Jump to content

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 32

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


The Signpost: 09 March 2016

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Comment from Netoholic

I mean, you're tolling me, right? You can't seriously, simultaneously, hold two opposite viewpoints at the same time. -- Netoholic @ 09:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool it, accusing experienced editors of trolling realise is not on. You are simply on articles where I have a long history. in this case the context of use is different ----Snowded TALK 10:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)and why would I both trolling you? Far better things to do but you are hitting articles with which I have a long history.
"I have a long history" - that's a sign you're exhibiting ownership behaviour. --Netoholic @ 10:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
A long history is a factual statement in response to a petty accusation no more. Now please stop this silliness. If you disagree with me use the talk page of the article concerned. ----Snowded TALK 10:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Philosopher and philosophy are different articles, and for what it is worth, I agree with Snowded. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated additions of supposed Northern Ireland flag to articles

Hi! I note and support actions to remove the repeated additions of the supposed Northern Ireland flag to articles. I've warned Caulyflower about their additions to various templates (and I note they are already under 1rr for similar actions they kept on doing). I wonder if it is time to restrict all editing to Countries of the United Kingdom for a while and let things settle down? I think the same thing could be done for other articles until a different solution is worked up (though blocking some editors for a long time is something I feel a pull towards doing).  DDStretch  (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it the only way when we get into these petty edit wards over things that are already stabilised - I'd block if they edit ware without taking to talk page ----Snowded TALK 10:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why delete a citation?

Snowded, Thanks for your question to Scolaire. The 'Easter Rising" Talk section ( on the death of O'Carroll) has content on this matter that may be of interest to you and to Scolaire.CanK9 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait for Scolaire's response on the talk page ----Snowded TALK 01:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Snowded, Just to clarify issue. I did not delete any reference. It was Scolaire who deleted a reference that I had added. So I assume that he will be will be answering your question.CanK9 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Snowded. I think Scolaire may have replied to your question on the article talk page. He also sent me an answer (and his views) on my talk page. CanK9 (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't think it is necessary. You should also strike the 'Hello Peter' it is not acceptable wikipedia practice to out another editor. I would also ask an admin to remove the reference from history if I were you ----Snowded TALK 06:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Snowded. Sorry for the unauthorized saluation. (I deleted it). In an earlier communication to Scolaire, in thanking him for his work, I had followed the precedent of another correspondent who had addressed him by his first name, so I though this was accepted practice. I certainly did not intend to "out" him.CanK9 (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cymry

Os wyt yn siarad Cymraeg fel iaith cyntaf syt wyt yn gallu dweud dy fod yn meddwl amdanat dy hyn fel 'Welsh' ? Os mae wedi dysgy Cymreag wyt dwi'n deallt paham wyt yn dweud hynny - ond dydio ddim yn gywir am rwyn sydd wedi ei fagu'n siarad Cymraeg.. Mae dy ddadl fel bod rhywun un gofyn i Ffrancwr "do you think yourself as French" ag wrth sgwrs mae'n ateb "yes". Ond mae'n dweud hynny yn unig am dy fod wedi gofyn y cwestiwn yn Saesneg. Dydio ddim yn meddwl amdan ei hun fel 'Ffrench' o gwbl. Dwi'n ama mae dy wir reswm am newid fy 'mhost' ydi ofn cynhyrfu y 'di-Gymraeg'. Paid a meddwl fy mod yn credu fod gallu siarad cymraeg yn gwenud rwyn yn well mewn unrhyw ffordd - dwi ddim o gwbl ond paid a bod mor 'politically correct ag ofnys' a dywed y gwir (os mae Cymraeg ydi/oedd dy iaith gyntaf). Wrth sgwrs os mae wedi dysgu Cymraeg wyt, dwi'n deallt paham wyt ddim yn deallt ond ar y run gwynt does gennyt felly ddim hawl dadla yn groes i beth rwyf yn ddweud achos does gennyt ddim dealltwriaith o be dwi'n ddweud.

Newidia fy 'edit' yn ol os gweli di'n dda.

