Jump to content

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 34

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


You got a Barnstar!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For someone so dedicated as to give a superfluous warning; Congratulations, you did a thing, now get back in your box.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Promethean's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Mentor review please

Snowded, would you please check my link to PhilPapers, thanks Arnlodg...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Attention

That attention today is emergent phenomenon by presenting it as a alternative to philosophy. Understanding philosophy as attention, would be for people whose pursuits for truth and wisdom result in being present here now.

...This is a response to a "requested 'reasoned' approach to this page by Wikipedia"--from my common and very ordinary experiences with many many others over the last 50 plus years...thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been walking for the last few days so only just got to this. Some comments (i) you should not create a sandpit extension to a project page, that should only be done on your own - I have nominated it for deletion. (ii) You keep writing comments on talk pages that are not helpful. For example on Philosophy, you have just made a statement about 'Self' without making a specific proposal. I assume you are arguing for insertion of a link if so make the case but it will need to relate to the content of the article. Just saying the word is used is not good enough. You're statement about going with consensus is obscure at best. The idea of mentoring is that you seek advice before posting to any article or talk page. I'll never be longer than 24 hours in responding. -----Snowded TALK 15:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Just read the above, I may have created two more sandpit extensions at "Attention", please advise, I will delete if advised to, Almost ready to give up forever, thanks, Arnold...Arnlodg (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
They aren't really 'sandpits' for a start. You've said that you think the article should be about Philosophy and Psychology and there is a case for that. But you can't change the description until the content itself changes. If you asked for other editors opinion on expanding the article to cover philosophical aspects, without proposing a change to the title I think that would be fine -----Snowded TALK 07:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The other proposal for a change in the third paragraph is more interesting. But you need to establish if Mole represents Philosophy as a whole. I would have made this a 'for example, Mole suggests' or similar -----Snowded TALK 07:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

England

I fundamentally disagree with your recent wholesale reversion of my three succinct edits to clarify and abbreviate misleading parts of the article. They should not be in the least controversial. I defer to your seniority under strong protest, but please give much better reasons for your cursory excision of other people's work, which may appear arrogant Jezza (talk)

You don't have to defer to anyone's seniority, but if you are reverted raise the issues on the talk page of the article. You added commentary and in general, I didn't think you improved it. You were plain wrong about a separate judiciary, misleading on state schools being run by local authorities - the position on academies is different. You need citations to insert 'Masters' degree and even with a citation, the addition is of dubious value. There is no good reason to change the order on British Heritage -----Snowded TALK 12:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

reversions on the Welsh Dragon page

hi. You have twice removed updates I have made on this. Why? It seems due to a personal opinion of yours only... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkipsThomas (talk • contribs) 12:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable. If you disagree then raise it on the talk page of the article itself - You were [WP:BRD|bold, you were reverted, you should then discuss]]. Other editors may take a different view. -----Snowded TALK 12:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

John Grinder

You’ve reverted my edit on the above topic, and as suggested I’ve added to the talk page there. Would appreciate your input Ambitus (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Cornish Language

You may or may not enjoy discussing the relative merits of Kernowek or Kernewek with me on the Cornish Language talkpage. Tewdar (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The Troubles#Location

The ref I added states: Since 1979, the IRA has mounted attacks in Belgium, the Netherlands and West Germany. I'm puzzled that you reverted by addition of it which I used to support my addition of Belgium as a country in which the IRA carried out attacks by saying that it only mentioned Belgium as an arrest location. Also, our article 1979 Brussels bombing states that it was committed by the IRA. Please reinstate my edit - I can't do so because of the 1RR restriction on the article. Jim Michael (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right. Not wild about the source but found several which could be used - have reverted and given link on talk page. -----Snowded TALK 05:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Snowded,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Snowded. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 17:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Leary

The revert you did on Leary was for something there had been zero objections to. All previous objections were for the iteration that created the new section "Criticism." So you are threatening me over something you did not read the Talk history on. If you'd read it, you'd also see that the content objections (not the new section issue) were captious and contradictory. You are allowing nitery to block desperately needed balance on Leary's fan page. Do it again and I'll have the karma dragons visit you on your next acid trip. BillHaywood (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You are in a pattern of edit warring so don't get surprised if edits you make without a talk page discussion are reverted -----Snowded TALK 06:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi there, could you please self-revert your most recent edit to this article? The talk page is supporting removing the content. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You will have to spell out where all I can see is multiple debates, one unresolved RfC and a total mess -----Snowded TALK 08:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, the relevant discussion is at Talk:Race and intelligence#Do we like these new changes?. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to conclude, but then links to an open ANI discussion? I've got work to do now but will take another look this evening (UK time) -----Snowded TALK 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate it. The ANI discussion is irrelevant to the content in question. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you please look at this again? He's making a new attempt to do the same thing he did before: [1] 2600:1004:B10A:3B8D:688D:3BC5:92A1:5CF6 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Change: Reality

Change lead sentence from-"Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary."

