User talk:Snowded

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.220.204.70 (talk) at 19:08, 21 July 2011 (→‎Learn to read talk pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
    • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
    • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

GAA

Your accusations are unfounded and unsupported

My identity should be of no interest to you. I have done nothing but ask editors in that article to provide evidence to support their edits and at least try to act impartially. You call that disruptive? If it disrupts someone's agenda to push a particular point of view then that can only be a good thing. It has gone on long enough. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've presented evidence for investigation and you had admitted to editing under more than one ID. Otherwise you are not using the talk page and are running slow edit wars over long periods. Sorry that is disruptive. All of the material in the criticism section is properly referenced, I realise you are unhappy with that but that's life. You have made direct accusations of sock puppetry against one other editor without backing it up with an SPI so your "I have done nothing" statement is simply not accurate. --Snowded TALK 13:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good editing will be disruptive to POV pushing. I'm not saying that you are pushing a particular point of view but we're going to get editors with vested interested with an agenda to promote or disparage a subject. Only verifiable evidence will prevail over a long period. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Snowded, I've little interest in NLP stuff, but there's something suspicious about that IP. Sometimes certain socks who evade their bans, will pretend to get along with an editor (which they have gripes with), when they're really leading that editor on (per self-entertainment). GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, behaviour matches these recommendations --Snowded TALK 12:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay wrote this: "Sometimes certain socks who evade their bans, will pretend to get along with an editor (which they have gripes with), when they're really leading that editor on (per self-entertainment)." I'm not "pretending" to get along. I am clear that I disagree with this editor. But that is a comment about a contend dispute, not about his person. I revert his or her edits when I do not agree. I ask for clarification and verification of evidence. I do want to be civil and respectful though. I intend that my edits are neither pro or anti NLP as I am aiming for impartial editing. If you think my proposed edit is biased one way or the other then tell me and I'll make changes. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the other one its got bells on it --Snowded TALK 14:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BNP Ideology Box

Hi, cant believe im actually telling you after previous arguments, but it appears that the BNP ideology section has been deleated from the infobox, was this a mistake? Please do let me know as quick as you can as I want to move the sandbox over soon. Thanks U6j65 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowded, I outlined the changes made to the sandbox version on the discussion page, mostly edits and rearrangements of titles excluding policy section. Please do get back to me with your suggestions, thanks U6j65 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the concerns I raised addressed. I will get back to it in detail over the next couple of days, in transit to the UK from Mexico over the next day --Snowded TALK 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the main problem was the guardian section i remember and the lead, i deleted the line on 'rise in media profile' at your request and left the line 'All mainstream political parties in the UK are united in opposing the BNP' due to no citation being available, but am completely open to it remaining. The Guardian section i was unsure which parts to include and will follow your lead on this. Other small edits made was the transfer of 'claims of repression of free speech' into the opposition section and a structuring of that section which included the deletion of the veterans paragraph and a suggestion on the Nick Griffin page that it be transferred there. Hope this helps, thanks U6j65 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you managed to come to an conclusions on this yet? thanks. U6j65 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I can see there has been another slow edit war on the BNP page, I could have jumped in but decided not to. Please Snowded can we try and sort our differences out properly without antagonising each other, there are about four or five users maybe slightly more that want to contribute to the page let try and get together and discuss each others points of view on the talk page. Ill set up a new thread but ill need your help and contribution in discussion as you are arguably the most active editor on the page. Thanks U6j65 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the conclusion that the proposed rewrite was more or less the same as the original and it would be better if people proposed changes to sections or more specific edits. Using the talk page is the most critical aspect and I don;t think you can find a case where I have not been willing to do that --Snowded TALK 05:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understand, all im saying is that the article has no direction at the moment and can only be given some by editors seriously getting together to first talk about the direction they think it should take. For my own part i think the article should be edited and structured along the lines of the sandbox to sorted it and add structure so that any further info/development can be added more accordingly. If we can all agree on that I think there will be less edit wars over new info in the future. Its goanna take everyone discussing it on the talk page for that to happen though, thats all im trying to say. U6j65 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags

Rather than removing the citation needed tags why don't you just add the citation need inline. That way the information will be verifiable long term. Doubt the evidence that was added by recent editors given the recent failures to verify the sources on that article. Removing tags without resolving the issues does nothing to improve the article. The tags alert readers to where information has not been referenced properly. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the citations are already there in the text as you well know. And "recent failures" as far as I can see means "I don't like the source". Between that and your farcical accusations you have lost any sympathy/credibility --Snowded TALK 10:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could flip that around and say that you want the source only because "you like the source". We both know that appropriate referencing and parity of sources is not achieved based on our personal likes and dislikes. I'll use the verification needed on statements that require third party verification and clarification. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you insert a tag then you MUST explain why on the talk page. If you don't do that they will simply be reverted. There is no independent third party verification unit in wikipedia, you need to read up on that tag again --Snowded TALK 14:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a tag without resolving the issue would be disruptive. You have been a reasonable editor in the past. If someone adds a verification needed tag, just verify the information or leave it until someone else can verify it or it fails. You should read up on the relevant policy. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the reference is there then you need to say what you need to see and you should read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Given that you have university library access you have no excuse, given that you can access the material the obligation will be on you to say why you think there is an issue. Flyby tagging is frowned on. --Snowded TALK 19:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