Tommymech (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and material should be accessible to all editors. I understand your argument, but it is your opinion. If you can find a source which supports your opinion then by all means out the edit back in. But without a source it is just your opinion and the default stands. Also in effect we have an english translation here anyway. I'v spent a lot of my time ensuring that Wales is designated as a nation and that welsh nationality is respected - but we have done that with properly sourced material ----Snowded TALK 21:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mediated process on country

Could you point to this mediated process about constituent country please. Also when reverting could I ask that you assert you agree with a reversion as otherwise it gives the impression that you are only doing it for for a consensus you might no agree with. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The debate originated on Wales and then extended - all links are here. Not sure what your comment on reverting is about----Snowded TALK 17:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying that one should not do things on wikipedia to follow rules unless one agrees with what is being said. I take it though that you actually do think that country is a better edit than constituent country. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
If something is agreed by the community then regardless of your own views it should be followed. ----Snowded TALK 03:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That is most definitely not true. One always has the option of ignoring and not doing something. Following a consensus when one does not agree with it is giving false weight to the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, once a consensus is agreed you enforce it. If you want to change it then you seek to change the consensus rather than waiting a few years and trying it on in the article. ----Snowded TALK 11:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I've raised a query about this at WP:VPM#Enforcing a consensus. Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you removing the robot attack ----Snowded TALK 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It was not an attack, I simply thought that what I put in was better. I am sorry if you considered it an attack. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been mentioned...

...in a discussion here [1]. Miles Creagh (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Decentralized autonomous organization

An article that you have been involved in editing—Decentralized autonomous organization—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Query

Hi Snowded! As you are from UK, you would probably be knowing about the official flag of Northern Ireland. I've seen several sources which informs that the Northern Irish government has been using the Union Jack as its national flag since 1972. Can you please explain to me what the actual matter is? 14.98.24.49 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Previously discussed. There is no distinct NI flag which is the context here. If you want to change it make a case on the talk page ----Snowded TALK 12:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wales. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   DDStretch  (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but you have been edit-warring. I felt I had to act. The article page will also be protected.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? A block is meant to prevent edit warring and follows a warning. I had stopped making changes to the article and I see no warning. I also have a clean (or had a clean) record over a decade which you should have taken into account before imposing a punitive sanction: 36 hours is not normal even for people who go over three reverts. Further I was restoring long a long standing and stable version of the page not trying to impose something and there was no consensus for the change. I appreciate the fact that you might have felt the need to make a point in respect of the attack on you here. I also think you are being a little hard on Dmcq. Better to have explained the prior discussions of which you were a part. I did my best but got no where, you might have.----Snowded TALK 21:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, should you think about bringing up my past again, in the related content dispute? Due keep in mind that I pushed for the both of you to be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you should consider your part in encouraging DMCQ when you know the history and the issues. Remember I supported your rehabilitation and thus was disappointed to see you reverting to old habits. ----Snowded TALK 21:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok.Seeing as the danger has passed, I've unblocked you and Dmrq. The article page remains protected. Please don't engage in edit-warring again, it really isn't a good idea. The 3rr limit is only the hard maximum number of rounds of reversions allowed, and evidence of edit-warring can be used to justify a block before this limit. More discussions are always good.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record - a block, per the rules, should not be imposed without a warning and the danger had passed before you imposed it. Going three reverts to get back to the original text on a subject where vandalism is the order of the day is not unreasonable. Bad block, much as I like like you, it was a bad block ----Snowded TALK 03:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually,m I agree with you, and I really must apologize to you about this. Of course, I can't undo the record, but I should not have done this. I will make sure it won't ever happen again to anyone at my hands. Once again, my apologies.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

and you saying that is one of the reasons I like you :-) Its OK but I do now have a blot on my record after a decade of clean (if not uncontroversial living). What you might do (which would be appreciated) is to either change the comment on the unblock or (if that is not possible) do a quick block and unblock with a comment to the effect that the previous block was an error as the editor concerned thought they were dealing with vandalism on an article frequently vandalising, had not been warned and had ceased to make the changes engaged on the edit page. I've seen that done by other admins. It would mean anyone looking at would see what you have said above. If I ever get my act together to enter a RFA then it might prevent early negative responses.----Snowded TALK 04:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying to you. I've done as your reasonably requested. The block was for one second with a summary pointing out the error of the block and a request to ignore it regarding any evaluation of you in the future. I hope that helps. Regards  DDStretch  (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologise I know you are busy and I knew you would get round to it. Thanks for doing that ----Snowded TALK 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Restrictions concerning editing about the Northern Ireland flag