Change lead sentence to- Reality is the state of things as they actually[1] exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.[2]

And this reference from PhilPapers: On “Self-Realization” – The Ultimate Norm of Arne Naess’s Ecosophy T Md Munir Hossain Talukder Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 3 (2):219-235 (2016).

Abstract: This paper considers the foundation of self-realization and the sense of morality that could justify Arne Naess’s claim ‘Self-realization is morally neutral,’ by focusing on the recent debate among deep ecologists. Self-realization, the ultimate norm of Naess’s ecosophy T, is the realization of the maxim ‘everything is interrelated.’ This norm seems to be based on two basic principles: the diminishing of narrow ego, and the integrity between the human and non-human worlds. The paper argues that the former is an extension of Plato’s idea of self-development or self-mastery while the latter is implicit in Aristotle’s holism. It defends that Self-realization is morally neutral only if the term ‘moral’ is considered in the Kantian sense. However, Naess reluctantly distinguishes between ethics and morality, which makes his approach less credible. The paper concludes that Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia supports Self-realization to qualify as a virtue.

Reality is the domain of post modern philosophy and modern psychology today. The existing lead does not provide a direct means to understanding reality...

This new lead is modern, understandable, cited, linked, and referenced, thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure it is well referenced - the title of the paper indicates a school of thought that you favour, it is not a mainline article and it isn't a third-party source which is what we should use for definitions. Restricting Realism to Actualism is simply wrong as realism is not confined to the analytic school. You might want to propose some text for the section if you can find a better source. My opinion is that the existing wording could be understood by any reader, your wording requires esoteric knowledge to understand. As a general suggestion, I think you should stop suggesting changes to the lede sections - you have a zero track record of success there. The lede reflects the article so focus on changes there first -----Snowded TALK 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If you have a free moment, please click on Encyclopedia-"Characteristics" and Analytic philosophy-"fourth paragraph"; hopefully you will enjoy...And what is a long retired person who favors Analytic philosophy to do with a benevolent editor... I'll try this: "Actualism is the direct means for Realism to be understandable." Third-party sourcing in philosophy is probably-actually impossible, but I aim to get better at editing here with you. I also referred you to "Analytic philosophy-the fourth lede paragraph", as an example of third-party, neutral-positioning for a "mainline" understanding of philosophy today. thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Third-party sourcing is easy on philosophy articles such as Stanford, the Oxford Companion; although in this case they tend to jump to Realism. In fact I've just asked if we should delete the article as it is an unreferenced fork. That aside what you can't do is to pick one article you happen to like and then change the lede based on your reading of it. Also you cannot define a whole field by one school of thought - analytic philosophy is only one perspective -----Snowded TALK 06:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page

Hi, thought I should send you this link to a discussion I started in response to your edit: Talk:Cynefin_framework#Seminal_works--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Extended cognition

Hello. I am currently considering merging multiple articles into Extended mind thesis. Among them is Extended cognition. As you've done a lot of work on that article, I would appreciate it if you gave your opinion in the merger discussion. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you revert my correcting edit at Talk:National Assembly for Wales?? Your post wasn't a response to me, but to another. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarify, who are your responding to there? Myself or Chipmunkdavies? GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't change the sequence of comments on the talk page GoodDay, I was partly responding to you -----Snowded TALK 04:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Who were you responding to at that discussion? Me or Chipmunkdavies. Your original indention showed it as a response to him, not me. Wish you'd clarify or I'll have to delete my post & make another one. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
In part a response to both of you - please stop trying to have the last word -----Snowded TALK 05:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussed elsewhere

Skylax30wrote today in Greek WP: "Αλλά δεν θα κάτσουμε να διορθώνουμε το αγγλικό, δίνοντας μάχη με άγνωστους επιθετικούς από το Κάρντιφ που απειλούν με "μόνιμη φραγή" (αναρρωτιέμαι αν έχει σχέση με κάποιον από εδώ)..." [2]

Translation: "But I don't have any interest in fixing the article in en.WP, fighting unknown attackers from Cardiff who threaten me with permanent ban (I wonder if they are linked to anyone in here)..." (my translation)

I thought you should know you are being mentioned in other WP projects. Cinadon36 10:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Almost meat puppetry? -----Snowded TALK 11:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeap, lol. Cinadon36 11:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the : Roman Empire Map on The European Union article