You gonna give parrot of doom the same warning? didn't think so. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one not respecting WP:BRD. You know this, and you know how it will go if you don't listen. Use the talk page --Snowded TALK 22:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wasn't the original changer. Someone else was. I was simply maintaining his edit, which in my eyes, at the time was completely justifiable. If there is a lack of sources, I'm not breaking any rules editing the article. It would have been a different story if it had been new research ect. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"original" has got nothing to do with it. You were edit warring and the sources are elsewhere in the article --Snowded TALK 23:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too posted a warning to Alexandre8. I have now noticed that Snowded's earlier one has been removed. Looking at the edits on my watchlist, I could see three reverts by Parrot of Doom and four by Alexandre8. The latter breaks the letter of WP:3RR. The former doesn't. Both of the editors who posted the warnings have taken the softer option of indicating what might happen after a fourth revert rather than going straight to the 3RR board to ask for a block. If I notice a fourth revert by Parrot, I'll give him the warning. I will take whichever of the two I first see breaking 3RR after their warning to the board.
A post such as the one that started this thread is a clear violation of WP:AGF Persistent behaviour of that kind can also lead to a block.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, WIkipedia can be a lonely place and support is appreciated! --Snowded TALK 13:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. wiki

Hello, I am the lead sysop on the Liverpool F.C. wiki. It is a wiki dedicated solely to Liverpool F.C.. We aim to make the ultimate database for the club we all love. Since adopting the incredibly inactive wiki about a month ago we have greatly increased the article count and modernized it from it's previous state. The problem is there are not many active members on the site and we need more for the site to properly grow. It is well organized and on it's way to be a great site we just need more editors to expand. It is based on Wikia's network of wikis. Like Wikipedia it is free to use and the editing process is exactly the same. If you know how to edit Wikipedia you will know how to edit the Liverpool F.C. wiki. Now for the question you may be asking yourself. Why edit there? Wikipedia has articles on Liverpool. This is true. At the Liverpool wiki it is all about Liverpool. We allow editors to edit anything about Liverpool no matter how trivial. We allow edits on reserve and academy players, and even things as trivial as the fitness coaches for the year 2011. We also do not lock pages to registered users. That means if you have something to say about Steven Gerrard you can click edit and not view source and actually write something. I would love for you to come by and check the wiki out. Feel free to edit any page. Every time you click edit your ARE helping this wiki grow. Thanks for taking the time to read this! http://liverpoolfc.wikia.com/wiki/Liverpool_FC_Wiki --Coffeeclub213 (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

List of countries

Saw your comment at Talk:List of sovereign states#List of countries. I don't understand your argument in part of this sentence: "If we have a list of countries then it will need to include those countries which are not sovereign states, the current redirect avoids that problem." How would having a list of countries that lists countries be a problem? Daicaregos (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will get back to it later today --Snowded TALK 07:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

No hard feelings, notice the tea is black, I am a vegan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And if you want the best Vegan places in Singapore let me know, whenever I go there I get dragged to them as most of our technical team are vegan --Snowded TALK 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite and graciously accpeting my regrets.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BNP

looked at all the sources to do with opposition to the bnp, and in none of them is there a mention of "unification". The opposition area goes into detail about who is opposed to who, and therefore do we really even need this line in the opening statement? Debatable. Let's keep the article neutral. Nothing "weasal" about my edit, I find that kind of rude. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede summarises the material. All political parties oppose each other, the fact that all three condemn (alternative to unified) is significant. --Snowded TALK 15:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check last changes. Hope you approve. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dave1185

I think you got a little carried away with all that templating. The IP's language is terrible, s/he may or may not be a sock. Whatever, its easy to discuss it on the talk page rather than templates and edit warring. --Snowded TALK 14:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fact is, he started the name callings and for a newbie, if we can assume that to be true, even I didn't know what a template was back then, much less about him, hence the suspicions. Secondly, as you can see, I hold off reverting it because I realised that the link is now dead and other peeps cannot verified that the news report, which was actually quoting it as "explained" and not as "said", this was the source of our disagreement. And instead of him discussing the matter, he kept his name callings in the edit summaries after reverting me. Even most of his contribution history says that he is one ANGRY MASTODON. As concurred by an admin on my discussion page, what I did on his talk page was perfectly legit, the ISP template must stay, no matter, because it is owned by Wikipedia. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has behaved badly and I have said so. However I think its better to miss a few socks rather than attack a real newby.--Snowded TALK 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well with a non-functioning link you can't really call a one word change (especially when it means more or less the same thing) OR. The ISP template says that the edits were disruptive, which is stretching it. I would have thought it would have been a lot easier to just comment on the talk page and try and get a dialogue going. --Snowded TALK 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, would love to hold a constructive dialogue but his potty mouth preceded everything else until the extent I'm no longer receptive to his inputs/suggestions however smart he might think he is, and now to the point that I have totally no confidence in this particular anon IP's competence. IF he has an issue outside of WP and he brings it here, then he's in for a long, hard road ahead from other editors as well, not just me because today it might be me but tommorrow he could well be crossing swords with Jimbo instead. Who know? I wish him all the best, he's your baby now. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't surprise me, it doesn't alter my opinion. Socks and IPs are part of life around here --Snowded TALK 05:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Learn to read talk pages

With this edit [1] you showed that you don't understand the concept of synthesising sources, or of a neutral point of view. The word used in the source is irrelevant. We do not simply copy and paste, do we? The word "explained" is not neutral. Your reverts of my edits were pointless and motivated only by pettiness. You also failed to notice that I had in fact stated my case on the talk page, so your "you need to use the talk page" comment looks really silly. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stating a case on the talk page is not the same as seeking agreement. You may find wikipedia process on this petty I don't --Snowded TALK 05:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are being extremely petty. You are not following the process. You didn't read the talk page before demanding that I use it, did you? 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I am. I did --Snowded TALK 06:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wish.2.220.204.70 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded&oldid=440701354"