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. I am sending you this to help you stop yourself from breaking any restrictions imposed by the Arbitration committee for matters concerned with "The Troubles"

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. Try to work within the restrictions placed upon us all, and it is far better to work with others than work against them. I am trying to inform everyone who has contributed to the discussions or edited about the Northern Ireland flag.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep spotted that. Given we are dealing with single purpose accounts and they are posting references that have already been dismissed by the RS notice board (and almost identical ones that are original research) I think the process of mediation is going to be hard but I respect you making the attempt. I see that Cauliflower has already written the headings to avoid the official question and just imply that if flags appear together that is enough. In effect we have three editors who tag team. Two are clear SPAs (one just blocked again for incivility) and the third claims to have come across the article recently and to be neutral but has a picture of King Billy on their user page :-) I suspect this will end up with Arbcom enforcement as all talk page attempts to take an evidence based approach or use a notice board are rejected ----Snowded TALK 06:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"Historical pageant"

FYI I rustled up a copy of the programme of The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebration, and the sequence in question is not actually part of the historical pageant celebrating Her Majesty's life. The first four events in the running order quite explicitly are, with titles such as "Toddler to Teenager" and "Wedding to Coronation" but the event with the sequence in question is fifth in the running order, and is entitled "Royal Cavalries", featuring The Royal Cavalry of Oman performing equestrian feats, and the Musical Ride of the Household Cavalry, in which the Sovereign's Life Guards and Blues and Royals perform precision drills and manouevres set to music. The flags of the four nations are displayed by members of the Blues and Royals during the latter. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't sound like that says anything to be honest. It doesn't justify you saying that you have inserted wording agreed at the RS notice board when you changed it ----Snowded TALK 05:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the day, the sources say what they say. We can't get into interpretation and original research. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The actual position at the RS notice board was that it should not be included. One editor was happy to see if a compromise could be reached but more or less gave up when you made a wider argument. Happy to remove it per WP:RS or go back to the RS notice board to try and agree something ----Snowded TALK 05:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not the position as I recall it, and other editors (Dmcq, Centuryofconfusion) seem to be closer to my recall than yours. Just remember that Flag of Northern Ireland is under 1RR, so you won't be able to remove it for another 24 hours or so, but you really shouldn't be in the business of removing sourced material that improves the article in any case. Probably best to go to RS noticeboard first, eh? All the best. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, your most recent edit seems generally fine to me as a compromise. But "official and other use" seems a tad general. I'd go with "official and ceremonial" myself. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Official and ceremonial is OK by me. Otherwise I haven't reverted so I don't know where you get that idea from.----Snowded TALK 05:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. I believe a revert is any action that removes content, or so I am led to believe. Anyway, there are dire warnings all over that article the like of which I've never seen, so it pays to be a bit careful. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Making alternations to edits, as long as you don't 'game' is not a revert----Snowded TALK 05:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Good to know. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Postponement of Discussion

Hi Snowded, I'm going to postpone the discussion at Siege of Londonderry for a while until things calm down. I don't doubt your expertise in a wide range of historical subjects, although I think that in this particular case your involvement may have just been a little bit too premature. It's best that you have some time to read up on the siege and the events surrounding the siege, and maybe some time in the future you might find that we can work together with a more collaborative spirit. As I've already said, the main controversy with the siege is the significance of its memory rather than the facts of the event itself. That tends to make the article more sensitive than it need be. You will of course have to agree that it's an interesting event in the midst of an interesting crossroads in history. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sigh ----Snowded TALK 19:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nazism

Hi Snowed, noted your comments. Is there a forum I can raise this issues as I believe a group of editors are biased in there view and not allowing any alternative views to be raised in the article. If you can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Secondly I have edited it a little in response to your comments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.94.237 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think there is bias then you can raise it an ANI. However You will have to assemble some third party sources to support your argument. As it stands you will be ignored and run the risk of further postings being deleted. ----Snowded TALK 19:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Snowded. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Explain yourself