The image in question (the map of the roman empire) was part of the article before and there was no consensus anywhere about having it removed . I am honestly not sure how that's a political point or how my description made it look like it's a political point. If it seemed like that , my sincere apologies but that really wasn't the intention .. . Pretty much every country has maps of previous kingdoms/empires etc that led to their current form and I think it belongs there Romdwolf (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It was removed well over a month ago for good reason and no one objected so that is the default position. It did look (and would look) like an attempt to associate a voluntary coming together of indepednent countries with one of the most brutal Empires we have known hence my comment. I see another editor has now reverted your revert so talk page of the article is the place to continue if you feel strongly about it. -----Snowded TALK 05:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The link that you provided is the removal of the image of the Holy Roman Empire , not the Roman Empire . The edit in which it was removed was [3] with the reason given being "Remove a couple of images. The opening paragraph discusses the Fall of Rome, so a map of the Empire at its greatest extent is incongruous.". Regarding adding the image as a similarity between it and "one of the most brutal Empires" that wasn't really my intention and much like the UK has the map of the british empire, mongolia has the map of the mongol empire and turkey has the map of the ottoman empire (all of which are criticised [to put it mildly] quite harshly and more often evern harher than the roman empire is ) I feel like a map of rome belongs there due to its influence on the idea of a united europe... and to be honest I see rome as a net positive on european history ...but that's just my opinion . I understand that you're now removed from this process , this isn't an appeal to revert I just wanted to explain my position . It was more of a "rome's unity inspired" than a "look guys they're trying to build an empire" to be honest...(didn't even cross my mind ... i was genuinely confused about what political point) . Thanks . Romdwolf (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I would make the same argument - but the place for this discussion is the talk page of the article, You would need a reference that links the EU to either Empire -----Snowded TALK 10:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 shown interest in climate change. 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 the 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.

Doug Weller talk 11:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You may find this amusing

You've reverted this editor.[4] Doug Weller talk 08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I am now mortally offended that I didn't get the same insult :-) -----Snowded TALK 08:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

UK country infoboxes

Can you point me to the established consensus you're referring to?

If you're alluding to discussions on how to describe the four countries, I'm not changing how the infoboxes label these places as countries and they're all very clearly labelled as such on the top of each box. I'm changing out the templates to better conform with MOS:FONTSIZE, align UK countries with all Crown dependency and BOT articles, and to reduce use of a niche template. From one of your edit summaries, it seems you're most bothered by the name of the template, political division. A country is by definition a kind of political division. It's purposefully extremely generic so it can be applied to any political entity. Horserice (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You only made changes to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not to England or the UK. If there is a poicy decision to change them ALL to a different template fine but that is not what you did. -----Snowded TALK 13:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia servers were under maintenance and I could not apply the change to England before you started reverting my changes. The new infobox will not be applied to the UK article because it’s not currently used on sovereign states. Horserice (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So what is it used on? If it is designed for US States and canadian provinces I think you will see opposition. Whatever it should bre raised with other BI editors as that is where the origial consensus was reached. There is not a clear boundary between soverign state and nation anyway. I need to look at both templates however and will try and do that later today -----Snowded TALK 15:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It’s used on all places categorized as dependent territories, which themselves occupy an in-between space between sovereign and non-sovereign states. The template has been generic-ised such that it can be applied to any first-level administrative division. Horserice (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
OK I've looked at both templates and I can't see the point of a change. The country template works well and seems better balanced in emphasis and to be honest simply looks better. The use of large type bold to emphasise the soverign state is unecessary and detracts from the country status. A dependent territory template seems in appropriate for a country. -----Snowded TALK 16:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
better conform with MOS:FONTSIZE, align UK countries with all Crown dependency and BOT articles, and to reduce use of a niche template
Do you think these reasons are invalid?
use of large type bold to emphasise the soverign state is unecessary and detracts from the country status
The template isn't arbitrarily making that field text larger, it makes the entire infobox align with standard font sizing. I don't understand your point of it detracting from country status when it's literally at the top of the infobox highlighted in blue? If anything, it more clearly emphasizes that these places are countries.
The country template works well and seems better balanced in emphasis and to be honest simply looks better
I can't do much about your personal preference on what looks better, but on what you said about better balance: the current template deemphasizes these countries as sub-national divisions. It's unclear to me why the current template chooses to list currency, driving side, date format, and calling code when these are typically not used for integral first-level administrative divisions (Australian states, Canadian provinces, Russian republics/subjects, etc.). It inappropriately presents these details as distinguishable from the UK when they're not. When I made the change to the new infobox though, I chose to leave them in for consistency, but I do believe they should be removed.
dependent territory template seems inappropriate for a country
That's why it's been generic-ised? It just so happens that it's most frequently used on dependent territories as of right now. Horserice (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Countries are not the same thing as states, provinces or Russian republics - this is the issue which was done to death over multiple articles. If it really matters to you then it needs to discussed by editors interested in all those articles and I think most of us really don't want to open that can or worms for a inconsequential change. The UK is unique in having countries so what is the problem with a niche template? -----Snowded TALK 17:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Countries are not the same thing as states, provinces or Russian republics
I am not disputing this. I didn't change the wording to "consitutent country" or "constituent part" or add a qualifier of any kind to the word "country".
The UK is unique in having countries
Greenland is a country within Denmark.
Will start a discussion on the template talk page. Horserice (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It will need more engagement that editors who watch that page -----Snowded TALK 18:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You're free to advertise the discussion in other articles if you think it's necessary. Horserice (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Well its possible to argue that given you are seeking to disrupt a hard won consensus for no good purpose you should choose a different venue. Agreement on a template talk page would not overide consensus on subject matter articles. -----Snowded TALK 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, which consensus are you referring to? What I found is wholly related to the use of the word "Country", which, I emphasise again, I do not change in my edits at all. It seems like you're conflating my changes to layout style with substantive changes that I have not made. Since my changes are related only to the infobox and not the description of each place as a country, then the template talk is the most appropriate place to put the discussion in. Horserice (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, you are lumping countries in with Provinces & that was a specific issue and debate in achieving the consensus. There is no good reason to make a change to a perfectly functional template - its disruptive. It may be approproate to open up a discussion on not making changes on the country pages involved -----Snowded TALK 20:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you provide a specific reference to the consensus that you're referring to? I've already stated my reasons for why I think these changes would be an improvement. I'm not lumping UK countries with provinces when I've provided a clear example of a non-UK country that I'm drawing parallels with. Do you want more? Aruba, Curaçao, Saint Maarten. From my perspective, you're gatekeeping by just saying there's no good reason and not pointing to anything to support that. Horserice (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

