Wikipedia

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 31

< User talk:Snowded
Latest comment: 8 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 02 March 2016


Notice

Latest comment: 9 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. (N0n3up (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

I see you thought better of this, probably a good thing as it would have simply brought attention to your own problematic behaviour ----Snowded TALK 17:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I removed the notice was because Cliftonian and LjL suggested it. But apparently you are going out of reason by asserting yourself without argument. The only argument you provided is "Nuclear Power and whole bunch of other things that to my mind are different from the commercial/naval domination of the British Empire". "To your mind" is not a precise argument, yet I'm being patient with you by putting up with your unbased edits to reach a solution. (N0n3up (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Go back there, feel free ----Snowded TALK 17:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention threatening me Again by accusing me for edit-warring when I didn't even revert you and discussing this on the talk page and "daring" me in a mocking way to repost the complaint, I'm stunned. (N0n3up (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
If you are that confident of your position take it to ANI. I not daring you I'm simply saying that if you feel so strongly you should take it there. I don't think you will like the result but its up to you. As to mockery, well if you continue like this it will be tempting ----Snowded TALK 17:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do you constantly deny that the British Empire was a Superpower and even if it was in it's latter stages, it still was and needs to be posted. Why do you deny this despite the provided sources when you didn't even provide anything? You say that I Edit-war by putting up the version you suggested as a compromise and deleted it saying I messed it up by putting it there? Who does that?? Then saying it shouldn't be there simply because three (including you) disagree without even providing sources? (N0n3up (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
You even deleted GoodDay's edit, you won't let anyone edit simply because you don't like it. (N0n3up (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Snowded, stop your incessant baiting. You're quite capable of getting your point across without it. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa The problem lies that Snowded refuses to acknowledge a fact even if supported by sources because three users (including himself) don't like it. The worst part is that they didn't provide sources themselves and keeps threatening me in every occasion he has. (N0n3up (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
You two really do deserve each other. ----Snowded TALK 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

{{subst:DRN notice}} Not filing party, just letting you know. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, thanks I've responded ----Snowded TALK 06:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Howdy Snowy. It's RFC, not RFA ;) GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Well spotted ----Snowded TALK 06:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
No prob. PS- ya may want to check your (17:06 Oct 29) comment at Talk:British Empire, swell ;) GoodDay (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
OK will do. Otherwise I suggest you try and calm our friend down, S/he is heading for ANI at this rate with personal attacks and the use of canvassing and forum shopping. ----Snowded TALK 06:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Btw, the canvassing accusation is also false. I went to Cliftonian because he helped resolve an edit dispute a while ago as I left him message here since I've seen he was also involved in the same topic during that time. And he wasn't the first I went to, I wennt to Bishonen first, another editor I knew along the way and left her a message here because they seemed honest and very porfessional in the way they have handeled things as I've seen And tell me again about personal attacks. (N0n3up (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
OK so two requests for advice and two direct canvassing attempts subsequently. So even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on the first two the latest are clear attempts. I've said this before but you really need to calm down and check your own comments are grammatical and avoid personal attacks. You obviously have a problem in comprehending wikipedia rules, not just on edit warring but also on what is or is not a personal attack. A wry comment such as the one you reference is not a personal attack. On the other hand I've seen editors permanently blocked for accusing others of lying to you might want to retract some of your more extreme statements. If you carry on in this intemperate way you are going to end up with someone raising your behaviour at ANI and then all edits will be reviewed----Snowded TALK 07:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
With all honesty. I see you're trying to manipulate the story as you see fit when that isn't true. I never used any personal attacks and you know that if you refer to this as a personal attack, then you're wrong because it's not. What you said about me and that other editor here is a a mockery thus a personal attack. And at this point you failed to keep the topic on the British Empire which was what we're supposed to be discussing. (N0n3up (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
Don't say I didn't give you a chance to retract ----Snowded TALK 08:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Then tell me what I'm supposed to do right now? (N0n3up (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
Go away and read WP:NPA and WP:BRD. Strike out recent comments that are personal attacks. If you really, really think the Super-power thing is important then you need to make a concrete proposal on the talk page that puts the phrase into its historical context and indicate where you would place it. Just adding a sentence onto a paragraph is not enough. To be clear I am not at all sure we need any change but I am prepared to look at one. Once you have that and it has been discussed, if you are unhappy with the result then you can raise an RFC. You should stop forum shopping at ANI and Dispute Resolution. You should review a comment carefully for grammar and content focus before you post it. You should not approach individual editors to contribute. You might want to consider asking for a mentor to help you learn the ropes. ----Snowded TALK 08:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Where can I find a mentor? And where are the personal attacks? since I never attacked you in any personal way. (N0n3up (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
Calling someone a liar is a personal attack, accusing them of manipulating the story is a personal attack. Basically you should simply stop making any comments about another editor and focus on content. This link will tell you about mentorship. I'm happy to help if it gets you into a better place but a lot of this material is easy to find. You might want to hunt around in the help section, look at the links on the standard welcome message etc.----Snowded TALK 08:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the link. And as a personal favor, may I ask you to have first concentrated on the topic of the British Empire instead of poking about in my block log and history like you did here. I indeed would appreciate that. Like you said, comment on the edit, not editor. (N0n3up (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

