Misplaced Pages

User talk:Snowded: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:35, 16 December 2015 editCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,235 edits →1RR vio at: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 01:36, 16 December 2015 edit undoCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,235 edits →Discretionary sanctions alert - The Troubles: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit →
Line 81: Line 81:


Hi Snowded, edit violated the one-revert rule for ]. Could you please self-revert. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Hi Snowded, edit violated the one-revert rule for ]. Could you please self-revert. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

== Discretionary sanctions alert - The Troubles ==

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

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

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. 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.
}} <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC){{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->

Revision as of 01:36, 16 December 2015

Welcome to my talk page!

  • Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
    • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Snowded}}.
    • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
    • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
    • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Easter Rising

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Historiography

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 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 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 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

British National Party at WP:ANI

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 00:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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

Travellers

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 20:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1RR vio at

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)

Discretionary sanctions alert - The Troubles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)Template:Z33