User talk:Snarcky1996

Hillsborough disaster

Hello, I reverted the two additions you made to the Hillsborough disaster page as we don't 'see also' articles that are already linked within the text, as was the case here. Pincrete (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete Fair enough. Snarcky1996 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hello, Snarcky1996,

If you are thinking about an article page move to a different title and there might be objections to it, please start a discussion on the article talk page or put in a request at Requested moves. If it might be controversial, you could even start an RFC to see if your idea has support. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Alright, but of what page are we talking about here? I have modified the name of several. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Operation Gideon (2020)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of minor edit

Hi Snarcky1996! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mississippi that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. references a specific article Nemov (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 17:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain in what material from Politico.eu is a violation of copyright? Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a first approximation, everything written recently is subject to full copyright. Unless it is specifically licensed for use, or otherwise qualifies (Material created by US federal employees, or non-creative lists) it cannot be used except in short, specifically identifed quotes. S Philbrick (Talk) 23:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ursula von der Leyen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DW. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Schmidt November 2023

Hello, I'm Cat12zu3. I noticed that you recently removed content from Christian Schmidt without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat12zu3 Cat12zu3 is correct, given the nature of the content involved that article is under the contentious topics area mentioned above, so removing referenced content to replace it with your WP:OR can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Especially while failing to provide any reason in the edit summary. TylerBurden (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden What are you talking about? I formulated it the way it is formulated in all the sources used in the article. It is Cat12zu3 who initially changed it and formulated it in a non-neutral way, before reformulating it in a more neutral way following my intervention and discussion in the talk page. If you have insight to give on the matter, do it on the talk page of the article, threatening me here for no valid reason is pointless. See also: WP:Consensus Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite difficult to respond to you when you are posting duplicate responses both here and on my talk page, despite my request to keep the discussion in one place, so again I ask you to STOP posting on my talk page. We already have a discussion thread here. TylerBurden (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the situation is a mess, I just saw you removing content including a reference without explanation, which is not the first time you have done so, previously removing content about civilians being present in a building bombed by Russians, also with zero reason provided. The situation is best resolved at the article talk page, but there are some serious questions in regards to your approach to editing, so the notice of removing content without explanation is more than valid. TylerBurden (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did what now? I did not remove references in the Christian Schmidt article, and for the very loaded accusation that I "removed content about civilians being present in a building bombed by Russians", what's the context of that accusation?? Because the way you spin it, it is clearly an accusation. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden Also, just a note, that's the first time you are asking to keep the discussion in one place, you did not previously "request[ed] to keep the discussion in one place". Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you asking to keep the discussion in one place, you then went on to repeat posting on my talk page while continiously tagging me here. Keep discussions in one place. Thankfully, Wikipedia has diffs, so I can show both instances.

You removing referenced content without explanation: On Christian Schmidt.

You removing referenced content without explanation on Azov Brigade: About the bombing of civilians by the Russian military.

I think it would be smarter to explain your actions than to outright deny what can be easily proved. TylerBurden (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden

"I reverted you asking to keep the discussion in one place, you then went on to repeat posting on my talk page while continiously tagging me here. Keep discussions in one place. Thankfully, Wikipedia has diffs, so I can show both instances."

What you did was deleting what I wrote on your talk page. Which I can understand, but you did not wrote me something about it, or if you did, then you immediately deleted it and I haven't had the opportunity to read it then.

"You removing referenced content without explanation: On Christian Schmidt."

I did not remove that reference manually, what I did was reverting the whole edit made by Cat-something, as part of his non-neutral first edit. See current version for agreed upon version of the article.

"You removing referenced content without explanation on Azov Brigade: About the bombing of civilians by the Russian military."

I made several edits to that article, all in order to try to give a more accurate and neutral tone to that article that is currently still biased on multiple points. I stand by that edit by the way, the fact that it is added as a lone, and badly formulated, sentence at the end of a paragraph as an implicit accusation only add to the problems of that article. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes after @Snarcky1996 edit, I change to (Special:Diff/1184066543) he was not chosen unanimously within Peace Implementation Council, specifically Russia since UNSCR 1031 did not mentioned any procedure to approve/authorize/endorse an OHR appointment by PIC (so there's no UNSCR approval procedure, and hence a customary agreement as a courtesy such as Senatorial courtesy or Constitutional convention (political custom)) (which only UNSCR endorse Dayton Peace Accord's PIC to establish HR hence under PIC purview, with Russia vetoed as PIC Steering Board),

so the legitmacy issue is only one, not two, only PIC no UNSC,

since I had asked you to give a reason why (Special:Diff/1184090325) revert, which you had reply, asking why revert and justify the reason why UNSC need to be involved which in PIC appointment of HR,

and suggested agree instead of "approval" (which UNSCR 1301 and subsequent UNSCR, eg UNSCR 1869 mentioned agree to Valentin Inzko),

and that the phrase in question the word "approve" is misleading (it's customary agreement) and a loaded word/phrase/sentence, which under WP:NPOV is non-negotiable...cannot be superseded by...consensus.,

I decided to just merely state plainly vanilla plainly appointed without a corresponding UNSC resolution.