Respect WP:BRD and stop forum shopping and there will be no need ----Snowded TALK 09:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

British Empire

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

The question to put forward the point of history when Britain was a "Superpower" is still going on...... But for now, I would like to know if I can make a small wording fix on the part where it says "global power" from global to world? It's repeated in the top paragraph, doesn't sound grammatically correct and Many articles, sources, sites and all information about the British Empire refer to it as a "world power" and never a "global power". Do I have permission to do that fix? or do I have to do a long and complicated process to do that very small one-word change? (N0n3up (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

I have already answered this on the talk page. It is not a grammatical error. Further nothing is ongoing - you have no support and really need to let this one go. ----Snowded TALK 05:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No support? No one has even disagreed to this and you talk as if someone didn't agree with this. Yet you keep doing this to every edit that I do. I'm doing WP:BRD and until someone reverts the edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss in the talk page. Most of infos I've seen talking about the British Empire call it a "world power" and not a "global power". I could say the same about your unsupported edit here, yet you keep restraining my edits. And trust me, my interpretation of WP:BRD is correct. (N0n3up (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
Just checked my BRD interpretation here. And I did that here as you can see I'm being transparent in letting you know of the change instead of being sly about it. You only deleted this because I "have no support" (quoting from your top post) whe no one even commented on it yet, and please, no more excuses and double-morality to manipulate an article's edit. (N0n3up (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
You are wrong - see your talk page. Reasons were given before and you need to stop personal attacks. At this rate you are heading for a certain block ----Snowded TALK 07:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
In no part of the talk page has anyone disagreed to this wording, again, you aren't giving a consice reason to why you only revert my edits and again, you're making false accusations of edit-warring (my edits didn't go up to 3RR) and of personal attacks for pointing out and action you're doing. (N0n3up (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

1We use language consistently in wikipedia so I have reverted your change which resulted in inconsistent language between paragraph 1 and 3. There is no inconsistent language in this. You bring one reason to why you revert my edit, then you give another. you keep changing your story. Not really, I started by point out there was no grammatical error and when you didn't understand that very basic point expanded on the point. My concerns about your understanding of English deepen.

2 There is nothing remotely ungrammatical about that and its not just me saying that the article has been through GA review.

  • Perhaps there is no grammatical error, but most sources on the British Empire call it a "world power", not a "global power" and need to use common vocabulary.
    • 'Most sources' seems to be your opinion, we can find both. Given that the article has been through GA review I see no need to change it especially as 'global' is better English

3 This has already been explained to you on the talk page so you are edit warring.

  • You haven't provided any reason whatsoever why you deleted my edit other that "no one agrees with you" but no one has even disagreed with this edit, and again, If someone reverts this edit I would be more than happy to discuss on talk page.
    • Nonsense, I have told you why in edit summaries and here that is more than good enough. Sorry but you do have disagreement and you have not made a case for change.

4 You can't decide that your interpretation of WP:BRD is the right one when no one else supports you. To quote you on Dr K's page ' But if someone reverts my edit, I go to talk page for discussion'. That happened, you go to the talk page. And you were reverted on this before with a reason (its not ungrammatical) which I had had to repeat today.

  • You are the one who keeps reverting this edit when no one disagrees (yet). And if my and Dr.K.'s interpretation of BOLD isn't correct, I can only assume that no-ones except your interpretation is correct.
    • I disagree so I have reverted it. You were BOLD, you have been REVERTED, now you have to make the case for change, you should not be BOLD again without agreement. That is actually what you said on Dr K's talk page and he agreed with the statement (as do I). So act per the statement please.

5 You have already been censured for personal attacks on the Disputes page where you have been forum shopping.

  • There is zero censures of personal attacks nor have I ever personally-attacked you in any way.
    • You either have no read or you don't understand that one paragraph of your comments was hatted with an injection to stop making personal attacks. If you read some of your comments here they are clear attacks.

6 No one is interested in your obsession with two small changes on an article which has been through GA review.

  • Again, this is not about the "Superpower" argument we've went through, this is about another small minor change I did on the article. Again, this is about you deleting every edit I do.
    • You have no right to have any edit accepted. Neither of your small changes improved the article, neither have been accepted. Make a sensible edit it won't be deleted. ----

7 Get a mentor and stop edit warring, or this is going to have to go for review and given your history you are likely to be looking at a block at least.

