Jump to content

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 33

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


Knowledge management

Hello Snowded, thank you for removing the Cardenas source from this article. Just a quick note for your information: I have looked into a few related topics and found several other similar SPA IPs cite-spamming this author with generic commonplace info. It seems pretty clear, that there is a vested interest to promote the author's most recent research and theories. If the author is reliable and used for meaningful encyclopedic facts by uninvolved editors, that would be OK of course. But we should look out for similar spamming issues in the future (I hopefully got most of the current problems). GermanJoe (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out - could be an author getting their students to enter it. Happens a lot on the KM articles ----Snowded TALK 11:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the section Massacare of Buddhists in Ancient India from the Genocide of indigenous People Article?

You claim sources are not reliable? I think they are totally reliable compared to sources of other sections like Japan, Brazil, Bangladesh, Paraguya and Tibet. Various history books and scholars note what I said, and there are even Wikipedia articles on the topic. I think you removed it because you are an Indian and biased towards India and want to hide the crimes that took place in your nation. Either prove that other sections have more reliable sources than mine and if they dont delete all sections or add back mine. I thought Wikipedia was for unbiased editors who do not remove contents just based on personal judgement!

Cool it. I'm Welsh at it happens (a simple check would have shown you that). Wikipedia has clear rules about what counts as a reliable source and blog posts are not accepted. If the material you have is true then you will be able to find acceptable sources ----Snowded TALK 18:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

hmm, ok I guess, thanks for replying to my query. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodMan291 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've given you links on your home page. Another piece of advise is to assume that experienced editors with years of engagement here are generally not biased towards political issues. Making accusations can weaken the case for legitimate edits assume good faith and engage other editors on the talk page if you face disagreement ----Snowded TALK 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism

There appears to be a sock adding publications by Korstanje list. Maximiliano Korstanje was pp/sock. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

OK but at least two of those are good references ----Snowded TALK 09:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you, I really do appreciate your taking the time to help me out with some of the formatting issues. Looking at the changes that you made has shown me at least one mistake I was making. I still do not know why it was using different fonts. There were no font tags when I examined it before and there are still none. I am going to assume that the fonts were a product of the error I was making with the indenting colins. Again, thanks. Flawliss (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Its the indents that do it. Otherwise no problem, someone else did it for me when I got started ----Snowded TALK 06:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

----[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> : ----Snowded TALK

to

----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> : ----Snowded TALK

—Anomalocaris (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC) actioned ----Snowded TALK 09:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I copied this out of the archive; it seemed like the best way to re-start the discussion. I'm not sure what action you took, but, your signature remains the same. To update your signature, click on "preferences" in the top menu. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I did that and copy and pasted the suggested alternative ....
I will try again----Snowded TALK 09:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
OK done it once more and I've gone back in and checked the change was stored -----Snowded TALK 09:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

LibDems

Hi, was rather puzzled by this edit of yours. The reference says membership had hit its highest ever level. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw a one time IP change one word without explanation - normally that is vandalism and I was processing a lot of small changes before going to bed. -----Snowded TALK 06:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Please check before acting next time! The IP was undoing previous vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time clearing a hell of a lot of vandalism. I think this may be the second mistake in a decade so forgive me if I don't go into a full mea culpa routine. Single use IPs ....-----Snowded TALK 17:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow, much of an attitude problem? You screwed up and blame it on IPs. Get a grip. DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the attitude problem is with you. You pointed out a mistake and I corrected it. Most editors would have left it there. You chose not to so returning with a admonition. I responded accordingly. I'm not blaming the IP by the way, I was referencing the general problem with single use IPs. I didn't screw up I made a minor error easily corrected, it happens although I admit I don't have your track record of error. I suggest you try and acquire a sense of proportion and, well, get a grip -----Snowded TALK 17:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Knowledge Transfer page

Hello, I am puzzled by your edit on the Knowledge transfer entry. Knowledge transfer can happen both intentionally (e.g. with the transferrer intending to transfer the knowledge) and unintentionally (e.g. when the person who learn does so by looking at the person who teaches, if the person who teaches does not intend to pass on the knowledge). Your edit (internally vs. unintentionally) seems wrong. Rigorosho (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Rigorosho

Material was inserted unsupported by reference which added commentary. I reverted that.-----Snowded TALK 13:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Austrians are a Germanic Nation

Give me any evidence that backs the claim that Austria is a germanic nation. I've never heard about anything like that, maybe call it Nation of the germanic language group if you are all insisting on that adjective, I have already explained why its difficult to categorize it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exocet85 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

there is a dispute. Discuss it on the talk page of the article ---Snowded TALK 00:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Be unbiased and consistent

