User talk:Snettie

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) helpmeChris Connolly 06:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Hi, you added helpme without adding a question. What is the question? — neuro  (talk)  06:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of True Torah Jews www.jewsagainstzionism.com
A tag has been placed on True Torah Jews www.jewsagainstzionism.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Snettie (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ron Paul, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ron Paul was changed by Snettie (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882783 on 2011-09-10T05:00:38+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not make unnecessary personal remarks about other editors, including in edit summaries (such as what you've done today on Political positions of Ron Paul. What matters is not who an editor is, but what their edits are. Snide comments such as "who fled the South" and speculating that an editor must be from Israel can be taken as personal attacks, and these are not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright under modern law is a default process. Unless the author of content explicitly waives copyright, all creative content is copyrighted from the moment of its creation. If the author of that content has explicitly waived or licensed that content, then part of it could be used in the article; if not, not. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF and WP:NPA
Please. Collect (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, while I deny a personal attack, I must admit that the editing that has been done on the Perry site is less than I would expect. I would hope that you make some of these changes yourself as a sign of good faith, and we should not edit more than once per day.

The small stuff:revision 450139281 was not replaced, just a former chairman in '11 - states he was Chairman during event - little space difference & lessens Chairmans Stature to know about the event - this is noteworthy - not WP:UNDUE - as it was better now and yes there is a longer article - I can see the current verion as fine perhaps but that should not cound against my 3, orig. it was aritten awful, simply misleading

Bigger and more impactful 450097610, per WEIGHT, you did not allow a small reference to Crony Capitalism - with the charges brought up in the debate yesterday, the issue to the public IS Crony Capitalism, Bank Bailout, the Fed, things that happen beyond our understanding, to call it Industrial Policy and limit the examples, we can spin out a seperate article on Industrial Policy under economny- this is not WP:UNDUE

Bank Bailout, the Fed, & all things unknown to call it Industrial Policy and limit the examples, do not allow the small Crony Capitalism reference

Industrial Policy can be placed under economny but Crony Capitalism can be rewritten but not made smaller, each example, within reason, but ones that make major papers could be woven together-

WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negative, above and below could be a negative,

N419BH use of WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism, to 450079681 - was excessive, my edits were to misleading text, some is better I agree,

Lastly the letter to Hillary, the Letter is more important to his position as Agriculture Commissioner then space like

... "2,546,287 votes (62 percent) to Democrat Marvin Gregory's 1,479,692 (36 percent). Libertarian Clyde L. Garland received the remaining 85,836 votes (2 percent).[31] Gregory, a chicken farmer from Sulphur Springs, Texas, "

WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism. WP:RS reliable sources WP:UNDUE Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views WP:SS Sections of long articles should be spun off but not POV split to hide negativeSnettie 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that you have now reached 3RR at the Rick Perry article 15:30 12 Sept to 21:07 12 Sept. Please note WP:3RR and WP:EW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Kansan (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kansan (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Please revise your edits regarding the 1987 letter. Refer to the discussion on Talk:Ron_Paul. Since the the Paul article has received consensus as a good article, it is counter-productive to edit the article in a way that does not agree with encyclopedic standards and in particular WP:COPYPASTE. Since the concensus on the article so far has been to not include the letter, you should revert back to the previous edit. In this way we can avoid another 3RR issue. The proper way to voice your argument to add the letter is to receive consensus on the discussion page. Kjmonkey (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And I have again undid your edit on the other Paul article. As has been explained to you, we cannot copy and paste large chunks into articles. Kansan (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your MedCab request
I've clerkishly closed your MedCab request as, when all my reasons for doing so are combined, just not being ripe for that forum. Among other things, it seemed to me that it was more of a general request for help than it was for help in settling a specific dispute. To the extent that it was that, you might be better off going to Editor Assistance than starting off at a fairly high level of dispute resolution like MedCab. Also, I've taken a look at the edits about which you're concerned and I have to say that, on the whole, the other editors have been right. At the same time, however, it would appear to me that much of your struggle is coming more from your inexperience here and lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, procedures, and customs than it is from any bad intent on your part. It can seem, especially to a newcomer like yourself, that Wikipedia isn't doing what is needed to maintain a neutral point of view when what's really happening is that the wheels are grinding behind the scenes through the application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and consensus editing. Can I suggest that you read my advice to new users essay? Not everything in it applies to you, but it might provide some good background knowledge. Be sure to click through all the links and read that material as well. Second, can I also suggest that you try your hand at editing less controversial articles for awhile and then come back to the controversial ones after you've gained some experience and know the ropes a bit better. (If all you're interested in here is correcting what you see to be inadequacies or errors in articles about subjects in which you have a strong interest — and I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just saying if that's it — you need to give serious thought to whether your first and strongest interest is in improving Wikipedia or whether it is in promoting or furthering some outside interest. If it is the latter, it's improper under Wikipedia standards and you might want to consider either changing your focus or not editing here. Again, I'm not saying that it is, I'm just saying if.) Finally, while any editor can be biased, of course, particularly in specific situations, can I suggest that you can pretty much trust what Ravensfire has to say? He/she works as a neutral party (aka mediator) in dispute resolution and is not ordinarily prone to taking extreme or biased positions. I hope this helps. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and Request
I have tried earlier to affect Wiki in a beneficial way, with good intent and with good information. I am fast learner, and seriously forgot about the discussion section and jumped the gun. I rewrote some very bad material and some more subtle, I noted my changes to fit in the small space that is really meant for a simple title. I regret it b/c not it is more difficult to see how really bad some the material was there to begin with. My first edit to the Ron Paul site was picked up by a BOT as Vandalism, which it was not but at least it brought semi-protect status to the ===main page===. I feel perfectly comfortable with helping to edit the Rick Perry site (I like him, especially some of the more outlandish things he says, am I supposed to admit that?)feel perfectly comfortable with that site b/c there is a ===good tension=== there and it shows in the site. There is no absolutely false material present, and if I corrected a couple of edit that were off base it seems that those edits have no record in the discussion page. I feel that shortly there will be a highlight to Crony Capitalism, after all that was the only edit I first wanted to make but Collect reversed that small change so I went for more. On the last talk page, they did say that I crossed some WP:EQ, but that my edits had some merit. So after a break I will go back to the discussion page and consensus editing for major changes. But the problem is not with the Rick Perry edits.