  • Again, I never edit-warred. You're being dishonest all the time. One aspect is that I provided sources, concrete arguments and had consensus over my edit, yet you keep bringing up new excuses to stop me from editing anything, and I never edit-warred, I never crossed the 3RR but went to discuss on the talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
    • You have been reverted and have reinstated edits without agreement. That is edit warring. Read the 3RR notice, edit warring does not have to go to three. You seem to confuse your making a statement on the talk page with discussion. Until you have explicit agreement you cannot make a change.

It might not be ungrammatical, but all sources regarding the British Empire call it a "world power" not a "global power". Again, you are the only one putting on hold in this, Now, do I have permission, or do I have to go through a long process for one small wording? Why do you overcomplicate things? (N0n3up (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

All sources, LOL, you have published a metastudy on that have you? If you want to make a disputed change you will have to go through a long process

NOW A VERY CLEAR STATEMENT: I am not interested in your commenting on this talk page. If you want to make a change you make a proposal on the talk page. If it is not accepted well that is life. If you think it important raise a RfC. If you don't make a specific proposal on the talk page, or simply make the same point again no one is obliged to keep answering you. Lack of an answer does not mean you have authority to make a change. ----Snowded TALK 23:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Comments by N0n3up have been italicised

The problem is that you arethe one making me go through this process except everyone else. I did the edit according to BOLD but no one reverted it, except you! And the reason being that no one agreed yet. That's the BOLD process, if no one agrees, they revert it, Simple. Not everything works like a Cynefin system y'know. (N0n3up (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
One editor reverting you is all it takes, at that point you have to get agreement on the talk page to make a change and you don't have it. No idea how that issue remotely relates to Cynefin which by the way is not a system, its a decision support framework. But never mind. Now please stop littering my talk page with a minor issue, use the talk page of the article ----Snowded TALK 23:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take well the "old habits" comment. I thought there could be another term other then "world" or "global", which could be used. The longer that dispute continues, the more likely an editor may get blocked. Anyways, I'll stay away from it, if you like. PS- Thanks for not declaring me a troll & deleting my post, as someone else did, in another article, a few days ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to be gentle, but you used to have a habit of dropping in unexplained suggestions or comments on pages during the BI days and this seemed close. Neither is there a dispute. We have one tendentious editor who simply won't give up. The way N0n3up is going around raising storms in teacups and forum shopping is going to get him or her a ban sooner or later, English skills seem very limited both in comments but also in his/her ability to understand what is being said. ----Snowded TALK 00
36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I've advised the editor-in-question to drop his proposal. PS: Please understand, that having served a 1-year ban followed by a 1-year probation, can leave an editor a tad sensative about any suggestions of disruption. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New Statesman

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I didn't realise that by having been closely involved in the action there rendered anything I had to say on events as suspicious! If that's the case, I take back any minor changes I introduced and simply say all of them are factual and fair enough if you'd rather remove them.Vistibule (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As a long time reader I think they were all very accurate - but in wikipedia they have to be supported by third party sources ----Snowded TALK 10:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

1RR breach

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

You breached it. Murry1975 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So an editor makes a change which is contested and then restores that change? Is that a breech of 1RR? if not then we need to get the policy checked as that allows a disruptive editor to make changes and then simply restore them preventing others from putting back the stable state. More than happy to raise it for clarification if you genuinely think that is permitted. And by the way, my first change was to accept one change and remove others, not to revert the whole change ----Snowded TALK 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If I may butt in... a second editor can always re-remove the contested change, and then the editor who wanted that change can't introduce it again under 1RR. But otherwise, yeah, they can make one revert, and others can make one revert. Partial reverts do count per WP:3RR ("whether in whole or in part"). LjL (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
OK so let me see if I have this right. Editor 1 makes a change that Editor 2 reverts in whole or in part. Editor 1 then reverts the reversion - Is editor 1 in breech of 1RR? ----Snowded TALK 15:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No (unless the original change was actually a revert, too). I'll add, however, that if the change is quite controversial, chances are an Editor 3 will revert again and bring the article back to its original state; and then, Editor 1 can no longer revert. LjL (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Then that rewards disruptive editing, it means the person making a change can simply revert once and often get away with it. If that is the case then I think it needs clarification. In this case we have had multiple removals of the word 'terrorist' (to take one example) and the sheer number of edits make it difficult for other concerned editors to keep up. Why it means in practice is that an article under a 1RR restriction has less protection that one which doesn't where WP:BRD would rule behaviour ----Snowded TALK 15:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
OK so Snowded isnt in breach, and now the other editor cant revert again. Did I get that right? Murry1975 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got to go out now, so interested in views, although I can't respond for some hours. But I'm happy to put the case together with some more serious examples (this one is pretty minor in wording) and get clarification from Arbcom. In this case we also have an editor who will wait a few months and reinstate a controversial edit with a misleading edit summary. So there are multiple complications here. Whatever it either isn't clear or its problematic in restricting disruptive behaviour (or both) ----Snowded TALK 16:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Snowded: if they're reinstating a previous edit, then that's a revert. LjL (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If only two editors are involved, then under normal WP:3RR rule, you have to revert disruptive editing three times, which already makes you liable to an edit warring sanction (since admins don't have to witness 4 edits to call it edit warring), and if the other editor (who made the original changes) does the same, they'll "win". 1RR is the same, just with less of a headache because it doesn't take going over 3. In both cases, there need to be more editors than just one opposed to the controversial edits. If there are only two editors involved, then possible solutions include getting a third opinion. @Murry1975: I haven't had a look at the actual circumstances, but I think I've given as clear an explanation of my understanding of the rules as I can. LjL (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
But surely the default position is that if edits are contested the stable version stands until there is agreement to change? ----Snowded TALK 16:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If the editor originally introducing the change just reverts the revert back in without discussion, an admin could conceivably consider that edit warring, even if it's just done once, at least when you're under WP:1RR, but I'm not an admin and I cannot really say how one would act. My explanations were strictly from a 1RR-specific point of view. LjL (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly - needs clarification Will try and draft something.. ----Snowded TALK 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, Snowded did not breach the 1RR rule. His first revert was partial, while his second revert was full. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban regarding Heathenry