Why do you insist on quite clearly stalking my edit contributions and reverting my edits and in discussions all you do is make personal attack time and time again towards me? Continue and I'll report you.--John Bird (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new editor who doesn't listen gets checked in case a pattern on one article is being repeated elsewhere. The majority of your edits I have let be, you just seem to get a little obsessive about things which doesn't work well in Wikipedia. Try working with editors, or using referenced process if people disagree with you. As to reporting me, feel free. If you want links as to how just ask, pleased to help out ----Snowded TALK 19:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't get "obsessive" but when someone continues to ask me to prove a negative when the burden of proof doesn't even lie on me then it gets a rather tedious and then you accuse me of not understanding how reliable sources work when I do know which is why I've asked about the reliability of one source in particular being used as a source. And I hope you're man enough to admit that it was you who made the first personal attack me on Tyndall's talk page when I simply was doubtful (and I still am) about whether or not it's really accurate at how he's being described in the leading part of the article. Ever since then I have had you and another user accuse me of trying to white wash his political beliefs when you would know fine well if you looked at my edits to his article that I've added many things worth while and I've tried to be fair on numerous of occasions and have repeatedly spoke about coming to some sort of compromise but to no avail. I've tried working with you, I want to work with you and everyone else that uses Wikipedia but to me it seems you have a problem me for some reason.--John Bird (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, use the talk page, use wikipedia process if people disagree with you and we should be OK. I don't see a personal attack, but if you have sensitivities I have trampled on then explain them and I'll try and avoid it for the sake of peace. Most of your edits are improvements, Some will not be accepted and you need to learn to let them go (hence the 'obsessive' point) ----Snowded TALK 19:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to take it to your talk page when I became aware that you were reverting my edits (e.g Austrians article) and then questioning one of the things I questioned about that was in an article (e.g Kafka's talk page). I don't even want to fall out with you and I want us to be okay. I wouldn't really call it me being sensitive, but I didn't take it kindly when you accused me of 'satinising' Tyndall's history or thinking that I don't understand how reliable sources work, etc. I want to reassure you that I don't want us to be enemies or too make this anything personal, I want us to get on with each other and edit articles cooperatively together.--John Bird (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding that Hitler was an Austrian was necessary, but I see you didn't reinstate that. Suggesting (as you did in the edit summary) that I was reverting all your posts was wrong. I've been pretty selective. I wouldn't see 'sanitising' as a personal attack, and the question of primary sources was explained to you by two other editors, so 'not understanding' seemed reasonable. Either way lets move on ,,,----Snowded TALK 07:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In your initial revert of my edit on the Austrians article you wrote "adding Hitler's Austrian ancestry seems odd to say the least" and now you're saying it was necessary. Are you a Wikipedia administrator? If not, I can't understand why you're even bothering to check on my edits. I took a few of your responses on the Tyndall talk page to be personal attacks. But yes okay, let's move on.--John Bird (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to provide diffs, I assume you are talking about different articles in which case I assume the context is different----Snowded TALK 08:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrians&diff=748562045&oldid=748013140 in the edit summary of this edit you wrote "Those changes don't really improve things and adding Hitler's Austrian ancestry seems odd to say the least" - that's a lot different what you wrote further up.

You didn't answer me, are you a Wikipedia administrator?--John Bird (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that diff has a comment which I stand by, when you broke WP:BRD I checked and it seemed as if you had not reinstated the Hitler was an Australian comment so I let the rest go. If you have issues please take them to talk page of the article concerned. Otherwise no I'm not but I can't see the relevance of the question. ----Snowded TALK 19:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian??? I asked to find out what the motive was in you following my edits, never mind.--John Bird (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cornwall