OK let me try and summarise why this is an issue. The link you have is to the final research based approach to determining what language was most commonly used and that settled on Country. The EU desginating Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland as countries was also significant and resulted from direct lobbying of the EU as a result of a protracted Wikipedia debate with much edit warring (linked to the British Isles disputes) which ran over several years. If you want to look through the extensive archives on that there was a very strong attempt to say that the four countries of the UK were like Canadian Provinces, US States and should be treated as such. That was rejected but it persists in occassional disruption and the attempts to use 'constituent countries'. It also links to disputes over Unionism which have been ongoing on Wikipedia. The agreement on 'Country' meant that the country template was appropriate and there was no question raised about any change in template at that time. By using the same template as that used for Provinces (and yes you have said country I saw that) you are in effect returning to that debate and taking a softer perspective on the attempts to make the link which persist from random IPs etc. Greenland is a good case as most people would see it as a country and not realise the soverign status question. Modifying the UK template to allow it to be used for Greenland would be a much better route and I really can't see any argument (other than bureacratic ones) to get rid of it. Reopening a debate in which there are multiple sensititives is disruptive and a consensus on the template page is not going to be accepted on the article pages. -----Snowded TALK 08:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Constituent countries

Hi there, I remembered that you had commented on the issue fairly recently, and I see that the last post above is on related matters. Do you have a view on this? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I reversed the lot I think and put a note on the editors page -----Snowded TALK 17:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. For reference, do you know where the material about the agreed position is located?
I notice a certain user has come in for further visits to their old haunts, trying to repurpose another discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It is linked on each Countries talk page. If you mean GoodDay then this edit illustrates the problem. His current interventions on all UK articles are displaying the same behaviours which resulted first in a topic ban and then a wikipedia ban. No one holds an old crime against someone, unless they start to repeat the same crime in which case the same punishment may be appropriate. I think I am going to start assembling examples as a reimposition of the topic ban and also one on commenting without dealing directly with content may be necessary. -----Snowded TALK 07:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it's fairly evident at the England and the Wales talk pages but I think I may have initially just checked the Scotland talk page, where it is much less evident, listed among the FAQs, the content hidden.
I had been aware of GoodDay's widespread fly-in-the-ointment talk page presence in the past and had clocked their subsequent indef. As far as I remember, this was only ever as an observer and I don't think I was ever involved in any direct discussions.
You may have seen that I linked their dubious approach to me in November to promote the term on their behalf, in order to evade scrutiny. They tried to back out sharpish on realising I knew they were returning to the scene of past misdemeanours. When they touted it again here, in response to your comment on their return to old ways, I noted that earlier approach to me. In light of that, I'm not sure whether their responses to me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_Kingdom#Constituent_country and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Constituent_country indicate they'd forgotten they'd already tried that one on me, or that they had remebered and it was a deliberate dig. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I've given him fair warning -----Snowded TALK 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User warnings

