User talk:Snowded

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Manual Archive pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nomination of White Student Unions for deletion[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Mentor review please[edit]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Attention

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

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

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

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]


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

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

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

reversions on the Welsh Dragon page[edit]

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

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