Please clarify the reasons for pouncing on my edits within (literally) seconds. Thank god the South West of England has such a committed and uber-vigilant keyboard warrior in its corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.99.222 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Its on a watch list and I have wikipedia open so anything on that watch list pings. If I hand't done it another editor would have picked up both of those changes. The first edit was inappropriate, we normally use the State rather than the Country at that level of description. The second missed the point that Cornwall is genetically celtic not english----Snowded TALK 17:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. Cornwall is a county within England. Clearly the wiki entry on cornish people (and for that matter the cornwall article itself) is being exploited as a way to pipe cornish nationalist propaganda to the masses. But yes, yes, I know, I know - resistance is futile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.99.222 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No, you will find that those of us who monitor the page have also stopped attempts to make Cornwall a country. Yes it is a county with England but its genetic history is Celtic - that goes back the Battle of Dyrham if you know your history. Kernow is in the same language group as Welsh and Briton. The second change you made was wrong because the context was that genetic history, the wording does not imply that Cornwall is not currently situated in England, ----Snowded TALK 18:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, of course only the most fringe element would insist on Cornwall being listed as a country in its on right. Nevertheless, it's pretty hard to make a case that both these articles are not politicized and biased in favor of Cornish nationalism, which already has its own article. Masking that Cornwall is in England is absolutely a part of propaganda dissemination. 'In the South West of Great Britain, administered by England' and 'unitary authority area of England within the United Kingdom' were obviously constructed for the sake of a quiet life and as a political compromise, NOT concise factual statements. Special considerations not afforded to say, Wiltshire, also a ceremonial county and unitary authority in England. Is this an encyclopedia or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.99.222 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Please sign your comments. If you think that is the case make the case on the talk page of the article concerned. I think you are wrong but you might get other editors to agree with you. ----Snowded TALK 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not necessary for me to sign comments or create a pretentious text avatar in order to participate. Yes, other editors do agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.99.222 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Text avatar's pretentious or otherwise are your own affair, signing comments is standard wikipedia process. I realise it is very cold in Indiana at the moment and you may be suffering from post-Trump trauma but there are some basic behaviour rules here. But its down to you if you want to participate or not. If you do then use the talk page of the article concerned. ----Snowded TALK 18:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your revert over at Reid Technique

I believe you have been caught up in a dispute which is complicated by an inappropriate refactoring done on the talk page. Causing you to misjudge when you performed this edit. If you view this diff, you will see the change was made with consensus. It was just complicated when the page was refactored by inappropriate moving comments between different sections, and them being collapsed. I appreciate your consideration on this matter. TiggerJay (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

OK I reverted but if GM wants to change it back .... ----Snowded TALK 07:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! TiggerJay (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge Management

Thank you. Excuse me, I am a novice on Wikipedia. I shall see if I can find relevant cited material and will get back to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilpw1 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you will but good luck! ----Snowded TALK 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on edit summary

Oh believe me, I always use the talk page when things come to an intersection of opinion and don't quickly revert edits, at least not as much as I used to. I'm just letting you know that I'm not dealing with your pettiness anymore. So of course I'd discuss my edits with all editors on the talk page, just not you.. (N0n3up (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC))

Then you probably exclude yourself from editing articles where I make changes. You've been around Wikipedia long enough for these childish tantrums to stop. You put in a link, I reverted it as over-linking. If you really felt strongly you should have said something on the talk page not reverted and posted petulant nonsense here. For the avoidance of doubt you may only post on this talk page if you have to provide a notice in accordance with wikipedia rules or if your mentor agrees in advance that it is legitimate to do so. ----Snowded TALK 05:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I could discuss about how it wasn't an over-link with you, but I'm more concerned about how you hastily revert my edits because of our past history, even if they're in articles where you often edit, you only seem to do it mostly to my edits compared to others. And if I give you the benefit of the doubt that you were concerned about the article, even so you were better off giving a more concrete explanation rather than barking petty remarks. Just remember that a revert from no-one but you will be thin ice for ANI's. Not to mention that you don't seem to make any effort to at least act diplomatic. So expect a long storm if you revert my edits, this only applies to you. Oh and just so you know, I posted an RfC on the British Empire talk page since your opinion dropped in value and to put more strain to your edits and reverts starting now. (N0n3up (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC))
I reverted it because it considered it was over-linking and I would have done that for any editor. . If you disagreed you should have raised it on the talk page. I have now idea what a 'barking petty remark is and I'm not especially interested either. Neither have I any idea what thin ice in respect of ANIs is. Please talk with your mentor and get some advise before you make posts like this. Otherwise for the last time - do not use my talk page for making any remark other than a formal notification. Anything else belongs on the talk page of the article concerned not here. ----Snowded TALK 22:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

I see another user has called you petty here and I cannot help but agree with them. I also don't appreciate your patronising tone on my Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBadBassist (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Then don[t edit war and put the effort into learning how to use wikipedia ----Snowded TALK 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

AFD of interest

Hello! As a participant in previous discussions about a related topic, you may be interested in commenting on this AFD. I am notifying everyone involved in previous debates on the subject. Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just curious... I'm sure you've been asked before...?

