to be of one mind on some of the issues here, so perhaps she will be as reassured by this change as I know I would be. Specifically, my recommendation is that you concentrate your next efforts on the neutrality of the article by massively reworking the lead. Specifically, we need to remove that reference to carnism as a "belief system". I don't think it accurately reflects the sources, and frankly, even if it did, I still think it would represent a massive semantic blunder in describing this subject as an encyclopedic topic, especially in the first sentence of the lead. Carnism is not analogous to the semantics which govern vegetarianism or veganism. In those cases, people willfully, volitionally, and unambigously embrace the tenets of those dietary philosophies and claim them as their own. Carnism is not a term which people embrace as a self-descriptor and is therefore not really consistent with how people generally parse the meaning of "belief system" nor with how we treat it elsehwere on this project, including our explicit coverage of the topic. Carnism is instead a neologism which is used more or less exclusively by precisely the people who do not practice the acivities to which it is meant to apply--and indeed it is used most prominently by people who are ideologically opposed to the activities it is meant to describe. That is clearly not a belief system -- it's a term used by those who are opposed to a certain class of activity to classify that activity for easy reference.
Keeping that statement in the first sentence of the lead sets the tone for all of the neutrality issues that follow in the article. Frankly, I think it's self-evident that any discussion of carnism should be done within the context of an article on Meat paradox or Psychology of meat consumption, the real core topics here. Carnism is just a word which contextualizes those topics in a certain light, its not a topic in and of itself, and (while I think he's missed the mark on just about everything else) Martin was right about one thing: Wikipedia does not have articles on words, that's what Wiktionary is for. If we were to allow an article on carnism (and to my mind that is a big if), then the title of the article should be Carnism paradigm or Carnism theory, which more accurately represents what the article is really about and doesn't mislead our readers into believing this is a belief system in the sense of an explicit set of overt beliefs. And the first sentence should then read something along the lines of...
"The carnism paradigm is the theory [emphasis mine, not to be included in actual lead] that many human beings make unspoken, and generally unchallenged, assumptions which cause them to view the consumption of meat as a default societal norm, and to construct frameworks of personal belief which validate those choices."
I think that is equally or more consistent with our sources on this matter, would suit both proponents and opponents of the theory as neutral, and just goes a long, long way to sorting out the confused meaning which currently sits in the lead. If you feel you might agree with me on this point (which I will introduce myself to the talk page briefly, then let's see about implementing it as the next change. Again, I can't speak for Violas, but if the lead is improved in this regard, I for one would readily agree to give a month or two before I raised even a single one of the other numerous neutrality issues. I just want to see some positive step to addressing issues on the article which bring it uncomfortably close to any attack page, imo. Anyway, let me know your thoughts! And on a side note, those sources are coming briefly. Snow let's rap 08:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article to "carnism paradigm" or "carnism theory" would be a great step towards proper framing, and would be another solution satisfactory enough to set my mind and tongue at ease re NPOV problems for a while. It would also be consistent with the majority of RS i've found while looking for sources, which mention "carnism" at arms' length, as the name psychologist Melanie Joy uses for the psychology of meat-eating. I'll compile a heap of those sources later, to help with presenting this idea at talk:carnism.

As for sources, here's what is reliably attested to be a mainstream compilation of contemporary sociological meat research, which doesn't mention "carnism": [1] [2]. Here's my own list of a few highly-cited sources published since 2014 discussing very closely related topics without using the word: Boer 2005, Loughnan 2014, Dhont 2014, Hayley 2014, Schôsler 2015, Graça 2015, De Backer 2015, Blidaru 2015. And here is a parallel list from GB for sources which do mention carnism: Braunsberger 2014, Freeman 2014, Reutenik 2015, Stoll-Kleeman 2014, Shapiro 2015. Comparing citation counts and impact factors, I think there's firm evidence that Joy's ideas are Fringe. FourViolas (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sorry, forgot rothgerber 2014, who adds a little weight to "carnist". FourViolas (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi Snow Rise, re: the behavioural issues, she has claimed on the talk page to be an academic, [3] but on other talk pages to be a teenager not yet in college. That should be clarified. The talk page is a complete mess, and the content policies have been seriously misunderstood. The result is that the only three editors there at the moment able and willing to write this and see it through to fruition have more or less stopped. I've tried to AGF, but it has become so difficult that I've taken the page off my watchlist.

