User talk:Snowded

Manual Archive pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Archive to 29 May 08 Archive to 21 July 08 Archive to 30 Nov 08 Archive to 03 Mar 09 Archive to 18 Oct 09 User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 16 User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 23 latest

• notes and working

Nomination of White Student Unions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Student Unions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Student Unions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

I'm back

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

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

Terrorism in Pakistan

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

We have an editor who is dropping that text into multiple articles and is ignoring all advise - there are limits to tolerance here -----Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Granted. This editor's additions are problematic for numerous reasons. I certainly hope the editor learns to work collaboratively, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Buddytula (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Lets see :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 19:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

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

As pertaining to me, not you, I might add  :) 31.52.166.58 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording allows it but discourage it - and the danger of sock puppetry is high when you engage in controversy -----Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not in my case. And don't forget about WP:AGF. 31.52.166.58 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nowt there relates to good faith, read your own references.-----Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Violence in Christianity

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

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

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

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

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