I would agree to removal of any unsourced text if this criteria is "consistently" applied across the whole article. Principality has massive chunks of pre-existing unsourced pro-european bias material sitting there for years which you did not remove. Simply removing the Indianisation text is arbitrary. Please do not remove such texts specially you can see the credibility through pipelinked articles. if a criteria is not applied consistently, then it comes across arbitrary and biased. Please avoid such practices. I am now readding my text with soruces. But I expect from you to do the right and unbiased thing and remove all of the unsourced pro-european unsourced blurb. We can not have pro-white and pro-european bias in the global articles. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to remove or tag unsourced material. I checked the pipelinks and I don't think you have support there. Otherwise please assume good faith and don't make insulting comments here or anywhere else for that matter. -----Snowded TALK 20:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fw. Question

Hi. I have 263,271 editions on Wikimedia. I do not have a record. I speak Spanish. Greetings. --Allforrous 22:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons no es promocional. --Allforrous 23:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

PlatinumHeron

Hello Snowded, I'm PlatinumHeron. I have just logged onto Wikipedia and seen your messages.

As you've noticed, I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I'd like to thank you for the welcome message you have placed on my talk page.

Since starting on Wikipedia I have been editing articles on right-wing political organisations in the UK. The first one I edited was the National Front article. However, these edits were reverted (if you have a look at them you'd be able to see why).

On my talk page, you said: "You may want too look up WP:BRD. You can't demand that editors justify retention of material on the talk page. If you are bold and reverted, then you go to talk." Thanks for providing me a link to the Bold/Revert/Discuss policy. I understand where I went wrong in saying "Take the case to talk if you think there is an issue with the removal of this paragraph" on the Britain First article. Now I have been reverted, I will take the case to the Britain First talk page.

You wrote about my edits on the Football Lads Alliance page. You accused me of writing a "promotional piece". In no way was I trying to promote the organisation. The article was biased against the group, and I edited the article to ensure that it was as unbiased as possible. Now my edits have been reverted here, I will take this to the talk page as you have suggested.

PlatinumHeron (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

hopefully the links will help. However using an extreme parties statements about itself is not acceptable in wikipedia. I am afraid I don't agree that it was unbiased -----Snowded TALK 14:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. Is there a policy that says this? Surely the best place to get info about what a party stands for are their own statements? Regards, PlatinumHeron (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not - see WP:RS and any number if discussions on the talk page of political party articles -----Snowded TALK 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Snowded, just a gentle reminder regarding WP:3RR, which seems applicable to the Football Lads Alliance page. Just FYI; I'm sure you get my drift. Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Newly created editor using a right wing organisations web site as a source with a IP backing them up - I'd class that as vandalism. I've just restored it to third party sources (2nd revert in 24 hours). If they revert again I'm going to flag it at ANI or the politics notice board. It would help if you got involved on the talk page to explain things to our 'new' editor-----Snowded TALK 16:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. Still; better safe than sorry. I like the "new" by the way. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 16:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep! Oh and thanks for getting involved on the article. We get a lot of 'newness' on this right wing splinter groups -----Snowded TALK 16:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sirlanz

Hi, I saw your message on User:Sirlanz's talk page about his disruptive behavior on Wikipedia.

I put up a notice on the ANI about his disruptiveness.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sirlanz

Thanks Minimax Regret (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

1RR Rule

I have been editing here for over 10 years and have over 15,000 main page edits, so I've been around a bit. Yet I had never heard of teh 1RR rule until your (stern boilerplate) warning. I am cognisant of 3RR and reluctant to move in that direction at any time but 1RR is certainly squeaky tight. Your follow-up communication revealed that you were insensitive to its process deficiency, i.e. that the editor is very likely to have no clue whatsoever that the page has a special restriction on it and that your communication should not be on the basis that the editor is some sort of malcontent intent on upsetting the community, which is how your stern communications were worded. I would recommend you tread a little more lightly there: unless otherwise informed, assume the editor was unaware and couch responses accordingly. I am motivated to write this because you did not seem to read with care my first explanation of this problem. I have no clue about how to pursue getting the process flow changed or improved (a warning when edits executed would be nice). I invite you or others who take an interest in the WP engine-room to consider pursuing that. Thanks. sirlanz 04:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You've managed to edit here for ten years and not be aware of 1RR? Is this your first foray into Troubles related articles? We clearly flag it at the start of the talk page for articles affected but, fair enough, I can understand you might well miss it - hence the requirement of the process to give people a warning. You were also edit warring on the article concerned despite an ongoing unresolved discussion on the talk page. For all of that you got the normal warning using a standard template with an additional polite note about the 1RR restriction and some advise to revert as you were risking a block. If you find that stern so be it. -----Snowded TALK 04:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Genocide of indigenous peoples

