User talk:Sneazy

Welcome


Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.


 * Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
 * The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
 * Quick Introductions to:
 * Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
 * Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
 * Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
 * Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
 * Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?


 * What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?

 * If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
 * If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
 * If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
 * For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

In response to your feedback
Understood. Sometimes it can be hard getting on our feet. How about you try to get adopted?

Austinuity (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

&#160;

At the Teahouse:

 * You have a response to Mathematical, Statistical and Scientific Formulae, from ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
See WP:D.

Ariconte (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

&#160;

Adoption
I see you have added a userbox indicating that you request adoption through our adopt-a-user program. It is helpful to potential adopters to know a little bit more about your goals through adoption. Are you looking for a course with lessons and tests that will ensure thorough comprehension of all covered topics, simply someone to whom you can ask questions, or somewhere in between? What are your interests in editing Wikipedia? Do you aspire to be an administrator, a rollbacker, a reviewer or something of the like some day? Do you want to create articles, clean them up, or simply pontificate on their contents? All of these questions are helpful for a potential adopter (and in the long run for you so you ensure you get a good match). If you want to answer them here, I might be able to recommend someone who fits them. Respectfully, Go   Phightins  !  18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in between a course with lessons and tests that will ensure thorough comprehension of all covered topics as well as someone to ask questions would be nice. On Wikipedia, I often read articles related to the sciences or the humanities, and typically I correct a little typo here and there, re-order the structure of the article, or add some found pictures, behaving like a proper wikifaerie or wikignome. I am an infrequent editor, so being a wikignome/wikifaerie is fine with me. I may translate some Spanish articles to English, if I happen to find anything useful there. Hopefully, there shall be a good match for me! Sneazy (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All right, well I'm working on finding an adopter who meets your criteria. I do, but I am already stretched too thin in my adoption program. Maybe in a few weeks, but for someone more immediate, I'll keep looking. Thanks for your interest! Go   Phightins  !  03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Go Phightins came knocking on my talk page notifying me of a new possible adoptee (you). Since my last adoptee unfortunately went due to things I can not mention, I would be more than happy to take you on as an adoptee. Just make a nice confirmation note below this message and I will get everything set up. Just to give you a quick idea of how I work: I allow users to decide I which order they do their adoption and they have a mix of three tests a d the rest are experience courses though if asked, I can convert some experience courses into tests depending on how you want it and if do not as well as expected with experience. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. Let's go! Sneazy (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For your tests; You can go to your adoption page and answer the questions (should you already know them) if not read the provided articles first. If you wish to start on experience, Certain provided articles have an assignment at the bottom of them that you can read and complete and then catch me on my talk page or your adoption talk page. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw you comments on your adoption page. If you read the articles (linked at the top of your adoption page) you should be able to answer mroe accurately. Though so far a few of them you answered perfect. One missed a key button and the other answered looking at the edit instead of Special:RecentChanges. Also don't forget, The tests only make up ~40% of the total thing. The rest is experience. So if you try the tests and then do the experience you can still pass with near flying colours. Things like the vandalism ones can instead be done as experience if you wish but the permission one can only be tested. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

vandalism
This edit is in clear violation of WP:TALKO and given my direct objections which you knowingly deleted amounts to vandalism. If the edit is repeated by you either as a signed account or again as an IP I will report you and request you be blocked from editing. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * Hahaha! Sneazy (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis a 4im warning may be a bit over the top here, also Sneazy it is probably best not to just laugh at warnings but instead to try and resolve any issues.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 18:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I promise not to edit Medeis' or any other person's writings. I still find the edit funny, though. Sneazy (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Refactoring talk pages might be worth a read  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Adoption userbox
Congratulations on being adopted by User:John F. Lewis! Your userpage, however, still says that you are looking for adoption. Now that you've been adopted, it's common courtesy to replace  with   so that people know that you have been adopted and who you have been adopted by. Thank you in advance for your compliance. ö  Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse Turns One!
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!


 * --Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello Sneazy, I have seen you have been active recently but have not made any progression in your adoption. I am currently wondering whether you still have any interest in continuing it. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marriage vows, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Obey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

RD/Talk
I'm sorry if this is frustrating, but the Talk page for the RD is not the setting for such a discussion - the guidance for that page is quite clear (as other editors indicated). Our page on WP:Dispute resolution provides options. -- Scray (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

assume
you are watching my talk page--I have responded μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz
I copied the following from a longer comment you made on Medeis's talk page:
 * As a matter of fact, my first account is User: Coffsneeze. At that point in time, I was mainly interested in coloring.com, neopets.com, and wikipedia.org, making edits too. I also got an account on the Simple English Wikipedia by the same name. At the time, you actually had to make a new account; it wasn't automatic as it is today. Now, I lost it, because I don't remember the password of that account, and that account is no way connected to any e-mail address. At that time, I also met JackOfOz, and frankly, I'm quite surprised that he's still alive. All others on the Reference Desks seem to be somewhat new and unrecognizable. I made this account in reminiscence of my former account that I can no longer retrieve due to forgotten password and no e-mail address.