Are you in any way related to the other famous individual with whom you happen to share a surname? Have you ever explored any possible common paternal ancestry? Pure curiousity question - though I'm pretty sure if you ever were to apply for work as a consultant for an intelligence agency, any possible link will be exhaustively explored. Do you happen to know of any such connection? Eliyohub (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not that I know but the surname comes from a small geographical area and is Norse in origin. So I suspect if you go back far enough there will be a link. As to clearance it isn't an issue not would be it be. The former Police Chief of Hollywood who used to rival me for google hits before the advent of Edward and a lot of other people with he surname will tell you the same ----Snowded TALK 17:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, you answered so fast, I got hit by an edit conflict! Which geographical area does the surname emerge from? Do we have a wikipedia article on the area/district/whatever you can link me to? I'm curious to explore, may contact the former hollywood police chief you mentioned, and ask him the same question. Eliyohub (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Its North Yorkshire, Southern Northumbria if you look at the maps of geographical distribution. He (ex police chief) isn't by the way. I was doing my daily watch list check when the comment came in .... ----Snowded TALK 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
He was police chief of Beverly Hills, surely? Victor Maitland (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

I've responded on the talk page at the article. I have now added a reference from Nigel Copsey's book Anti-Fascism in Britain, which states the exact same thing. Blanking information because you just don't like it isn't acceptable practice. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, removing unreferenced material, or material not supported by the reference is reasonable. Tagging the article rather than continuing to revert is not edit warring, your reverting with personal attacks without using the talk page on the other hand is. Try and focus on content issues and working with other editors - and also read up on synthesis ----Snowded TALK 22:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted POV label

I undid this, though I think maybe I should have just re-edited to add the templates - I'm not sure if you were cleaning up other edits also, but I did start a talk page for the POV label - I started with irrelevant citation, but if there is interest I can say more. There are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems starting from the first paragraph. Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a longer look. I saw a talk page item but that didn't seem to be about the section tagged, but rather a legitimate removal of material about personal violence ----Snowded TALK 09:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

UK Oversea Territories

Can you please tell me why you keep on removing the map of the oversea territories from the UK Wiki? Arjan (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it has little to do with the article. The overseas territories are not part of the United Kingdom per se, but have a legacy aspect from Empire. If you want it there make the case on the talk page. Other editors may agree with you.. But the talk page of the article is where you should be with this----Snowded TALK 14:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Heading for a longer block if you carry on like this"

What are you talking about?Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Work it out, but reading WP:BRD might not be a bad start----Snowded TALK 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh I've notified Apollo of BRD more than enough times. They will never learn. Mabuska (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I suspect not but WP:AGF ----Snowded TALK 06:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Feminism

Apparently you're not through with being a stalking a nuissance with reverting the pages I edit. Not to mention you haven't edited Feminism until now thus it can be determined that your revert consists of WP:HOUND. (N0n3up (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

Its on my watch list I'm afraid, I suggest a little less paranoia and more attention to wikipedia practice ----Snowded TALK 21:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let's say that it is on your watchlist, minor edits should be the least of your problems. Let alone the fact that either edit is equally sourced. And universally speaking, Feminism, specially it's origins are mostly associated with the UK and eventually reaching the US. By the way, how can I be sure it was on your watchlist? I know it's a dumb question but still. (N0n3up (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
It's your opinion not sourced material. And yes it is a dumb question and yes you should be careful leaving these type of personal attacks on another editors talk page. ----Snowded TALK 21:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He has been stalking me as well or "monitoring" as he would call it so you might not be paranoid.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

didums, you've got a bunch of admins monitoring you as well and a block record to go with it ----Snowded TALK 21:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Apollo The Logician Right, and Snowden, what "personal attacks" did I leave behind? Care to specify? (N0n3up (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
Go talk to your mentor, you need (as ever) to learn to work with other editors and live with the fact that your edits may be reverted. Now please don't waste effort on my talk page for another other than formal notifications. ----Snowded TALK 21:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Snowded is always so pleasant to talk to isn't he? Always so courteous and kind.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Remarkably tolerant, so pleased you noticed. Now please stop wasting my time. ----Snowded TALK 22:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