The editor you reverted has created a massive headache of huge swathes of copy and paste. If you're interested, see their talk page. Drmies, Diannaa and Maunus have also been involved in discussions with him. Hopefully I've stopped it but I'm not optimistic. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You want help tracking down and reverting? -----Snowded TALK 10:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
He seems to have given up reverting me. But he's left a lot of mess around, Drmies mentions him dropping 40k of text on an article. Frankly I think it's better to undo it all. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Will do a trawl through later today when I get some time -----Snowded TALK 12:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Enlargement of the European Union

Hi there. The European Union is a political organisation in itself and they do have an enlargement agenda as referenced. Please enlighten me as to why you disagree. Hayley007 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You are selectively quoting to make a political point - if you disagree make the case on the talk page of the article concerned -----Snowded TALK 15:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Bala Lake v Llyn Tegid

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Bala Lake#Requested move 6 July 2018 concerning the title of the article. As an editor who has previously edited other articles about Welsh places, you may wish to contribute. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   22:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies I have been away and only just checked in to see the discussion is closed. I'd suggest waiting a bit for the modern use or Tegid to gain citations, -----Snowded TALK 07:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Great Britain page

There is some strange mischief afoot there, at least one foolish editor is clearly trying to make Northern Ireland part of Great Britain. I have corrected it again, do please keep a watch on the page so that neither of us will get into an edit war. Moonraker (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

English People

Hi! I've unprotected the page now. I did consider blocking, but it seemed to me to be at least some joint enterprise, so that blocking one would merely cause another to start up. In those circumstances, a temporary full page protection seemed best. Now that all their activities have been uncovered, I think we can proceed with firm action whenever we see any repeat of those edits from anywhere. Thanks for your suggestion, and I hope you can see my reasoning a bit even if you may still not fully accept it: it was not a clear-cut decision on either side.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just woken up in New Zealand and seen the thread - all looks good and no issue. I suspect we are going to get a lot more SPA and meat puppetry around this and other related issues given incoming funding to the UK for far right groups so I suspect we will all be busy -----Snowded TALK 20:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

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

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Icewhiz (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

---Snowded TALK 05:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

don’t worry about I’m aware of it

Corbyn

Please stick to the facts. Contrary to the message you left on my talk page, I did NOT perform two reverts within 24 hours. Clivel 0 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it looked to me as if you had, but if I am wrong you have nothing to worry about (well at least on that point)-----Snowded TALK 20:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR vio

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wreathgate 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.

By my count, you are at [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] - seven reverts in 15 August on a 1RR article (clearly in ARBPIA scope).Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting set of assertions - I realised I had broken it once a short while ago and self-reverted. Otherwise I've been trying to move the debate along with alternative workds and taking part in the talk page - unlike a lot of the editors involved. In practice what we are seeing here is swarming behaviour around a POV (and your own history is a part of that) so it may need a different type of process in Wikipedia if it carries on -----Snowded TALK 06:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPA please. I could have straight up reported this to AE or AN/EW - this message was a courtesy. As for NPOV - we should reflect all POVs that are receiving coverage in RSes in regards to this affair.Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This is my talk page not an article or discsson focrum and its not a personal attack its a opinion I'd be happy to justify if needed. I've been editing here for 12 years now and on a log of controversial articles and the POV issues here are some of the worst I have seen - check some of the wording in the edit summaries. I'm also finding it ironic in so far as one of my dearest hopes is that we get rid of Corbyn from leadership of the Labour Party. But that hope aside his article deserves fair treatment :-) -----Snowded TALK 07:21, 16

August 2018 (UTC)

Scaremongering Wreathgate & Corbyn

Hi I noticed correctly removed the scaremongering bit from Wreathgate, it is also however on the Corbyn page (lower down at the bottom of the responses section) but slightly different. I was not sure whether to remove it, but I dont 100% understand all wikipedia's rules. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look but I only have limited time at the moment-----Snowded TALK 06:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR violation

partial revert1, revert2, and partial revert3 are an ARBPIA 1RR violation. Do please self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No they are not. I've been making minor changes or improvements. Trying to work with you here -----Snowded TALK 08:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You've gone to full revert - with a false edit summary (no, the Vanity Fair piece is not an op-ed - it is clearly marked as news and written by a VF staff member). I strongly suggest you self revert - as this is actionable at AE for ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I've put a sentence in the lede as an alternative to a rather one sided paragraph you placed - with a link to an article. It covers the point you made - I thought you would be happier with sentence in the lede rather than a section at the end which was the other option. You ommitted from your material the section where the Vanity FAir journalist says that the attack on Corbyn is in part inspired by Tories trying to distract attention from Boris and the Burka. I've added the reference back in but without the partial quotation -----Snowded TALK 08:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
One sided? Vanity Fair is a fairly neutral and uninvolved source for British politics - and the paragraph inserted was a rather straight up summary of VF's background - we follow sources. However, that's beside the point. You are at 3 reverts today in a 1RR article - are you self-reverting? A Yes or no answer, please.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Your selection of the quote was one sided - see my above comment. Otherwise I have one revert, and a series of amendments -----Snowded TALK 08:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring on article "Wales"

The recent editing history at Wales 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.