As for the content, "belief system" has already gone from the lead. In case you were looking at an old version, I made some structural changes yesterday. As for "meat paradox," you misunderstood what it is; I left a note for you on the talk page, but I don't know whether you saw it. Some of that work emerged out of Joy's, so I'm not sure why you see the latter as article-worthy but not the former. Regarding your suggestion for the first sentence, yes, that or something close would work, though the current first sentence is close enough. Re: "many human beings make unspoken, and generally unchallenged, assumptions which cause them to view the consumption of meat as a default societal norm ..." – it won't work as written, because the consumption of meat is a social norm. But thank you, I can fiddle around with it.

These are issues that get fixed as the research and writing continues. I can't stress how important it is to give people space to read and work. Nothing will improve unless that happens. Sarah (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, I only meant "an academic" to mean "a person who personally sympathizes with the academic method of treating information objectively". I can strike that if you think I was claiming to be published or something. I'm 19 and will be at Harvard in the fall as an undergrad, but having seen some negative effects of WP editors losing anonymity, I don't include that info or my gender on my user page. FourViolas (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When someone writes "I'm an academic," most people will understand that that person holds an academic position. I think you should make clear on the talk page, by striking or in some other way, that that's not the case. Sarah (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure it really matters anyway. After-all, when it comes down to it, a highschool student, an undergrad, a grad, and a post-doc all have equal standing here anyway. I'm as guilty as anyone of occasionally dropping hints about my credentials when I want to reassure someone I know about the research being discussed, but ultimately what matters are the arguments being made with regard to the content, sources and policies, not who is making them. 4V might want to be careful about the wording in any event, but I don't know that it counts as a behavioural issue as regards our purposes here on the project. As to the talk page, it does seem...active, but not much more so than one might expect from a contentious topic. I'm not sure which policies you feel have been miscontrued (I've only read mostly the more recent threads) but I think 4V means to take things at a more measured pace, and I've already said as much as time allows me on the topic, aside from the forthcoming sources. But you've still got a number of active editors there, so I doubt it's going to get too quiet. But so long as people aren't edit warring, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Snow let's rap 02:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading, I was embarrassed to see that it did look like I was calling myself a professional academic. I clarified. I think soon I'll be putting up an education wikibreak template, which should make things clear.