In case you need help with your irony. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Thank you for your support on my user talk page. For the future, I think it is preferable to put warnings to other users their user talk page (with an edit summary in case the the warning is deleted), so that if an administrator later reviews the editor's actions the warning is explicit. When appropriate, it also helps to use one of the user talk namespace templates (see WikiProject User warnings). We should assume that an admin will not simply count the warnings, but will use them to help review a the issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid making it formal. but the time may now be there -----Snowded TALK 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: I think it is becoming a clear case of multiple levels of disruption and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----Snowded TALK 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Despite Sirjohnperrot's comments, I have never alleged or implied that he or she has altered source material; I think this is unlikely and I have no reason to suspect it.
The external link I challenged was introduced in these edits, and my comments on it are in here. Sirjohnperrot acknowledged that he or she uploaded this page to archive.org here. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification will check that out if it becomes necessary -----Snowded TALK 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer Dave (if I may) I'm Phil btw. You already know you're my all-time favourite editor and that I'm grateful for the valuable guidance received from you, Verbcatcher and everyone else - it is much needed and appreciated. Very happy for you to resume your mentoring if the community approves but it's either a block or a mentor for me, not both. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Silktort is one of the most experienced and respected Wikipedia editors. If that proposal is accepted you will be blocked and will have a right to appeal that block in a week's time (if it was a community bock it would be six months). The reason for that is for you to provide some evidence to the community that you have understood what went wrong this time and that you don't plan to repeat the behaviour. I'll happily help you work through that. You might get agreeement to no block if (and so far you haven't) you show that evidence now. My earlier suggestion was that you offer to accept a 1RR restriction and to make zero commentary on other editors. That might help, while this "Irony doesn't appear to be your strong suit friend." won't -----Snowded TALK 11:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
"You already know you are my all-time favourite editor..." ? Oh jeez ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a month to the day since I was moved to say that Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Dave that's very kind, I was a bit stunned to read his verdict tbh - "“O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" Anyway after that I had to give him the chance to put me straight but I suspect he'll pass and it'll be me and you again if you are still up for it. Do you know Elen Wyn Simpson at all? She was very helpful to my wife when researching the Bangor archives - please pass on the good wishes of Anne Rees if you do. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queen Sofía of Spain on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

political interference

Snowed you have a long and acclaimed history here, no doubt. This is even more reason why you should know full well not to pushed poorly sourced POV, especially when there is a huge personal bias involved in the article. You are notoriously exceptional at patrolling political articles and if you get a kick out of it, fine I won't stop you, but please reconsider the motives behind your adding of new material. Many thanks. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? You might want to read some core policy but I'll leave that to you to think about. Otherwise you have provided no diffs or other information relating to these accusations so forgive me if I ignore you until you do -----Snowded TALK 10:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Protegé

How are things settling in? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So far all good and there have been a few emails as well - so I have hope that this will all turn out for the best -----Snowded TALK 22:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Please stop editing where valid edits have been made such as grammar mistakes or basic information correcting.

Many thanks. - Tiger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerbws (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop creating sock puppets in an attempt to avoid a block. If you engage on the talk page and make your case and come clean on your original ID you might (just might) escape a permanent ban from editing on wikipedia -----Snowded TALK 07:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet account. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerbws (talk • contribs) 07:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The other one has bells on it -----Snowded TALK 07:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

For your information I make edits where I feel. I have a passion for English culture. I'm not a stock puppet or troll and I make valid edits to ensure complete transparency and quality material is met. Some of your work is often quite basic and tame, and doesn't get to the point. I appreciate your help, however, but my edits were constructive. I am not Florence and I have no connection to their account.

Well we have an identical pattern of an Ispwich based IP which becomes a brand new editor, then edit wars and refuses to use the talk page. Too much of a concidence. Self revert and propose the changes on the talk page and I might believe you. Otherwise I'll wait for PP or Admin action and then revert you again -----Snowded TALK 07:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not located in Ipswich. I'm located in Durham. Thanks for your concern. Always a pleasure to hear from you. But currently your concerns are irreverent. Have a nice day.


Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Florenceandthemachine32 -----Snowded TALK 05:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Closed - turns out to be a sock farm despite the protestations above link here -----Snowded TALK 14:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet comment

I'm making valid edit. I didn't know how to use wiki before ii only read the talk messages recently I will always uses the talk page now I promise. I just want to make that edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.203.73 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page -----Snowded TALK 18:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

deleting entire contribution?

Hey, you could have trimmed the section of Indian philosophy on the metaphysics page instead of removing it entirely. If you would have read, then you would have realized that contribution given by me was of same length and contained relevant information as given in vedanta and samkhya section. It was very much relevant to metaphysics and not at all an essay on the Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy has way too many thoughts and schools on metaphysics. I have left out the metaphysics of jainism, sikhism, and other ancient schools of Indian philosophy and included as less as possible. Please consider trimming the section instead of removing it completely and yes, please let the history be in chronological order Samkhya school and Gautam Buddha come before Aristotle --Kashi naresh (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Kashi naresh

Not really - I did that one on of your other entries but in this case it not only needs to be shorter it needs to be written in the same style as the rest of the article and have a lot less synthesis and original research. You might want to use your sandpit to draft material and invite other editors to comment -----Snowded TALK 17:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

MFD ?

Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, did you really mean to nominate the article talk page for deletion or did you mean to nominate the article for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah - yes the article. Is that an easy correction? -----Snowded TALK 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I've closed the MFD as wrong venue. You will need to nominate the article for deletion at AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - elementary mistake for which apologies. Have now corrected -----Snowded TALK 19:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Wales Act 2017 and Welsh Parliament

Hi mate. Not used this talk feature before so hope I've done it right! This is regarding the Welsh Parliament edit which you reversed of mine (I've now logged in).

The issue is whether the Welsh Act 2017 was a direct result of the 2011 Welsh devolution referendum - I disagree that it was. If you take a look at the 2011 Welsh devolution referendum page, it states:

"Regulations for the referendum, and the powers to be approved or rejected by it, were provided for in the Government of Wales Act 2006."

As a result, there was no Act needed by the UK Parliament after the referendum to enact what the people voted for. As mentioned above, this was provided by the Government of Wales Act 2006.

If you take a look at the Wales Act 2017 page, it states "the legislation is based on the proposals of the St David's Day Agreement which were not included in the Wales Act 2014." There is no mention of it being a result of the referendum that was held six years before it.

Let me know what you think.

Lighthouse3050 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a direct consequence (which might be an alternative wording) -----Snowded TALK 20:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by direct consequence? My interpretation of what you've said is that what the people voted for in the 2011 referendum was implemented by the Wales Act 2017 - which isn't the case. Lighthouse3050 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The place to discuss changes to the article is on the talk page of the article itself -----Snowded TALK 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
My apologies. Started a discussion on the article's talk page. Lighthouse3050 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please may I have an opinion

This diff shows a self described new editor deploying {{Z159}} on their talk page to mask out their reply whle making a reply. I am perplexed, and suspect, well, something. I just do not know what. I think it needs admin judgement Fiddle Faddle 20:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin - sorry if you got that impression. I do think about an RFA from time to time and may go for it as most of my work is monitoring. In that case it looks like something best ignored unless they carry on with the same sort of nonsense -----Snowded TALK 21:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Gravitas leads one to assume the person showing it is an admin.This makes my thoughts on adminship (for me) clear Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I hate losing an editor

I see your frustration on that editor's talk page. And that of others in the link you provided there is very clear.

I have had some success in unofficial mentoring, by which I mean guiding. If deemed appropriate I am willing to have a go, with good folk watching from afar, guiding me if necessary.

It may be that, because I have no mop nor bucket I am easier to accept by the editor.

