User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 1

screen shots
Hi, just wondering if you got those screen shots.Curb Chain (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like those screen shots thank you.Curb Chain (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thử thách cùng bước nhảy
Hi Snow, Here is the link for presumably Thử thách cùng bước nhảy (literally steps with challenges). It is not the official name because the press conference has not occurred yet. This is just the info provided by major media like Thanh Nien, Tuoi Tre, etc. I don't know if I can watch the show but I am sure that if you are intending to create the article, I'll help you a lot by finding info and finding clips. The show was called Dancer Idol, SYTYCD Vietnam, Bạn có thể khiêu vũ? (lit. Can You Dance?).  Tan Phat Nguyen  talk - - contrb  15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

Vietnamese Wikipedia has hardly ever built first. I am almost the bridge between ViWi and EnWi in some articles regarding on reality shows. I will join hands with you. Cheers :D!  Tan Phat Nguyen  talk - - contrb  14:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Much obliged Nguyen! You can keep me posted here: User:Snow_Rise/:Es.ntp_-_Thử_thách_cùng_bước_nhảy_coordination, or here on the talk page, wherever is best for you.  Look forward to hearing from you. :) Snow (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So You Think You Can Dance, Ballroom Styles
Hi Snow,

As I noted in my comments on the initial changes, that section is going to need some more work, but for the specific term in question, the show does in fact refer the the American-style version as "Smooth Waltz": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhAtJ0N_QkA

I'll track my suggestions in the talk page of the article rather than your personal page, but I just wanted to make clarification here that the show actually did use the term "Smooth Waltz", which means that's what should be shown on the page, by your logic.

Porfirio Landeros (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice catch - yeah, it should be added back in.  But the other one that was initial replaced by it before the revert should stay in as well.   We're going to end up with a half dozen different waltz handles eventually, but I guess it can't be avoided.  Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post the info here.  Snow (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

re: Bloke (word)
I also was hoping that the RfC would resolve the issue and we could quietly return everything to redirects and disambiguation pages. That option no longer seems viable.

Unfortunately, my experience with AfDs of WP:WINAD violations is not encouraging. The editors of the page pile on with "keep because I like it" and unsupported "it's encyclopedic" arguments and the policy-based arguments get lost in the noise. There is also always confusion when people arguing to redirect are evaluated in the close as "keep" opinions (which they are) but misinterpreted after the fact as "keep-as-is". If the debate is closed as anything other than an unambiguous "delete", making further improments to the page becomes very difficult.