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Snowded; I'm thinking of taking steps to deal with the disruptive editing and damage to Heathenry themed articles. After I specified that ThorLives was not suitable to undertake the GA, they then went and presented themselves as a reviewer for the second GAN I initiated too (I've had to initiate it for this third time). Of course, alongside the hijacking of the GAN process, we also have various instances of edit warring, acting against consensus, creating a coatrack article, harassing other articles, and the like. Do you think that this would be sufficient to secure a Topic Ban, or would I simply be wasting my time? Any advice would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is pretty close. Happy to help drafting something ----Snowded TALK 11:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Snowded. I'll put together something basic, and then let you take a look at it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban on User:Thor Lives which prohibits them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of Heathenry. This is in response to their repeated disruptive editing on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by their self-adherence to Odinism (a form of Heathenry). During August and September they were particularly active on the Heathenry page, where they engaged in repeated edit warring [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], acted against two consensus decision by renaming the article [6] [7] [8] and adding disputed material [9], deleted reliably-referenced (academic) material [10], and added non-reliably referenced material, which they insist is valid [11]. On the talk page they engaged in personal attacks against other editors [12] [13], made false allegations of sock puppetry [14] and engaged in "outing", a serious form of harassment [15] [16]. Throughout, I was forced to resort to RfCs and temporary blocks on editing the article to prevent the disruptive behaviour.

After their disruptive editing on the Heathenry page was thwarted by myself and other editors, Thor Lives focused his attentions on the Odinism page, which, as User:Snowded has pointed out, has basically been formed into a coatrack article in which Thor Lives has repeated many of the problems that were raised over at Heathenry. Most recently, when I nominated the Heathenry article at GAN earlier this week, Thor Lives nominated himself as reviewer (despite having never reviewed a GAN before) and from his comments it was apparent that he simply wanted to use this process as a platform to try and force his (previously rejected) ideas onto the article. Pointing this out to him, I terminated the GAN and re-nominated it, however he again presented himself as a reviewer (at which I had to terminate yet again, and re-nominate for a third time). This pattern of disruptive editing has been going on for at least four months now, and is having a real detrimental effect on these Paganism-themed articles and a draining impact on the constructive editors working to improve them. Accordingly, it is hoped that administrators take action to implement the proposed topic ban.

How does that sound, Snowded? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You might want to structure it a bit under three headings (i) Using GA nomination process (ii) creating a coatrack article (iii) general disruption. Open with a request for a community block on the GA issue and ask if the community thinks a topic ban might also be necessary. My view - but I'll support it as is ----Snowded TALK 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC).
I can appreciate why you would recommend a structural change to my paragraphs, however I fear that placing the most recent events first divorces them from the wider context of ThorLives' disruptive behaviour. Thus, by giving a background to the events of August and September it provides a much better background to understanding why they are coatracking and hijacking GAN. However, I have also taken on board your recommendation that I make this a community ban decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The essence of ANI is getting people to see the essence quickly. Maybe start with "User Thor Lives has followed up a series of disruptive edits to XXX by usurping the GA process. This is on top of his creating a coat rack article. I would like to ask .... " Then have three sub headings for those who want more evidence? ----Snowded TALK 13:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I submitted my version here before reading that final post of yours. Apologies, although I could try to make some revisions to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Snowded; I just realised that although stating that you were supportive of sanctions, you haven't expressed support for a topic ban in the "Proposed topic ban" section. While of course there is no pressure at all on you to do so, I was wondering if you had not done so for a particular reason? Is there a different form of sanction that you would prefer? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well you went to the Administrators Notice Board not ANI and I'm not an admin. ANI is for the whole community, but this one is meant (I thought) for administrators to discuss issues. I'll take another look. I supported the point and thought that they were going to take action re the GA----Snowded TALK 03:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apology