Now that phrase is not misleading nor loaded under non-negotiable WP:NPOV, I think shall just move on, move along and carry on WP:CIVIL --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat12zu3 I consider the debate closed, and I accepted your last revision of the article, however you should take note of a few important things: "approve" is not at all a misleading term here, it is the term used to talk about the "approval of the UNSC" which was still understood to be required by all parties of the Dayton Agreements before the whole Schmidt dispute happened. It is also a perfectly neutral term despite your claims of "non-negotiable WP:NPOV", and it is not you who get to alone decide what is "non-negotiable". You should also remember that you don't get to decide unilaterally to modify the article when there a debate ongoing on the talk page of said article, see WP:Consensus. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat12zu3 Your claim of a "non-negotiable" situation here is inadmissible. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had you read WP:NPOV? (Which mentioned non-negotiable...cannot be superseded by...consensus) Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat12zu3 Your determination of a "non-negotiable" situation here is completely arbitrary and wrong, have you read my response? Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, now that phrase is a WP:NPOV, we shall move along and carry on. Good night...(and mine is daytime). Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Finland

Hi, I noticed you recently made a change to the LGBT rights in Finland article that changed the section regarding gender-affirming care to not mention "psychosocial therapy" as a call for mandatory conversion therapy. According to COHERE Finland, "The Council is a permanent body appointed by the Government that works in conjunction with the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health." This means that COHERE has some influence on legislation within Finland. In addition, a major factor in the decision to change the standards of care was SEGM, an anti-trans lobbying organization who supports conversion therapy and frequently cites pseudoscientific theories. Is it okay if I reverse this revision and/or add the aforementioned information to the article? pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 12:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauliesnug Hello, the article is about existing legislation or legislation that have existed in the past (for the most part), so if the recommendations of the council were not implemented, and I believe they were not, then it should either not be mentioned or mentioned in a "social/political attitudes" or "politics" section (there is a "politics" sub-section I think).

Furthermore, what the council meant by "psychosocial therapy" is not clear and it may well not be referring to conversion therapy, so affirming in the article that the council advocated for conversion therapy needs more sourced elements demonstrating that, it needs proofs. That aspect apart, that document from that council can be mentioned in a section "political attitudes" section, as I mentioned above. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Is it alright if I move this information into that section? Thank you for your reply. pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 23:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauliesnug Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi Snarcky1996! Thank you for your edits to Fate of the unlearned. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Christian universalism into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind into Bicameral mentality. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word 'claim' or other words implying doubt

Wikipedia does not use the word claim to imply doubt in Wikipedia voice. We report what both supporters and critics say, but we do not side with either of them. Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise Wrong, the word claim is used very often to express theoretical or uncertain situations "in Wikipedia voice". Furthermore, We side with critics in case of pseudoscience, such as in this case. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snarcky1996: once again you fail to read the policies and guidelines and persist on misunderstanding them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise You persist again in using flawed vocabulary that is clearly apologetic. "evidence" is everything but neutral. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLAIM, you must express all statements by sources neutrally. The word 'claim' is never neutral and the use of it violates our strict neutrality policy. Talk to the editors at WP:NPOVN if you don't believe me. Skyerise (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise The guidelines state that "claim" is a term to be used carefully, for that it "can call their statement's credibility into question", which is the point and that's why I use it in this instance, I emphasize the controversial/unproven nature of the theory. It does not say that the term is to be proscribed. You twist what is written in it. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're inverting the rule. There is no exception for it use. We speak neutrally in Wikipedia's voice (when we are not covering the views of supporters or critics). Criticism including a critical voice may only be used for reporting the views of critics, esp. in quotations. You are basically admitting to non-neutral use of the word here. I've referred it to the board of experts, you should tell them your spurious arguments. Didn't you learn anything from being taken to WP:NORN? Skyerise (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise You should read the rule about threats. You are absolutely wrong by "claiming" that there is no exceptions to it, or maybe you want to rewrite every Wikipedia articles? When something is of a doubtful nature and lie only on the "claims" of one source (here Julian Jaynes), "claim" is absolutely an appropriate term. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise By the way, is the word "argued" too much for you too? You delete that also. You clearly delete any terms that imply that the theory is unproven. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia doesn't imply. We make statements supported by citations. Skyerise (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise Which is why you use terms and formulation such as "evidence" and "built a case" that is "supported by evidence from many diverse sources". Very neutral of course... Not at all implying anything of favorable.

Claim and Argued does not imply, it only indicate the unverified and unproven nature of the theory Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, repeated use of WP:ICANTHEARYOU frequently leads to blocks based on WP:NOTHERE. Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise You are purposefully not answering my arguments. And relying to threats. Answer to my arguments instead. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are engaging in personal attacks. I'm done here. Skyerise (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise That's rich. I simply want to show you that you are the one using non-neutral language in the article. You still have not showed me why such language is an appropriate and neutral way of talking about a controversial, fringe theory. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]