User talk:Sniper247

Welcome

Hello, Sniper247, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Sniper247, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pomerantsev

I noticed you are active on Pomerantsev's page. I was going to revert your changes to Pomerantsev's criticism section but I thought it was better to reach out to you first.

I was the user that added Mark Ames' criticism of Pomerantsev. I did so because Ames gets at something relating to Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible that is somewhat critical. That is Pomerantsev uses rhetorical, persuasive, and propagandist techniques in Nothing is True consistent with the techniques he is criticizing. Large portions of the text are impressionistic. And the stories in the book vary from the same stories as they were published years prior in magazine form. Pomerantsev may have made the stories up or he may be playing loose with the facts. It is hard to tell and that is kind of the point. He seemingly acknowledges this in the final chapter. It is stylistic choice and it is effective in light of the subject matter.

I included Ames' criticism not because Pomerantsev associates with anti-Putin types... nor because he may be paid by those with an anti-Putin agenda... but because Pomerantsev's stories are unverifiable. And, because his stories are unverifiable on purpose, it is fair of Ames to question his motivations.

In your edit you left in the parts about associating with Anne Applebaum and Bill Browder and took out the bits where Ames asserts Pomerantsev is a fabulist. The latter seems important; the former seems barely relevant. I wanted to reverse this emphasis. Please share your thoughts when you can. HiroAntagonist (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Anne Applebaum. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing unsourced on a BLP

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Anne Applebaum. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is unsourced about a direct link to an article someone worked Sniper247 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t appear to be accuratly describing the edit you made, perhaps you made a mistake? For reference the unsourced statement is "Since joining The Atlantic, she has focused on long-form articles chronicling the state of democracy in United States and Europe.”[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you had an issue with a specific quote, why did you revert several large edits? Sniper247 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple issues... Including the unsourced addition to the BLP and the undue quote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Applebaum's Jewishness

Hi Sniper 247. Thank you for your comment. I'm not sure I understand why you removed the reference to Anne Applebaum's Jewishness. Also, English dictionaries say that "descent" refers to "the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality", not necessarily to the place in which they were born (in Applebaum's case definitely the US). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/descent. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts, but I would suggest that my edits didn't need to be reverted. Thank you, --Idris.albadufi (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Idris.albadufi. Her Jewishness is not really necessary to understand her career, so having it in the introduction is inappropriate. It is mentioned in her early life section, where it is relevant. I think a language issue is present, because "Of Polish descent" implies she has polish ancestry, or her ancestors were from Poland. She became a naturalised Polish citizen, but she is not of Polish descent. Polish-American is a statement on her nationalities, and is accurate. Sniper247 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]