Their work is excellent. Losing that would a great loss. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I volunteered in the first place - it would have been easy to let the AN resolution simply pass. I'm more than happy to pass the baton but I do think there needs to be some clear warning. He evidentally treated the mentoring deal as a token from his comments on the talk page. He was a hair's breath away from having to wait six months to even apply for readmission but he seems to have zero awareness of that. Continued failure to use diffs and cut and paste swathes of text after been told not to is yet another illustration of someone who either can't hear or doesn't want to. -----Snowded TALK 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I had the feeling it might be the reason. I'm more than happy to attempt to be one final try with no guarantee of success. They and I seem to have a cordial relationship. I suspect you and I have similar reserves of patience - elastic, but finite. I agree that a carefully crafted warning is most assuredly in order.
They and I have a cordial relationship at present. I also like the place they are writing about! Fiddle Faddle 19:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
So cordial I said it twice! Go me! Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I love the place he is writing about and visit whenever I can. But his latest response on the talk page indicates zero learning. If I was an uninvolved admin I'd block for a couple of weeks just to make the point! -----Snowded TALK 19:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is an interpersonal conflict issue when under pressure, almost always expressed somewhat politely. I understand the temptation to offer a short acting block, but it seems to me that more pressure would create more challenges. Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It is not my call and blocks are not meant to be punative - but when an editor shows zero evidence of learning it may be the only way to get their attention -----Snowded TALK 19:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Snowded, I understand completely, Blocks are one of the reasons I have chosen never to be an admin here. I find them a difficult thing. I have left a quiet offer on their talk page, as I am sure you have seen Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Good luck - his response to you is not encouraging. -----Snowded TALK 20:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I am neither encouraged nor discouraged. We will see. For me the main thing is that we have started talking. Others will judge if I have any effect Fiddle Faddle 20:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Been there before and the sarcastic response to my request he use diffs on the talk page of the article are all par for the course. I've pulled two other editors back from actual or threatened life time blocks but I don't think I'm the person to do it here. Happy to formally transfer mentorship if you and he propose it -----Snowded TALK 20:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's see what he says to my initial piece of guidance. We'll both know then, I think Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Calling people Dingos and wolves is not a good start, but fairly typical of the rhetoric. The suggestion that some people thought him innocent is also self-deceptive - you have your work cut out! -----Snowded TALK 20:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
If we move forwards it will be quick or not at all, if you see what I mean. You will be able to make an easy judgement along with others you ask to look in Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I have cautious optimism Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Terry Eagleton has a wonderful book "Hope without Optimism" which falls within the tradition of Moltmann and others - Hope is a virtue and one that should be adopted by Wikipedia editors. I think he wants to edit but can't resist poking sticks. My smily face suggestion was an attempt to modify the behaviour. -----Snowded TALK 07:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As with all things, time will tell. Hope without Optimism, eh? Well, I hope words form one retired old fart to another will allow him to reach a decision. I am optimistic that the correct decision will be reached before the community decides to impose its own decision. The earnests of good faith are there, but sometimes the olive branches can deliver mighty blows Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I think you were right to talk to him about using olive branches as a pointy stick! However I suspect that his apparent clumsiness with other editors is not a well intentioned accident but more a form of ego defense. In your shoes I would have left Deepfriedokra's warning to stand unqualified to make a point. But we will see. Will continue to monitor but I really hope he realises that the community is at limit of its patience -----Snowded TALK 08:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I detect a willingness. I'm trying to water and fertilise that, also being pleasant yet blunt. I'm trying to be an example of how to handle something one disagrees with, pretty much as you and I first bumped into each other. I made a point to you, you countered, I found elements I could agree with while disagreeing, and walked away. Later another editor showed that in at least this particular subset of WP your view was correct. Honour even, resulting in friendly discourse and subsequent mutual help Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Missed the DFO point, I read too fast. Hindsight suggest you are probably right Fiddle Faddle 08:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
And he is still in this quote "I really hope that of some those who have commented below can find the time to read the Caleb Rees section on the Talk Page and indeed the earlier ones as you suggested" seeking vindication; a plea of if only you listed to me without any real listening. -----Snowded TALK 10:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I know. I see movements, though, towards better thinking. But "By his deeds we shall know him" I retain my optimism for the present. In due course WP:ROPE may be implemented. Or he may demonstrate a better understanding of people's needs in interactions Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I left a short pause and then highlighted that sentence, gently, but solidly. Had the rets of the incident not occurred I think no-one would have interpreted it as snarky, but in this situation that is moot. This is pleasantly hard work Fiddle Faddle 11:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Good work but now you have Gooday attempting to stir the pot (something he does a lot) rather than leave things well along. -----Snowded TALK 12:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Snowded, I intend to ignore the pot stirring. I was tempted, but resisted admirably. So, so far, has HATB. Long may it continue.
I see a content dispute, or at least a disagreement, as par for the editing course. No-one says mentor and mentee should not edit the same articles, nor do they suggest that they must agree. It was resolved, after a somewhat longer discussion than one might wish. Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Well technically it was not a content dispute but one about policy/practice. As I remember it I said the article on Caleb needed to be there first per established practice and that should have closed the issue. The fact I was/am in the mentor role meant that our friend should not have reacted in the way he did (or to any editor for that matter). That raised an alarm that he didn't understand what had happened when he escaped a block by the skin of his teeth. Either way he now accepts that he was wrong following Canterbury Tail's intervention so all well and good. It makes sense not to respond to Goodday when he is in pot stirring mode but if you fancy another subject to advise ... -----Snowded TALK 13:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Checked that user talk page. Beyond my skillset, I think. To think I was once persuaded to stand for Arbcom... I have a feeling I might've run the risk of being appointed. I am glad changing domestic circumstances meant I had to withdraw
Agreed as policy/practice vs content dispute. Even so the outcome is similar. I hope, today, he would pull his horns in. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Frankfurt School on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic ASIDE

Hey. I took down my off-topic ASIDE at ARW. But here it is for you as a wiki-editor anyway. I hope you enjoy it in the spirit intended.

ASIDE: Gaining Nova Scotia among the Maritime Provinces is one of history's coulda-oughta-shoulda's. As I understand it, Nova Scotians cheer for the New England Patriots American football team, not for some other team in some 'other' winter Canadian sport. And also you should know, my nephew and half of the resident adult male population in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania is certifiably hockey-crazy.

And, were Quebec to become the fifty-second state (say, paired with Puerto Rico), Quebec could adopt the Code Napoleon as has Louisiana. While Puerto Rico would enter as larger than 20 states with 4 US Representatives, Quebec would enter as larger than 40 states with 10 US representatives. Unfortunately for the US, Quebec would fall from 23% of the Canadian Commons to 2% of the US House. Nova Scotia on the other hand might enter the Union on a par with similar sized New England states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Alas, that's just coulda-oughta-shoulda's, I fear.