I have started a discussion about this on the article's talk page. Please go to the discussion to find out why you are wrong. Newzild (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
If you check I started a discussion and you are the one making changes against two other editors. Wikipedia is not about the sort of arrogance in your last statement but about engaging with other editors to reach an agreement - and per WP:BRD not insisting that your NEW version stands during that discussion. -----Snowded TALK 05:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi thanks for your notice. Apologies for not using the proper way to do this. Anyhow, I am now the President of the Complexity Science Society https://cssociety.org/home and published many papers and books on the subjects. How to proceed then? Guido — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcalda (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I think you have to wait for other editors to decide that is noteworthy. My name is there but I didn't add it and wouldn't. I put a couple of links on your article that allow you to make the request of a neutral editor. -----Snowded TALK 09:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Correcting the error in Mary Midgley's birth date introduced on 11 Oct

Hi Snowed Thank you for your kind offer of help. I would prefer not to be dealing with this kind of thing when we have funerals, wills, memorial services etc. to deal with.

My Mum really liked HTLGI, and I did too, but she hasn't really been up to traveling for a while - she was still walking most days, but increasingly the cocktail party problem made it difficult for her to engage with more than a few people at a time.

Death is never easy, but she was a proper philosopher - a stoic, so far as one can be ready for death she was.


and .. the new book is out - "What is Philosophy for ? "" ...

and .. we celebrated her 99th birthday party, a couple of weeks ago.

and .. the group of 4 women together at Oxford in the War is 'a thing', and is inspiring a new generation of women at Durham & Liverpool. So her legacy will continue.

and .. she was 99..

I have to go now, but I would welcome help to keep it in order.

Thank you

Tom (ctmidgley) Ctmidgley (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm back

Have the squabbles on that article died down now, or do you think it might still benefit from some intervention?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well they hit a stalemate. The issue relates to if the F1 interest group can override the convention of self-identification. It seems a characteristic of such groups that they seek conformity and structure (knowing some of the cognitive science which goes with this I can see why) so are not open to compromise. Its festered for a bit as far as I can see. Its worth a look as the issue is likely to come up in other contexts. -----Snowded TALK 09:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism in Pakistan

I don't particularly care for the outcome of this dispute, but your recent removal is somewhat aggressive. Religion, or religious zealotry, undeniably plays a role in terrorism within Pakistan, whether it is the cause of terrorism or whether terroristic acts target certain religious adherents. A section on religious opinions in Pakistan would thus be relevant. A small section, as introduced by Karumari, may be inherently unbalanced but since Wikipedia is a work in progress, I don't see that as necessarily problematic since it will be expanded later. Even now-lengthy articles have been started with as little as one sentence. Buddytula (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We have an editor who is dropping that text into multiple articles and is ignoring all advise - there are limits to tolerance here -----Snowded TALK 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Granted. This editor's additions are problematic for numerous reasons. I certainly hope the editor learns to work collaboratively, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Buddytula (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Lets see :-) -----Snowded TALK 19:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

See WP:LOUT and WP:LOGOUT. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As pertaining to me, not you, I might add  :) 31.52.166.58 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The wording allows it but discourage it - and the danger of sock puppetry is high when you engage in controversy -----Snowded TALK 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Not in my case. And don't forget about WP:AGF. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Nowt there relates to good faith, read your own references.-----Snowded TALK 06:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Snowded. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Violence in Christianity

Hey Snowded, I want to resolve the edit war we have with the Violence and Christianity page. What is the reason why you are undoing the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:2564:520:CD06:7EE6:BA97:44FE (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Because you are writing opinions - original research. Read WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page if you want to make a case-----Snowded TALK 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I edited the introduction because if you follow the citation of the sentence I removed you see that it does not relate to the sentence being cited in its entirety. I then added the forced conversions. Later in the article, there is mention of forced conversions after the constantine shift. I also have some of my academic references (in fact, this is widespread knowledge you can get by googling the terms forced conversion constantine shift). Thus, if I include these additional references, or link to a reference already given can this be included? My edit about Ghandi is justified: It has little to do with the main topic in the article and is expressing an opinion of a non-academic external view. I then highlight through a biblical passage that the New testament does not circumvent the old testament through a verse quotation. This was already discussed in your version in the previous paragraph. I just make it more explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:2564:520:CD06:7EE6:BA97:44FE (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You were bold, you were reverted, you discuss, make the case on the talk page of the article. There is no such thing as 'widespread knowledge' in wikipedia there is only properly sourced material-----Snowded TALK 20:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Please respond to the discussion on that talk page. I can include my reference will this then be acceptable?