My problem is really not with Ravensfire either and I debated if i should have put him in. I should not have.

Now to real issue, there needs to be mediation with Kjmonkey she has thrown every 'you should look' she could find and I refuted everyone. Worse after I pointed out to her how not NPOV she is and the errors she has reverted to. Finally she states that I have a good point but goes on to mention small errors I have (I have but corrected them myself). I would ask you for two things to put a semi-lock on the other Ron Paul pages, again the semi-lock was only place recently on the main page and I can only imagine how many Vandal edits were left on that site, I do not know if she had an interest in it for some time but will check. A semi-block should have been placed long ago.

Finally if you look at the last discussion, I will not revert the political positions section on Iran that I have pointed out how wrong she is to place them. I have done my edits there and request mediation on the Political Position page. I have listed ===6 valid reasons=== that Kjmonkey insists on reverting and keeping on the Political Position page. I do not want to make the charge in any stronger language than I have made already. That is why someone else besides myself needs to mediate or help solve this SERIOUS issue that I have brought to light and help put in place protection that this SERIOUS and lessor errors are not made in the future.

We are not in an ''not in pre-Wiki era hard-bound encycloped volumes" that she suggests that I emulate. I stress to her purpose is to inform the voter. "If the letter continues to be notable during the campaign as evidenced by its citation or continued use by different news media or other candidates, it may be proper to write under the subsection of the 2012" she states, way down out of view, out of order of his life, ===CHIEFLY=== to allow the likes of Medved to distort the man.

The ===Errors=== she placed about Iran Position, and left there after being told, alone should suffice for mediation if not more serious action on part of Wiki

As Collect says, Cheers,Snettie 16:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The letter does not belong. All the wiki policies I referenced are still valid as reasons for its non inclusion. The reason why your attempts to insert the text of the entire letter into Ron Paul was reverted and why your subsequent attempts to add the letter as a wikipedia article has been deleted by other editors is simply because your edits do not conform to what is required by wikipedia. The closest example of the form required can be found in the United States Constitution article. If we were to allow the entire text of the document to be inserted whenever its citation was needed to clarifying claims, then the Ron Paul article should (by your rationale for including the 1987 letter) have the entire US Constitution document inserted. However, this is not appropriate. Even in the United States Constitution article, care has been taken to not copy-paste the entire document in the article but instead have an analysis of the document. Even when we examine sub-articles on separate pages that include the actual text from the Constitution, its usage is considered appropriate as citations for the subsequent critical commentary. Your usage of the 1987 Ron Paul letter does not follow this format or indicate an attempt of critical passage analysis of the document using other third party sources. For my part, I have added the actual document with the appropriate copyright license to wikisource which, as User:JohnCD has noted below, is the appropriate website to place source documents, whole, intact, and without additional commentary. Kjmonkey (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with GOP resignation letter
Hello. Concerning your contribution, GOP resignation letter, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?127072-Some-Relevant-History-Ron-Paul-s-1987-Resignation-Letter-to-the-RNC. As a copyright violation, GOP resignation letter appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. GOP resignation letter has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:GOP resignation letter and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:GOP resignation letter with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:GOP resignation letter.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 03:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gop resignation letter


A tag has been placed on Gop resignation letter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Letter to Hillary Clinton


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Tinton5 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

GOP resignation letter
It is not enough to assert that something is in the public domain, and just having been published does not make it so. Copyright in that letter is assumed to belong to its author - see Copy-paste and Copyrights. In any case, even if the copyright issue were resolved, Wikipedia is not for publication of primary source documents - see WP:NOTREPOSITORY #3. There is another site, Wikisource, for which it might be suitable, but I am sure that they too would have to be satisfied about copyright. JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It has already been noted in Talk:Ron_Paul the rationale for not including the letter in wikipedia article. As I mentioned recently above, the letter has been added to Wikisource and has been referenced in Ron Paul.Kjmonkey (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rick Perry
Wikipedia is neither a forum, a soapbox, nor a political website. If you have suggestions as to how to improve the article, then that's a proper use of the Talk page, but calls to action are not acceptable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)