On the other hand, in Canada, the US has a shared Saint Lawrence Seaway, a free-trade union progressing along, and their best friend in the international community, rivaled only by Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Oh, and there's Montreal, Molson beer, the 'Murdoch' TV series, Canadian Pacific Railway observation cars, and Gordon Lightfoot performed at Canada Day this year! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is all interesting although I would point out that during both the Revolution and the War of 1812 French Canadians did not support the US as expected and I still remember being on one of the Niagra on the Lake river boats where a Qubecois was harranging Americans with the result of the Battle of Queenstown heights! I spend a lot of time in the Maritimes and BC so I do know about the ever so polite Canadian differences .... -----Snowded TALK 05:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Audrey Strauss on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the wp:drn regarding the reverting of my summary of Chapter 11. 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 discussion is about the topic Who We Are and How We Got Here.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Yes, this is a bit of a formality, now, considering that you have already responded to my less formal notice. I went back over the instructions and saw that this is the correct way.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Thomas (poet), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Who We Are - Discussion

snowded In wp:talk a pyramid is shown, with the fourth level down being "Contradiction: states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence". The caption for the pyramid states: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid". On September 1, 2020 I asked you these questions:

"How did Doug and Chiswick answer me about the problem, listed in the "problems that may justify removal" section of the editing guidelines, concerning which problem justified removal of my contribution? How did they answer my point that there is no requirement that an editor provide a secondary source to show the importance of a contribution to an article? How did they answer my point that the Kahn letter was just such a secondary source, if one were needed, which is not the case, but even if it were, there is your secondary source. How did they answer my point that the "adding material" section of the editing guidelines made it clear that I would be free to add the material I added? If they answered me clearly, how did they answer these points?"

Your answer was a mere contradiction, not addressing any of my points, but apparently suggesting that an "experienced editor" can simply direct the novice's attention to a guideline, without any effort to show how that guideline addresses the issue at hand, or to defend the position that the guideline addresses the question at hand, when that position is challenged.

In WP:DISRUPTSIGNS It states that one form of disruptive editing is to "not engage in consensus building, by engaging in the following behavior -"a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits."

That is exactly what you have done. You have not cited opposing evidence. You have not answered my questions. Put it all together, and you are engaging in disruptive editing by stonewalling and by refusing to actually and truly engage in the process of consensus-building. There is nothing, and I am quite certain of this, nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that gives experienced editors superior rights or in any way excuses them from the process of consensus-building - particularly if they are removing another editor's contributions.

You seem like a conscientious person, someone who has done a lot. I am going to ask you very sincerely to fully engage in the consensus building process, or, in the alternative, let my contribution stand. I'm certainly willing to implement Timtempleton's suggestions. Engaging in consensus-building by giving a full explanation and answering another editor's question is your responsibility in the editing process. To fail to do this is disruptive editing. And that is uncool. You cannot avoid that responsibility and continue to edit a page, removing another editor's contribution(s). So, I'd like to ask you to either fully engage with the consensus-building process, answering questions and supporting your assertions with evidence, as the guidelines say you must. In the alternative, let my contribution, implementing the suggestions of TimTempleton, stand.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Truth Is King 24: The article's talk page is the place to seek consensus. When the consensus is general disagreement with your proposed text, it's best to move on to the next step rather than not acknowledging it and endlessly arguing. Trying to convince individual editors on their talk page is also unlikely to help... —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate The talk page discussion should be restricted to discussion of the article, rather than editor behavior. There has been no consensus on the article talk page, although one editor has been supportive of my proposed change, two other editors have disappeared, and the editor I'm addressing here has been, frankly, stonewalling, as I note above. Wikipedia does not work by votes, but rather by consensus-seeking, which every editor is obligated to support. I certainly hope that you did not mean to indicate that I have been endlessly arguing - that would be a very sad misstatement. I have been engaged in consensus-seeking - showing how the policies and guidelines support my introduction of my contribution. That is what everybody should do, and nobody should revert unless that editor is willing to seek consensus, in the same manner I have done. I have consistently cited guidelines and policies, and have shown how those policies and guidelines support my position. The editor's talk page is indeed the place to discuss an editor's disruptive editing.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The two other editors have dissapeared because they have already explained why the material should not be there. I've tried to explain that to you and you call it stone-walling. If you can't move on you will not get anywhere editing on wikipedia. You are plain wrong in saying that policies and guidelines support your opinion. If you think I or anyone else is being disruptive then you take it to ANI and see what the community think but you might want to read up on what can go wrong first. Especially given the general tone of your response to other editors; you have hardly any experiene and you are opining to editors who have been here for years -----Snowded TALK 04:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Actualism: In contemporary analytic philosophy, actualism is the view that everything there is (i.e., everything that has being, in the broadest sense) is actual.[1][2] Another phrasing of the thesis is that the domain of unrestricted quantification ranges over all and only actual existents.[3]
  2. ^ google definition
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_34&oldid=1048402712"