Snow, I'm putting my early notes in User:FourViolas/sandbox/Meat in case you want to add or correct before I open psychology of meat consumption. From what I'm seeing, the meat paradox is only one among several ideas, including the meat-masculinity connection, correlation of personality values with meat consumption behavior, and meat in EP, which ought to end up there. My personal plan is to get a non-embarrassing sketch of that field done while I primarily get back to work on dance topics. When patience and AGF levels are higher at carnism, we can look into moving material around between psychology of meat consumption, meat paradox, and carnism, or some combination thereof as sources merit. FourViolas (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a drinker, but surprisingly we have no WikiLove template for congratulations
I wouldn't sweat the mistake; I don't think its germane to any policy discussion. The only relevant issue this line of discussion raises for me is that I think congratulations are due on your getting into Harvard! :) Snow let's rap 09:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! and thanks for your guidance at sandbox/Meat. FourViolas (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still adding sources. Many remain. In my limited time, is this the right intro-to-EP paper for me to get to know? FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a capable enough summary of the basic thrust of the field for a work of that length and the fact that it is a bit dated, but given the complexities involved, my preferred primer to recommend for the field is Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works--followed by The Blank Slate and The Language Instinct if the first gripes you. Pinker is not just one of the giants (and very much the "face") of the field, he is also one of the finest writers on scientific/empirical topics you will ever come across. How the Mind Works is nearly as old as the Buss article, which is to say nearly two decades in its own right, and a little technical in places compared to Pinker's later broad-audience works, but it's deeply insightful and representative of EP's value as an over-arching framework in which to conceptualize human cognition and behaviour. Highly recommended. Or, if you don't have time to read that much as you prep for uni, consider putting some of his talks on in the background, as he is basically just as good at explaining at least the broad strokes as a public speaker--part of how he has become a widely known public intellectual and one of the figureheads for the cognitive sciences in particular: [4], [5], [6], [7].
Thanks for all those fascinating links! I really appreciate your helping out, and your kind words. FourViolas (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinker is teaching Intro to the Sciences of Mind this spring. I can't wait! FourViolas (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What an opportunity! I'd have given just about anything to have been able to take that class when I was an undergrad. Hell, I'd pay put the wazoo to audit the course today! Funnily enough, I had meant to respond to your previous post with a response along the lines of "My pleasure. Not sure what field you intend to study, but who knows, maybe all of this might have some influence on your interests; Harvard has some immense opportunities in this area." But with Pinker I was thinking you'd probably have to wait until graduate seminars. What a chance to start off contextualizing your study of the human mind through the guidance of a thinker with immense breadth of knowledge and a real gift for articulation. So cool! I know you'll have less time for the project in the coming months, but do let me know how you enjoy the course and if you move into the field, remember that this is an area in which I am always eager to collaborate with regard to Wikipedia content.  :) (Though I daresay it seems we will both be intensely busy in the near-term). Snow let's rap 23:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Sarah. I had missed that you had already addressed that point in the lead yesterday. I'm glad the need for it was seen by others and I'm grateful you were proactive on it. As a newcomer to the article I didn't want to make the change myself without first discussing it, given the strong positions there, but I daresay it's an ideal first step to clearing up the neutrality concerns. I still think it could be a little more explicit, but I gather from your edits and comments here that you'll be tinkering with it for a time yet. As regards my proposed text, I'm not in any sense married to that exact wording, but just for the record, I think it is consistent with the fact that meat consumption is a societal norm (for most cultures). Perhaps the meaning I intended would be more clear if I changed just one word: "...that many human beings make unspoken, and generally unchallenged, assumptions which cause them to accept the consumption of meat as a default societal norm, and to construct frameworks of personal belief which validate those choices." Anyway, I'm not pushing me exact wording, just want you to know that I think we are basically on the same page as to this point. Per my earlier comments, while I still have reservations as to whether carnism warrants an independent article (as opposed to being contextualized in a larger "meat psych" article), cleaning up the lead at least addresses one of my primary concerns that the basic definition we provide not be misleading to our readers.
As to the precise meaning of "meat paradox", I actually did see the comment and I apologize for not responding -- I simply ran out of time. In truth I don't see the two definitions as mutually exclusive; they are to my mind slightly different ways of expressing the same principle, and I'm certain I've seen both variations in literature, but I could be mistaken. As to why I accept it as a decent title for the/an article, where I question carnism, it's because the basic principle that underlies the term is one that has been explored in observations of the psychology of diet. It's a concept that can be sourced more exhaustively than the basic thrust of Joy's work on the carnism model and it predates her work by quite a bit, even if the specific term might by attributed to her specific current in the research. Indeed, some of the sources which have grappled with the inconsistencies with which people approach disparate animals as a source of food are very old indeed; pre-modern and ancient in some cases. Which brings neatly to my slowness in providing the sourcing I promised by way of my contribution to the article. I'm trying to put them together, but just at the moment I am on the other side of the country from my personal library, so it I am having to do compensate with online resources and it is taking me longer than I expected, in part because of other obligations. Then too, I keep re-engaging in other discussions I was involved with when I do find a few Wiki moments -- I'm sure you recognize the situation. Please bear with me just a little longer. Snow let's rap 02:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snow Rise, the "meat paradox" is the tension between people's behaviour and beliefs when it comes to meat consumption. Steve Loughnan of the University of Melbourne described it as: "Most people care about animals and do not want to see them harmed, but engage in a diet that requires them to be killed and, usually, to suffer." I believe he was the first to use it that way.
This is related to, but not the same as, the "species paradox," whereby certain non-human species are loved, others treated with great cruelty. The two are related in that both are forms of speciesism and (arguably) exploitation – neither the pampered chihuahua nor the pig in the factory farm are allowed to say no. The argument is that most people "like" animals in the way that patrons of strip clubs "like" exotic dancers. [8] Anyway, please take your time re: sources, and thanks for your help. Sarah (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Another Merger

I will go ahead and do the merger, since nobody opposed it. Lbertolotti (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#Talk:Inventory_control_problem.23Merger_proposal

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit to the ANI thread was unfortunate

You seem to have completely misinterpreted the dispute. Catflap's 88 reference, for instance, was never even mentioned by anyone other than me, until the last ANI thread, so you claiming he was rebuked and warned by numerous users was flawed. I'm not going to respond to the rest, but claiming that I should be "TBANned" (de facto SBANned) for complaining that Catflap08 has been violating our IBAN without ever violating it myself (in the last thread you told Catflap08 that he violated it and I didn't -- has your opinion changed?) was way out of line.

You and I (I think) first interacted as a result of one of the botched RFCs in question, but to the best of my knowledge you and I don't normally edit in the same article areas, so I have no reason to come into conflict with you again. Should the present IBAN issue come up again I will not ping you, as I think you requested earlier.

Good bye and good luck.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snow_Rise&oldid=675389948"