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to apolgize for my possibly overzealous editing on English Defence League. I was attempting to be bold, but clearly ran into resistence. I have created a new section to make my case for the use of the term "fascist" as a describing epithet for the article's subject. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it is one of those articles where feelings can run high. Look forward to your making the case ----Snowded TALK 05:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:TROUBLES

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your editing (see [17]) has violated the 1RR rule regarding all issues related to the Troubles. Quis separabit? 01:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Irish People? Not sure that is covered, nothing on the talk page. However it looks like we have an agreement ----Snowded TALK 06:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

British National Party at WP:ANI

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

You should have received a notification through the Notifications extension, but anyway, here's a formal notification that I mentioned you in a topic started on the administrators' incident noticeboard. I am looking forward to your reply there; thanks! odder (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong forum - you should attempt an RFC or Dispute Resignation, there has been no misconduct. This is a content issue and discussion stays on the talk page of the article ----Snowded TALK 23:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears quite a waste of my time to continue that discussion as you do not seem to have even taken the arguments that I've brought up into consideration. (Or perhaps haven't read the MOS guidelines that I cited at ANI attentively enough.) Have a look at the three sub-sections that I mentioned: the lead is supposed to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" (Provide an accessible overview), "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" (Relative emphasis); the first paragraphs should additionally "define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" (Opening paragraph). The current wording of the lead which you force—and of the first paragraph as well—are very far away from those guidelines. odder (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You have three experienced editors who disagree with you; thats life on wikipedia. If you disagree then get other editors involved through an RFC its pretty simple. Better than winging on talk pages, deleting legitimate warnings for edit waring and generally simply asserting that you interpretation is right regardless. ----Snowded TALK 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So yet again you fail to cite any policies or guidelines to support your version of the lead. I have cited MOS:LEAD multiple times, and you've cited no policy at all. It's actually quite simple that I am right regardless (or actually, MOS is right regardless, as I haven't had anything to do with that or any other part of it). It's so sad to see that your politics influence the way in which you handle mainspace content on Wikipedia. odder (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You have asserted your interpretation of policy other editors disagree with you. Then you edit war, now you make a personal attack. Amusingly you assert you are 'right regardless', that really will endear you to other editors. This is really going to get you into a bad place if you carry on like this. ----Snowded TALK 00:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Historiography

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

You've posed a question/challenge to User:Rjensen about the Historiography article and whether it provides an accurate summary of available approaches. I reread it earlier and found myself questioning the style, structure and scope - like an uncomfortable itch that somehow seemed familiar - I then checked the edit history... So, in case you were not already aware: he has been involved in editing that article and you could assume that it already reflects his perspective, at least to some extent. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep I spotted that but I want him to confirm its range. At the moment he is only editing that article from one of the perspectives given there ----Snowded TALK 13:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have gone quiet. From past experience I don't think we'll ever get acknowledgement that the structure needs work. From what he's saying he won't object to "new info" and I see that he has been busy patching up the most egregious flaws, partly to support other debates he is engaged in, but this is not sufficient. In fact I think this makes it worse. My view (and I think your view too?) is that it needs completely reworking. However, while I feel I know enough about the subject generally to spot the problems I won't pretend to be sufficiently expert to rewrite more than a few of (what could be) new sections in a new structure - it's a big topic after all. (Obviously I don't think he is either, but we'd never extract that confession!)
I would propose that we just go ahead. However, you mentioned that you'd purchased one of the books he has referenced. If you've gone quiet on this because you're reading and planning a massive editing binge then I'll hold fire; if not then I might add a few items to my Christmas list and make a start in the New Year along the lines I suggested. Obviously happy to meet half way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
See my comment - I had to do a day trip to Bangkok this week so have had little time. I'll put a structure together from that and propose it on the page next week. Then lets see. I doubt he will change, but lets see. ----Snowded TALK 07:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
goodness a conspiracy afoot. The problem is that you two don't show evidence of reading the scholarly books and journals--that's where the historiography appears. Rjensen (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
And you show little evidence of understanding how wikipedia works - lets see how it pans out ----Snowded TALK 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ANI notification

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rjensen (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Travellers