If I have asked you to discuss an article on the talk page of that article please comply. I have any article I have edited on watch and will pick it up when I am next on wikipedia -----Snowded TALK 17:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

DUP

"Term is questionable and you were reverted so please take to talk" is incorrect. The term is not a new addition, I am not looking through the history to see exactly when it was added but as this version shows it has been there since at least June 2017. My edit was reverting its removal, as it is the removal which needs consensus. Regards. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:E499:FC6F:A50C:AE27 (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the edit is actually the lead, while the term was in the article body and infobox in 2017 it was not in the lead. However this does not alter my broader point, that I did not recently add the term merely revert its bold removal. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:E499:FC6F:A50C:AE27 (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't see it there in recent history so its not the default. This is a controversial article so if you are reverted then go to the talk page - its a lot easier than insisting you were right. If I was wrong and it was removed recently then fine -----Snowded TALK 10:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, possibly my bad. The lead said "It is right-wing" before being changed to "The party has been described as right-wing populist" on December 6th. I would have no problem if anyone wants to revert to the previous wording, but I do object to the complete removal of any mention of right-wing without consensus. Regards. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:E499:FC6F:A50C:AE27 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy with right wing, but less so on right wing populist - there seems to be a campaign to insert this on multiple articles and its americanism. -----Snowded TALK 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The integrity initiative and Corbyn

I think the reports about the integrity initiative and Corbyn need to be in the article in some form. As I said when I first added the material, I could not see a natural place to add it so I created a new subsection in its correct chronological position. It may not warrant its own section - I don’t have a firm view in that - but can you think of another place for it without creating another section? Burrobert (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Its very recent, its controversial and it doesn't pass tests for weight. Integrity Initiative is a single line entry. You should delete it -----Snowded TALK 10:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure why on earth this passage about the Institute for Statecraft a UK government funded service being misused to attack her majesty's official UK opposition party and its leader could be seen to be undue weight. The Foreign Office Minister, Alan Duncan has confirmed it and has ordered an investigation (so it is not controversial in the sense whether the social media attacks on the Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour occurred). The governing political party, whether whole, part or individuals should not be using a charity to spread propaganda, political and personal attacks in domestic politics against a fellow democratic party. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In one source the minister says the grant was not used for it the attack - your entry implies the government commissioned it. Now they may have but we don't know yet. Your entry is not neutral. There is an investigation and there are nor reports other than the originating one. WIkipedia is an encylopedia not a newspaper - we need to e careful. Your edit should be reversed and you should shift this dicussion to the talk page of the article. You were also wrong to remove the tag I placed on the section -----Snowded TALK 13:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for vandalism InsaneDoge (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep the stable version until consensus is reached.

Hi Snowded. I suggest we keep the stable version of both articles until a consensus is reached in each talk page. Edit warring is really not the way forward . Cheers. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You're the one on three reverts. I moved the text to a more appropriate section and changed it so that it matched what was said. -----Snowded TALK 09:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

D. Trevisani

Hi Snowded, just a FYI: that's a long-term case of spam at it.wiki, I didn't see they started spamming en.wiki too! --Vituzzu (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - it did have duck like qualities! -----Snowded TALK 10:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Get ready to read some fantastic essays about the "cultural value" of spam btw. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Practitioner-oriented piece on systems theory page

Hi! On December 11, I had added a reference to the systems theory page, with this rationale: 

I feel as though this Wikipedia entry is at a very high level of abstraction and would benefit from some resources that speak more directly to practitioners. That's my rationale for including a piece that is more accessible on the topic of systems.

You had undone the change, with this note: 

(We can't promote practitioners - you need to provide evidence of notability)

The piece I had added (listed below) is by John Sterman, whose bio is below. He is an expert on this topic. But I think that the piece is valuable because it is not written for academics. He is able to present his expertise in a way that makes the topic of systems dynamics very accessible — something that I really do think is missing from much of this entry.

For that reason, I would like to reinstate the change. I look forward to hearing from you.