YouTube

The YouTube video is an interview with Sean MacEoin so I don't see the problemApollo The Logician (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole idea is that we work of reliable third party sources. To use YouTube is to use a primary source. If it really is significant there should be a secondary source----Snowded TALK 20:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how someone who took part in an attack is not an RS regarding that attack. Witness statements are a big part of the historical method.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Read WP:RS and WP:OR sand WP:SYNTH ----Snowded TALK 20:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Have you read WP:PRIMARYApollo The Logician (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes and there are circumstances under which a primary source can be used. But it is not desirable and I repeat, anything significant enough to be in wikipedia should have a reliable third party source. You would be better off seeking one of those rather than leaving messages here. ----Snowded TALK 21:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I was once involved in a dispute years ago over Youtube as a source coming from Snowdeds side of the argument however was told by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard it is alright to use Youtube, for example when stating what happened in an episode of a program, referencing a news report from a reputable source say BBC or CNN or a documentary etc. I haven't seen the clip in question here but if put in proper context and from a reliable provider Youtube is a viable source to use. If you are however making your own interpretation which is not explicitly mentioned in the clip then no. Mabuska (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The thing here is establishing the importance of a news item ----Snowded TALK 02:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Then Apollo should take it to the RSN and see what they make of it compared to his edit. Mabuska (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

NLP AFD

Hi, as somebody who has contributed occasionally to articles on neuro-linguistic programming I wondered if you could have a look at this AfD, which is not getting much attention. Famousdog (c) 07:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

added 'or from' to define English, either by birth, ancestry or growth environment

In regards to defining someone as English, it notes someone who is 'native', would this include people of English hertiage/ancestry as the defintion of 'native' only seems to allude individuals who were born there, not the former? If so then leave it as 'native'. It should also be noted that the article for 'Welsh People', in addition to 'natives' also includes 'otherwise associated with Wales'. 90.195.139.125 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)20:18, 25th July 2017

Native would include ancestry in common use I think, but the place for this (and for seeking consistency between pages) is the talk page of the article concerned. You can open a discussion on one and post a link to the talk pages of the others to get interested editors engaged. ----Snowded TALK 05:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Scotland & England

Hi there,

My edits were made to introduce consistency between the infoboxes in the Wales and Northern Ireland articles, and the England and Scotland articles.

Either all should mention the PM (under the 'UK' header), or should not.

--RaviC (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove from Wales and Northern Ireland then, none of the four countries has a Prime Minister ----Snowded TALK 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. --RaviC (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That was fast :-) ----Snowded TALK 16:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reactivation of WikiProject Objectivism

Hi Snowded,

I am reactivating WikiProject Objectivism. You are currently listed as a participant of the project. I am going to purge the list. If you would still like to be on the list, please comment below on whether or not you would like to be on the list. I will wait two weeks and update the list on August 22nd.

Thanks,

Michipedian (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not TallNapoleon ----Snowded TALK 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah you corrected. No not interested but thanks for checking ----Snowded TALK 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was just copy-and-pasting the same message, and the original one was on TallNapoleon's page. Thanks for letting me know. Michipedian (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Labour Party (UK)

An exact case was given if you read the edit summary! as to why it was reversed. It makes no sense stating at the beginning it is a centre-left party, then saying it has an alliance of social-democratic, socialist and trade-unionist outlooks, using these 3 outlooks as to describe a broad church party. That is not a broad church party, saying the party is a social democratic party and democratic socialist party which it is, then saying it is a broad church bringing together views from the centre-left and centre of British politics makes more sense. The current opening sentence is not factually adequate.

That is your opinion. You make the case on the talk page of the article concerned and see if other editors agree with you or not. Read WP:BRD----Snowded TALK 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Never existed

Yep it didn't exist at all in any way, oh wait. Looks like it did. Ah well it was only advice not policy it seems but considering your latest response I'll not strike the comments. Mabuska (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Even that reference isn't to a RfC :-) But striking or not is your affair, I remain of the opinion that it is intimidatory unless you were sure of your grounds ----Snowded TALK 05:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I was sure of my grounds and it was a sigh of frustration at editors who simply nod or shake their heads without any other input especially in a straw poll. Intimidatory? Nothing of the sort. Or maybe those of us over here in Northern Ireland are too thcik skinned to regard it as such considering everything else here. Mabuska (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
In my view any statement about what people should not should not to should blinked to the policy and if you can't do that then you should leave it alone. In an RfC stating"agree per X" is very common. I'd be more included to get frustrated at people who waste by time by rephrasing or repeating ----Snowded TALK 20:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snowded. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_32&oldid=1144091177"