I consider Jack of Oz a Wikipedia friend and am wondering why you might have thought he would have been dead by now? This is just a matter of curiosity, no more than that. Bielle (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ay! I think I might have misspoke! Forgive my wording. What I mean to say is that JackOfOz is still ACTIVE on Wikipedia. I mean to say that I never really have met a person that would be so attached to the website for so many years. Sneazy (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I invite you to peruse RD regulars, where you will see various names that have been contributing to the ref desks longer than I have. And some more recent arrivals.  I've actually been a Wikipedian for coming on 10 years, but others have been around since Day 1 in 2001 (?).  I fully expect to put in at least 40 years service by the time I shuffle off.  --   Jack of Oz  [Talk]  04:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor
Just fixed your infobox deletion at SunnyD. You can turn off the VisualEditor in your preferences at Special:Preferences, it's the tickbox at the bottom. --McGeddon (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No-fault divorce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revision (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 16:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing others' content on pages that are not article space
Considering your "promise" in the User_talk:Sneazy section above, this edit, which violates WP:TPO, seems ill-considered. -- Scray (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am most certain that the author of the original post is well-meaning and means to say "slower-breeding", because that term best fits the context of the sentence. I am also certain that "slower-breading" is not an accepted word in the English language. Please excuse my behavior of correcting the typographical error, which is what it is. The ability to not being able to edit out typos is, in my opinion, a ridiculous rule. Sneazy (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is deemed to be rude, and possibly even misleading. I remember one (probably) good faith change of "automagically" to "automatically" that started a war on the Ref Desk. Just leave other people's comments alone. If it really matters to you, you could ask the author to make the change. I know of at least one editor who consistently made changes to others' comments - most of which were of the "corrected typo" nature - who is now banned for just that reason. A word to the wise. . . Bielle (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am beginning to think that some people just like to spell a word a certain way as a joke, even though the joke does not seem funny or obvious on first encounter. Then, misunderstandings ensue, and the editor who makes the edit to another person's post gets the blame of starting the war. Sneazy (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree (the current situation doesn't seem to support that at all, even in retrospect); in addition, I assume good faith in such situations. More importantly, the rule is clear: don't correct/edit other's entries on Talk or RefDesk space. Thus, the first infraction was yours. -- Scray (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a stupid rule anyway. This is Wiki, and a Wiki is supposed to allow everyone to edit. Changing the meaning of someone's words is understandably wrong on the Reference Desks or Talk Page, but correcting a typo (and calling that an offense) is just plain ridiculous. Also, what makes it your business to look up people's edits and moderate the Reference Desks without any regard to the context of the situation? As it stands, a minor correction of a typographical error is better than direct admonishments about the typo. The former gets the job done quicker; the latter involves the other person to comply and recognize that he/she has made an error, no matter how small. Sneazy (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is all of our business to keep order on the Ref Desks as has been decided by consensus. What you think is "plain ridiculous" has saved a lot of arguments. It is a really bright line, one of the few on WP -easy to avoid and easy to assess. If you feel really strongly about the rule, you may always try and get another consensus for change. Until you are successful, just leave everyone else's comments "uncorrected". Bielle (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt that I can obtain another consensus for change, because in order to do that, I would have to change the forum culture, and that may be too big of a job that I do not wish to invest. I might as well deal with it, even though I do not like it. Even if I do raise such a proposal, the proposal is probably going to backfire anyway, because of likeminded individuals who think that they are entitled to own their words online. Along with merciless individuals who would punish/ban people or try to start a feud with them just for correcting a minor error. Geez. And I can't believe I have to defend myself in this. Sneazy (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In case you have forgotten, the rationale is not "their words on-line" but only words that are signed. Is there any other site where you, if you are not the site's moderator, are able to change other people's signed comments? (And I believe that "like-minded" is not one word, but I might be wrong.) Bielle (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, in recent days, I have been fairly active on a Question-and-Answer website called the Stacks Exchange, and basically it involves a team of similar Q&A websites, all of which are powered by the same company. Over time, I have accumulated points by asking questions, answering questions, finding and citing important documents and resources (because, as a student, I have access to a wealth of information from subscription-only databases and journals), researching the answers, and editing other people's answers. Now, the general rule of thumb of editing answers is that you can edit other people's answers, if the typographical errors seriously make the answer unreadable or unclean. Once you've made an edit, the edit will be peer-reviewed by the original answerer or a moderator. If the edit is not accepted, nothing will happen. If you accumulate too many rejections, then you automatically can't edit other people's answers for a week. If the edit is accepted, then you earn +2 points. This is why I try to make sure I always keep the original meaning, while cleaning the answer up a little so that it is more cleaner. In a formal academic setting, I believe a similar process would be textual criticism, in which academics basically try to remove transcription errors from an old historical document in order to improve the text's quality without distorting the author's meaning or intention. Yes, you're correct that "like-minded" is normally accepted as a hyphenated word. Sneazy (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have pretty high rep on StackExchange, too, and agree the rules are different. When in Rome... -- Scray (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting concepts; thanks for answering my question. Bielle (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Committing suicide
In your question about suicide, I asked "How would committing suicide be illegal? Who would they put in jail? Or fine?". To which, you replied "...people who commit suicide are put in rehabilitation centers..." What I think you meant is that people who attempt suicide are put into rehabilitation centers. Those who actually do commit suicide are dead. Dismas |(talk) 08:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)