John David Sterman is the Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management, and the current director of the MIT System Dynamics Group at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is also co-faculty at the New England Complex Systems Institute

John Sterman (2013). Making Systems Thinking More Than a Slogan. Network for Business Sustainability

Mayaf - NBSIvey (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

New Statesman

You seem to be initiating an edit war by reverting clearly sourced material. If you have other sources, that disproved or contradict the content, you may state them and specify why you are removing content. Further controlling edits based on your personal opinions will result in your account being reported. 86.11.51.106 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please report it :-) Read WP:BRD the onus is on you to discuss changes -----Snowded TALK 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user

If that IP user comes back to your talk page as a different IP and you don't see it reverted or the user blocked by me shortly afterwards, let me know on my user talk page so I can block it. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do and thanks for getting involved. I've been around here long enough to be pretty immune to insults from IPs -----Snowded TALK 19:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
HA! That's good to hear. I've patrolled enough trolling, vandalism, and disruption, and responded to enough violations, abuse, threats, and other nasty stuff that I've long gotten used to being threatened and insulted by other users. Oh well; some people are more susceptible and offended by high school insults than others. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Another apology

I'm truly sorry my remarks offended you, and the discussion is obviously not going to be constructive if we don't find a way past that. You say I'm treating editors differently, but it was my intention only to treat sources differently. Peter Jones is not (as far as I know) editing at Wikipedia. I was referring to him as a practitioner that is simply wrong about the scholarship. Since it's just a web page that is part of his design practice it doesn't count as a reliable source.

I may have been a bit flippant about his freedom to misread the literature, and I have apologized for that. I'm especially sorry if you took it to apply to your own reading of the literature. That is not something I intended. In fact, I have been engaging with you in good faith about (what I assumed were) the scholarly sources you said you have found to support the conclusion that the Weick and Dervin traditions are converging. Even if that can be shown, however, it is not the case that Weick and Dervin co-founded the discipline. They each founded different disciplines and the article split clearly reflects that. Weick's work does in fact "define" the concept that the article is about. I thought we agreed about that when the article was split.

In any case, I don't edit very often at Wikipedia these days and this issue came to my attention only by way of a notification. There's no reason to expend any emotional energy on this. If you insist on finding my remark offensive, even after this second explanation, then I'll just withdraw and leave you to it. Especially since it sounds like you're willing to implicate my work here in my day job. I just don't need that sort of hassle in my volunteer activities.

Let me know what you think. Cheers, --Thomas B (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I generally don't take offence at much on wikipedia - but your comments would have been intimidatory to other editors and were an obvious put down on Bonnie (whose academic work by the way is outstanding). Happy to have the good faith discussion on the talk page of the article -----Snowded TALK 07:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will apologize to Bonnie. (Is she a practitioner?) Will you acknowledge that your reference to my employer (which I have made nowhere public on this site) could also be construed as intimidating?--Thomas B (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
She is - a senior one - and did her PhD with Brenda/ I still don't buy that distinction by the way. As to --- I assumed as you were using your real name that it wasn't a confidential issue - the point I was making was against the dichotomy. My identity is public and I'm happy with that assumed you were the same -----Snowded TALK 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm blanking the name again. Why won't you respect it when I outright ask you to?--Thomas B (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I hadn't noticed you blanking it. If this is a real issue for you then you might want to change your user ID as the most basic of internet searches will create the list. -----Snowded TALK 16:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with people finding out who I am and where I work. (I'm honored that you cared enough to do so.) I just don't want to have discussions about how my editorial suggestions here reflect favourably or not on my employer, which, if you'll recall, is what I objected to in the first place. Like I said then, I'm pretty sure allusions to how my work here might be perceived by my employer are in violation of Wikipedia rules. (Regardless of how seriously I happen to take them. Not very, if you're interested. But it's the principle of the thing.) And, as I said to you here, it's easy to see it as an attempt to intimidate (which might scare off actual scholars with tenure applications to worry about). So I'm asking you to be clear that that was not your intention and to return to ordinary, good-faith discussion of the proposed changes to the article.--Thomas B (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I've never had a problem with anyone mentioning any of the institutions I am associated with so your concern was a surprise to me. It matters to you so sure I won't mention the institution again. I didn't need to look it up by the way - as it happens you came up in a conversation I was having about the book chapter I am writing -----Snowded TALK 16:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you.--Thomas B (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Stepping back a bit