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Within the state they are classed as a social group, in the UK as an ethnic group, and by the EU aswell. Either could be used. Just explaining where someone else edit came from. Murry1975 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but I think ethnic is preferred (certainly within the Roma communities where I have done work in Eastern Europe ----Snowded TALK 20:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - The Troubles

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

1RR vio at Irish Republican Army

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Snowded, this edit violated the one-revert rule for Troubles-related pages. Could you please self-revert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at User talk:Callanecc#1RR for "The Troubles"? and take what I said there to heart. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I waited more than 24 hours surely? If I got that wrong apologies ----Snowded TALK 13:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc Just checked it was 36 hours from the edit I self-reverted, three days from the first revert I made. In both cases restoring the stable version in the absence of any talk page argument from the initiating editor. I may be going blind looking at too many wikipedia pages and HTML script but I think I am right ----Snowded TALK 13:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes it was however it was less than 24 hours between your self revert and the most recent revert you made (hence what I meant about not a technical via but wasn't best practice). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Even that was 32 minutes longer than 24 hours, but not to worry I will be doubly cautious in future ----Snowded TALK 04:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Greep Party talk page discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please contribute to the relevant discussion on the reverting you are engaging in here. Sport and politics (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Commentarii de Bello Gallico

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would dispute that the summary is unsourced. The source is the text itself, and whilst it may lack inline citations to individual paragraphs, the headings make clear which parts of the text each section is sourced to. I appreciate that you may be looking for secondary sources, but for this kind of historical narrative account it is common to source to the text itself. (Take, for example, our treatment of various biblical narratives.) That's because, whilst one can find summaries of such texts, presenting a summary of a summary in the article is obviously no less problematic. CIreland (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page of the article is the place to make that point. Saying that the source is the text itself means that you are interpreting or summarising that text hence the problem----Snowded TALK 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would have made the point at the talk page of the article, if you had accompanied your revert with some remarks there. So, perhaps you could give some examples of sources you find appropriate. Either here or at the article talk page, as you prefer. CIreland (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed you reversed my edit, which was in good faith. Yes, this information is indeed from a revised & expanded edition of Hoffman's book, specifically the e-book; very recently used in a graduate college course on the subject matter. Screenshots: http://i.imgur.com/gY4m7dP.jpg / http://i.imgur.com/QkbIwqb.jpg Hopefully this clears the misunderstanding. :) Matt714 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that I have reverted - is the second edition that different? If so I will need to buy it :-( ----Snowded TALK 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI mention

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

You have been mentioned at ANI here about a situation you were previously involved in. Comment if you feel it's necessary. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

IP socks

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Me again. I've filed an SPI complaint here. Comment in Comments by other users if you feel necessary. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

'Ireland' use

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Snowded, could you unrevert my edit as I still believe that the current sentence does not make sense. I believe it is ambiguous because 'Ireland' has a couple of meanings; in that it could mean Ireland the country (RoI) or the island of Ireland. Either way it does not make sense because if it is referring to the country of Ireland then by Wikipedia consensus Ireland is suppose to refer to the island which the wikipage 'Ireland' is referring to. If it is referring to Ireland as the island (which is what the sentence implies I think) then it is not possible for Northern Ireland to join an island it is already apart of, in the same way Scotland can not chose to join Great Britain as they will always be geographically located on it. I hope this explains my edit. Cbowsie (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that republicans want a Irish state, they do not want the "six counties" to join the ROI ----Snowded TALK 05:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Revert at Paul Golding

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See Talk:Atlantis. I'm not sure what's going on there. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I just added four names to the [report here which is waiting admin action. There seem to be a stream of IPs and now newly created SPAs attacking a range of articles and people. If you can any action in place it would save us all a lot of time! ----Snowded TALK 16:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, one of those messy ones ----Snowded TALK 17:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello, I'm John. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --John (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

See talk page of the article and please try and resist the temptation to zealously template experienced editors pages solely based on your extended (and incomplete) interpretation of a policy. Confusing Tabloid JOURNALISM with any paper that has at any stage indulged in tabloid journalism is an error of logic ----Snowded TALK 10:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Your ignorance of this foundation policy dismays me. If you wish to continue editing here I strongly suggest getting up to speed with BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Fully up to speed on what is or is not a reliable source and more than capable of reading the policy referenced and not misinterpreting it in the way you have. Now try and work with other editors rather issuing them with ultimata and failing to abide by WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you think other editors are wrong then seek clarification at the talk page of the BLP policy don't issue peremptory statements ----Snowded TALK 10:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL you are in a minority on the talk page of the article. You are asserting your own opinion rather than seeking clarification on a talk page. Your behaviour is becoming a part of the problem here. Please try and work with other editors. The idea that you are right and don't even have to reply to reasoned arguments is not really helpful ----Snowded TALK 10:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy but a clueocracy. Be careful lest you end up LOLing all the way to a block the next time. --John (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I note that as of this moment the general view at the BLP discussion page does not support you in blind revision of material in this manner. I'll await your participation there and hopefully fewer assertions of your opinion without argument here and elsewhere. Threatening experienced editors who disagree with you with blocks is generally not wise. ----Snowded TALK 18:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn cap