It's ironic that I'm the one who is defending Weick's position in the sensemaking tradition, and I have to say, my heart's not in it enough to keep arguing with you. But I look forward to reading that chapter of yours. Weickian sensemaking needs a challenger and has for a long time. It's just that no serious challenge has been mounted. People do other things, but no one actually challenges Weick. That's how things go in this area. Anyway, I just wanted to say it's been stimulating, thanks, and please don't take offense if I drop out of all this at some point and just let you have your way with the article. I'm not nearly as invested in any of this as I seem.--Thomas B (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I did wonder given some of your writing ....
The suggestion that you organise a seminar was serious -----Snowded TALK 18:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I'm the diplomatic one in this community. I don't even submit abstracts to the relevant meetings anymore.--Thomas B (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Diplomacy was not on my mind -----Snowded TALK 18:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It will take some to get the right people in the same room and sincerely reflect on their intellectual foundations. I truly don't believe it can happen.--Thomas B (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably true - Brenda tried to get the two of us and Weick into a debate but the great man refused -----Snowded TALK 18:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It can be plausibly argued that Weick's ideas have never been debated. He has never defended them. I can't think of one idea he has defended against criticism.--Thomas B (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Bobsmithsmith says sorry

I am sorry I have been making a nuisance on Wikipedia, I was initially unsure of editing procedure's, but I will now make sure I provide a sufficient source when editing. I will make sure my facts are correct, and have a third party source. Thanks for reminding me.

Bosmithsmith

People are always happy to help if you ask -----Snowded TALK 06:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire

well a new section was created in the talk page of British Empire.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is what you should have done the first time you were reverted - even now its not properly explained or justified. You need to do some more work -----Snowded TALK 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see Albion Jack's opinions like "Something later disproved with the recapture of the Falkland Islands" as properly justified either. It seems I'm not the only one that needs to do some more work.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Now AlbionJack has just reverted one my edition, even if I have already sourced it. This is a violation to Wikipedia's rules.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The pair of you are likely to be blocked if you carry on like this. Pay attention to your own behaviour, its not justified by saying "the other guy is going it as well" -----Snowded TALK 04:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:British_Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath".The discussion is about the topic Talk:British Empire. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Diablo del Oeste (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Strange reversion

I find it quite odd that you reverted this. All I did was tighten up the language a bit, in no way changing the content. I found your edit summary confusing as well! diff HappyWanderer15 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, I think you changes gave the impression that Morphic Resonance has more status than it actually has ---Snowded TALK 10:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see how you could possibly come to that conclusion based on the edit itself. Perhaps you would like to deter me from editing the article at all, given our disagreements on past edits? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Then raise it on the talk page of the article concerned. As to your invitation to deter you from editing the article - I respectfully decline -----Snowded TALK 11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Nationalism

"...Conversely, radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was also a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany..."

vs

"...Conversely, radical nationalism combined with racial hatred, socialism, homophobia and xenophobia, was also a key factor in the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity perpetrated by Nazi Germany..."

I strongly believe that highlighting only a certain part of NAZI ideology (such as nationalism) and thus hiding other important contributing factors of NAZI ideology (such as socialism, homophobia, xenophobia, supremacy,...), is misleading for readers, and presents them with a twisted image of complex ideological structure of this regime, and screens them from the real root, from which NAZI regime had grown. Theres no need to hide the fact that NAZI is National Socialism.

(Igorsova (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

Then make the case on the talk page - and the need needs third party sourcing -----Snowded TALK 15:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN

I thought I'd clear the air. I made a number of individual edits which were, for the most part, grammatical. Due to the article's sensitive nature, I do feel that I was being treated as having an agenda over and above the wish to amend and improve the copy. An agenda that I don't have. What then happened was that all my individual edits were reverted together. Now, when making grammatical improvements, that can be very frustrating, as you lose your place. So in order to finish the job you just revert and try to get to the end. SO you see this is why I was imploring people to address the edits one-by-one, and why I went to the effort of adding them one-by-one. Many copy editors make hundreds of changes all at once, and if you don't agree with all of them the only option is to revert all of them. That was not the case here. I did get defensive and I do think I was unfairly chastised for edits which were made in good faith. I amended or discussed contested edits on the talk page and in summaries. I did lose my cool a bit, though, and for that I am sorry. I would ask that you don't revert several hours' worth of careful copy editing to punish me. I have changed every contested edit to the way it was before. I can count situations like this one on Wiki on two fingers. It's not something I enjoy. Apologies again. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-revert please and suggest a series of principles for the edits you want to make which other edits can agree with. You combined edits of different types and you are placing the burden on other editors to sort through a mass of changes. Sorry but you need to show good faith -----Snowded TALK 21:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Since he's determined to be blocked & will be blocked & his additions will eventually be removed? Just sit back & wait. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not I get blocked, have a look at the difference between these two edits. I would love to see a case made for how my version is not an improvement. You have both been determined to restore errors. That is preposterous. Have a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=prev&oldid=886030455 NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an issue of your behaviour - self revert and we can talk about content-----Snowded TALK 00:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This has gone way beyond wp:tendentious now. I was thinking about ANI myself, its getting ridicules. Hell its the frost thing he did when he came of his block, why this obsession?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it may now be time, I'll leave it to you as I am way too involved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Well let's see if the latest effort works. I think we've got an obsessive here, there are a few on wikipedia. Now s/he has got a bee in the bonnet they can't stop -----Snowded TALK 16:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not be obsessed over. Pointlessly getting involved to make threats a few days after I have quite clearly left the discussion is just weird. You're a grown up. I have left the EDL discussion and explained my reasons. Following me to other pages and getting a few digs in is poor form as per WP:HOUND. I'll leave you alone and I would appreciate it if you did the same. Let it go.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate your importance. No one is obsessed over you. I responded to a ping from another experienced editor over your pedantic and problematic behaviour on yet another article. No one is going to leave you alone if your behaviour doesn't change and you are increasing at risk from being blocked from editing. -----Snowded TALK 22:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
You get into more disputes than I do and you seem to overestimate your own importance with your regular and patronising admonishments. You have faced accusations of thinking you're in charge of the site before. So rather than continuing to make threats and attempting to justify WP:HOUND why don't you just take this for what it is and leave me alone, as I have offered to do? You seem obsessed with ticking people off for their 'behaviour', which normally means they have either disagreed with you or corrected you. So again, leave it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I monitor a lot of controversial articles and I'm happy to deal with problematic editors. If you check the disputes you'll find I'm mostly in line with community consensus and (as I did with you on a recent article) suggesting a process for you to follow which got a lot of changes in place. I'll go to ANI if there is no alternative but I'll try other stuff first. Others have less patience. If you check out the most recent 'admonishment' a very senior editor (I think a former member of Arbcom) basically told you to stop and pinged this conversation on my talk page. I responded to that. If I'm pinged by another editor I'll reply whether you like it or not. If you change the meaning of articles on my watch list under the guise of 'grammar changes' expect reverts. If you find that patronising then I suggest you need a dictionary -----Snowded TALK 08:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
'I suggest you need a dictionary' is not a good way to parry accusations of coming across as patronising. And they were grammar changes, as became clear. I won't respond further. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't a parry, your continued pedantry seemed to justify it :-) -----Snowded TALK 09:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Edit on Unionisum in Wales

Hi, Would you not agree that the Welsh-English border is hevily populated (especially in comparison to the Scottish-English border) and that the article should briefly mention that?

Is there also any reason why you deleted the reference to both the 2018 poll in the paragraph AND the link to a full list of polling?

Littlemonday (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It is but the wording would need a third party reference to show relevance Sky polls are not the same as YouGov

Snowded TALK 21:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

England Royal Arms

What are your reasons for removing the Royal Arms from the England infobox? In your own words you said you saw no worth, but I don’t see how your personal opinion is relevant. You also said I had no support on the Talk Page. One Scottish user objected to the Royal Arms, citing the Treaty of Union, but his assumption was wrong. Now, you also cited precedent referring to the Home Nations. If you look at the Wales infobox, you will see the Welsh users have now included the arms of the old Prince of Wales. Scotland also has its royal banner accompanying its flag. It is only right that England should follow the example of Scotland and Wales and either include the Banner or Arms in the infobox.Margalant (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If it’s been added back into wales I’ll remove it. Info boxes should not be cluttered but really the issue here is your edit warring. Make your case on the talk page and only change if you get agreement. I’m boarding a flight now so I’ll look again this evening but I will make a 3rr report if you carry on like this ---Snowded TALK 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
😊😊😊😊 Kitithat Phengaro (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess a competence block?

Although [8] - but as you said on the talk page, the article is about self-knowledge in philosophy. Counter-argument, it's a very important part of the philosophical literature so a mention somewhere would be appropriate. But we don't have an article on its use in philosophy other than Self-knowledge (Vedanta). Still, CIR? Doug Weller talk 10:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is used in a very different way in philosophy than psychology, not sure its a new article but it might be. There might be a case for something in the main body on links but just dumping the link in the lede doesn't work (or at least I don't think it does!). I think the editor is well-intentioned but as you suggest not really competent and isn't learning from interactions. I'd happily mentor them for a bit in hope of reform (but I might regret that). Maybe a warning; but you have more experience of these things than I! -----Snowded TALK 11:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If you are willing, how long would you want to do it (number of edits or days) before giving up if it ididn't work? I could give themn the option, mentor or block. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd give it a month? They consult before any edit? It's worth a try and I've only done a couple of mentoring roles so taking on a difficult one would help an RfA if I go for it, so some self-interest :-) -----Snowded TALK 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_33&oldid=1145675581"