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Snowded. Reference your reversion of my edit, the press and cartoonists attached a political significance to the style of cap and its sale was reported in three national newspapers, one of which referred to it as his 'trademark'. talk 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Make a case on the talk page of the article. ----Snowded TALK 13:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

  Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The last time this came up at the BLP notice board you got no support from other editors for your favoured interpretation. So stop issuing warnings on my page against community consensus. I will restore the material and if you revert again raise the matter an ANI or AN for review. You are an admin and you have a responsibility to behave properly ----Snowded TALK 13:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't read it then look here and take part. You are not the person who decides how something is interpreted, that role belongs to the community, ----Snowded TALK 13:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What a strange misunderstanding you have of BLP. --John (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm just seeking clarification of compatibility between BLP and RS policies - see those notice boards. You really need to get your mind around discussion of policy interpretation rather than arbitrary assertions of your views. ----Snowded TALK 13:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The rush of admins wanting to support your position was overwhelming ...
Next time just try to be a little less pedantic, a little less insistent that you must be right and generally, just try collaboration, you might even enjoy it----Snowded TALK 17:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

a suggestion

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

hi there, you seem like a nice intelligent guy,with some very strong opinions.I like to suggest to you not to edit any of those topics that are so very important in your life and topics that you are very opinionated about, those topics will become more wp:npov without your strongly held opinions, let those topics go on their own way. You are a good editor and writer, just stay away from whats personally important to you and you will be a much greater benefit to wikipedia. Regards Govindaharihari (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You've been editing for a year and (on the basis of your comments on one discussion forum) you don't check your facts before making statements, Forgive me, but I suggest you get a little more experience before you run around lecturing people who have been here for the best part of a decade Oh, and having read your comments on the RS notice board you might want to pay attention to WP:NPA and to the way that we provide notices here. It might be a better focus for you than awarding yourself medals on the basis of pending edits (I did have a good laugh when I saw that mind you, so my thanks)----Snowded TALK 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and there it is exactly your problem here. Go ahead,laugh your false laugh as loud as you like. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A little less self-importance and you might over time make a good editor. Now please stop wasting my time. You have made a statement that the current BLP policy is perfect. Fine, it is an opinion unlikely to be supported in practice and not currently supported by more than one or two editors. You've made your point. Running around giving advice to other editors without research sooner or later will get into difficulties. ----Snowded TALK 01:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
and there you go stooping to your worthless threat, yawn. Lets see if you manage to get policy changed because you got upset at the removal of your favored content. It is because of your obstinate position that I will oppose your position till the end of this, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I hate to tell you but (i) the bulk of the content was restored and I didn't create it in the first place (ii) I am not trying to change policy and (iii) there is no threat in the above statement. Given that you obviously don't understand what is going on you might want to think a little before you post. ----Snowded TALK 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, I'd suggest you take a step back and read WP:CIVIL. You're bordering to be uncivil, insulting and just drop the stick already. You're clearly not welcome here. Now, move on. You're being unhelpful to Wikipedia by telling experienced editors advice when you haven't been here long enough. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Apparently in our discussion here, most agree to the fact that the British Empire was a Superpower in it's latter day. A whole different topic compared to the previous discussion. A new discussion in which you do not have an agreement in and most agree that the phrase should be applied in the lead section. Sources and concensus are in favor this time. And you still haven't provided a valid argument rather than to concentrate on the editor rather than the topic itself. (N0n3up (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

Many agree the term has been used, its relevance to the article and in particular the lede is one issue. Your inability to understand how close you came to an indefinite ban and failure to use the mentor you agreed to is another, and potentially more serious one. ----Snowded TALK 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
We're talking on the topic here, not the user. Consensus supports Reb1981's version to be posted in the lead, let alone the sources provided. I really don't see what the problem is. This time, your actions are going against consensus. (N0n3up (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
Two editors for, two against and a rather odd contribution from an IP; prior discussion on related use against. That is not a consensus and the fact you don't see it is probably a part of the problem ----Snowded TALK 05:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I will answer in the discussion page. (N0n3up (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
Using the talk page is always a good idea but be careful. You don't have a consensus for inclusion in the lede you have a possible 3-2 vote that says it should be in the article somewhere and that is not enough. ----Snowded TALK 05:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Sources and concensus support the satement. If you wan't I'll wait a little longer just in case. (N0n3up (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
Far from it, you do not have consensus and the sources do not support your proposed edit, they may support another. Without further engagement from other editors and a strong agreement to your change you will be reverted if you attempt it ----Snowded TALK 05:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

You don't seem to get it, do you? The problem is not the case with Superpower. I don't care if people disagree with me, in fact, I'm okay with people challenging, opposing or reverting my edits. The problem this whole time (before and now) is your conduct with such edits. You have been buzzing around trolling with my edits since it appears not because you have a strong knowledge of such themes it seems, but simply for the sake of eliminating the edits of users you don't agree with. One example being in the British Empire talk page when the argument had a supporting consensus (before Wiki-Ed and Antiochus the Great showed up), you still fought against consensus by giving bogus sophistry arguments. In light of that, you also deleted an edit in which I've made, which I recall you doing a similar action when I've made a case in the talk page of the same article, regarding a word in the lead. You made such a big deal about nothing that the only reason I keep making the case in the British Empire article talk page is because you were constantly babbling about an edit you didn't agree because it didn't get enough edits, when no one had even placed an opinion yet. Again, Wiki-Ed, Antiochus the Great and anyone who disagreed with my proposition in my edit are not the problem, its YOUR actions that concern me the most. I expect a better attitude from someone your age, let alone a consultant who should know better. You did it in United Kingdom, Industrial Revolution, Lend-Lease, Treaty of Versailles (with only you being active in one of the articles mentioned), and now Welsh independence and this edit in "British Empire" without giving a constructive argument (which by the way made a case here and I hope this time you have a good excuse for your revert). Then again, you seem to do it very often, examples being with User:Govindaharihari, User:John above and Gob Lofa (yes, he might make mistakes from time to time, but you don't do a very good job in telling him so) and others. Yes, you make good edits, but you're overly critical than you should be when it comes to interacting with others who disagree with your actions or actions you don't agree with. If you keep up with this WP:HARASS and hounding action, I'll report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I hope I made myself clear. (N0n3up (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

Please take it ANI if you want. Otherwise pay attention, I told you to stop wasting my time. That means the only reason for you to post here is an ANI notice or equivalent. --Snowded TALK 07:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Then act like you want to help, not harass. And don't worry, this is my last post here. (N0n3up (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

I and others have tried to help you.your block record and inability to pay attention indicates it is not working. Now STOP wasting my time --Snowded TALK 07:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not true. All you have done is revert my edits without any constructive objective, threatened to report me, overextend discussions with bogus arguments and thank the admin who blocked me behind my back. Yeah, looks very helpful. Do me a favor, unless youre serious about contributing something, please dont waste my time. (N0n3up (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

That you think you were blocked behind your back says it all --Snowded TALK 07:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Things like this aren't helpful though [18]. Now stop wasting people's time and patience. (N0n3up (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

Thanks for the link. It pretty much sums up what a lot of experienced editors have told you. --Snowded TALK 07:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

  Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to English Democrats, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Keri (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Also, stating "Restore previous stable version - no consensus for change on talk page" is complete bullshit when there is a discussion still ongoing on the talk page. Keri (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If a discussion is ongoing then there is no consensus for change, you might want to pay a little more attention before making comments like that ----Snowded TALK 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 

Your recent editing history at English Democrats shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Two reverts, the second of which an attempt at compromise, while clearly discussion is in progress and no consensus has yet been reached and Snowded is trying to protect the status quo before the contested changes started... calls for a 3RR warning? Eyes of the beholder, I guess. LjL (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks LjL. Keri, you need to cool it, aggressive and inappropriate templating can be an error ----Snowded TALK 08:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Notice

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks after final warning. Thank you. GABHello! 16:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ouime23

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Howdy Snowy. He's baaaaack, this time mass reverting my removal of Elizabeth II from the Scottish & Welsh FM & DFM bio infoboxes. Apparently, he's determined to promote his pov at Northern Ireland, to the extreme. Having Liz deleted from the others, takes away the significants from the NI bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm on a poor internet connection today but will take a look tomorrow ----Snowded TALK 22:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
He's back again. The fellow makes mass reverts on the aforementioned articles & then disappears for weeks, only to return & mass revert again. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I see you have reverted and raised an RfC. I've added my vote there and will try and keep an eye on it but few of those pages are on my watch list ----Snowded TALK 08:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Appreciative Inquiry

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your observation of my recent edits to Appreciative Inquiry. It is the rare person who cares enough to communicate with understanding. May I trouble you for clarity on the specific reason for your revert? A third-party source is all you require? Given proper sourcing, do you agree my edits improved the article? SalineBrain (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires secondary sourcing to make any assertion. So if that exists the edits would be fine although we need to be careful about promotion. Most clients will write endorsements of consultancy methods and they would not normally be admitted as evidence. ----Snowded TALK 07:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 February

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_31&oldid=1136140252"