I suppose at this point we have to try, though. Would you do the honors? Rossami (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and I can't help but feel that a certain someone did an end-run around the RfC process (or to be more fair, simply seized the opportunity when it was presented to him) because he knows the AfD will provide those kinds of procedural protections.  Honestly there's nothing stopping anyone from just blanking the page, adding a redirect back to the dab and re-inserting the basic definition there.  But I think that approach would just lead to acrimony at this point and I'm still confident that the policy is clear enough to make the decision pretty definitive.   I'll be happy to do the nomination, but as I'm just out the door now, it will have to wait until later.  Thanks for the timely response. Snow (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, you know what kind of bothered me about that whole situation was that there seemed to be some disconnect with the page history and how he had presented the chain of events on the talk page. He says that someone else promoted the article to mainspace (which doesn't make much sense) But what seems to be the case is that he created the article in mainspace himself from the start.  Instead of creating a subpage on the talk page or using a custom sandbox, he created a subpage on the mainpage, or some such.  Then some other editor came along, assumed it was an appropriate article that was misplaced and promoted it to the full article status that the original author wanted all along.  But it should have been subpaged/sandboxed on his user page or sandbox or a talk page.  I think it was a good faith mistake though.  But I just don't think he should be so zealous about defending a page and being sure it's justified if he's green enough to make a mistake like that.  Now he's very eager to have AfD process to give him a better shot at keeping the content in, but he's bent the truth a bit to gloss over the part that it was his procedural error which put the page in mainspace from the start, in violation of the (slim) majority vote of the RfC and policy in general, which means it's absolutely a candidate for speedy delete.  He even went as far as to claim that the bloke (hah!) who moved the page was a supporter of his position, even though the edit summary clearly demonstrated he was almsot certainly unware of the discussion and moved the page because it's location seemed out of place.  But I don't want to turn the talk page toxic proving that chain of events point by point...so, AfD.... Snow (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your history
Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other username? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but I did contribute as an IP for many years before I finally registered an account last year. Why do you ask? I don't think I care for the latest implied (and utterly unfounded) accusation anymore than the previous ones. Snow (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You behave and argue very much like a couple of banned sockmasters, each of whose newest incarnation also strenuously denies being a sockpuppet. For someone I've never seen at a fictional element AfD before, you have a very well-developed and congruent viewpoint which mimics one or more of these folks rather closely.  Doesn't mean you are a sockpuppet, of course, but your "I was an IP before" answer is also entirely consistent with what a sockpuppet would say--try to excuse their advanced knowledge of Wikipedia policies, procedures, and the like, in excess of the contributions attributed to the current account.  Again, this is not an accusation, but I'm sure you can see why your answer isn't particularly reassuring to those of us who prefer to keep debates above-board. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you have me do, lie? I don't know which sockpuppeters you are referring to, but this is the one and only account that I have ever registered on Wikipedia.  You know who else would "strenuously" deny being a sockpuppet?  Someone who wasn't.  If you cared to review my editing history before making baseless allegations, you would see that I've edited consistently without issue for almost a year now and that it is only in the last few weeks that I have begun to participate in AfDs and RfCs via the log pages as an effort to expand my contributions to the project (I have previously participated in RfC's, but only those which I came into contact with through happenstance, such as those which arose on a page I was already contributing to).  If my arguments are well-developed perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is only because I have applied due diligence in familiarizing myself with policy before participating in the relevant discussions and benefited from my extensive time as an unregistered editor in becoming aware of how the project works.  Not that the policies and procedures that were relevant to that particular discussion even represent a highwater mark in terms of complexity anyway -- I'm pretty sure my arguments would have been similar if I had taken part in that discussion just weeks after arriving on Wikipedia and there's certainly no issue in that discussion that a year's worth of editing wouldn't prepare the average contributor for.  Also I find it interesting that you now use my understanding of policy to suggest that I'm a sockpuppet, when you've just recently been characterizing my command of policy as indicative of a lack of experience, but I digress.   As for my arguments being being "congruent" with whoever's -- this is not only a ridiculously vague and subjective assertion, it is offensively light grounds for making accusations which bismirch the reputation of a fellow editor to the degree which this one does.  It is especially inappropriate for you to come here and make such a claim immediately after we had a contentious exchange.   Allow me  to be frank about how our interactions so far have played out from my perspective:
 * 1) Someone in the afore-mentioned discussion made a (non-factual) claim about some of the sources you provided. I disputed this claim.
 * 2) You leapt to defend your participation, citing that you you hadn't really intended them to meet the criteria the other user had claimed they met (and which I refuted) anyway.
 * 3) I responded with the following: "Please don't take it personally Jclemens, it was not a comment upon your editorial or discussion approach, I was simply responding to a specific statement made about what those particular sources which I found to be in error. It was not intended as a judgement of all potential sources or of you in any way." I wrote this (very politely worded) message solely for the purposes of good will and to clarify that I was objecting to the sources on a narrow basis.
 * 4) You responded again. I strongly suspect that the fact that another user (with whom you were presently engaged in several heated arguments across multiple pages) responded in a critical manner to your post immediately before I had a chance to respond myself colored your reading of my post and caused you to see it as a condescending barb rather than the good faith effort that it was, since your responses were chilly and confrontational from the start.   Regardless, rather than respond to the narrow issue which was the only one I had commented on (and which I was utterly correct about, as even you have stipulated), you decided to expand debate with me to a peripheral issue.
 * 5) Since I strongly disagreed with the (new) policy argument you made, and it was germane to the AfD, I felt compelled to respond. You then took us further down the rabbit hole with a series of responses that were increasingly abstract from the original point that I made which you took such issue with.  Which would have been fine, seeing as these policies were relevant to the AfD.  Unfortunately, your tone simultaneously became increasingly vitriolic and confrontational; you impugned my priorities, quality, and experience as an editor and made other comments that were not relevant to the subject at hand.
 * 6) When I called you on this behaviour and asked that you please confine further comments towards me to policy and facts, your next response was to immediately come here with a new accusation (this time, sockpuppetry). Given your position and experience, I am amazed that I have to tell you this, but this is highly inappropriate in that, given we were in the middle of an argument, it could be construed as (and indeed I take it to be, at least in part) an attempt to intimidate someone who disagreed with your positions on an editorial matter.
 * I would consider all of this to be exceptionally poor Wiki-etiquette and ethics of any contributor -- in a member of ArbCom, I find it reprehensible. You say your comments here are not an accusation, yet that is clearly a false statement as there is no other purpose to coming here and making such an implication as you have.   You closed your last comment with "your answer isn't particularly reassuring to those of us who prefer to keep debates above-board."  First off, I'm not aware of any policy or community standard which requires me to provide any defense to an accusation for which the accuser's only evidence are the facts that A) I disagreed with him and B) My style seems "familiar" to him.  Less established editors do not have to prove themselves  every time they have a disagreement with you, or any editor, in order to participate in debates, unless there is an actual violation of conduct.  You'll also note that not one other editor has raised a single issue with my conduct here, so clearly no one else requires "reassuring" that I am "above board."  Only you, and this after your behaviour in our exchanges has been much more questionable than mine.  Perhaps you should reassess your evidence and motives (conscious or otherwise) in suspecting me.    Regardless, I am quickly beginning to view this behaviour as harrassment, and I urge you to abate these specious claims before I am forced to seek community resolution to the issue in order to protect my good name as an editor.  Indeed, if you had any integrity as a Wikipedian, and one invested in a position of such high trust in the community, you would admit that it was inappropriate to make such an insinuation on the grounds of such flimsy non-evidence and perhaps even consider that your level of civility in our interactions could have been better from word go.  Good day. Snow (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re
 →TSU tp* 03:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 D Big X ray  08:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Heh, much obliged! Snow (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sinister
Yep. Try to find things that are built for humour but don't offend. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bloke (word)
I have nominated Bloke (word) for deletion at Articles for deletion/Bloke (word) per my close at Talk:Bloke, a discussion in which you participated. Cunard (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the information about the evolution of skin color in humanity. It sure does seem confusing, because of all the conflicting opinions on that one page, but I will look over the material you provided. Thanks again. InforManiac (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy Wikiversary to me!
I hereby award myself cake.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India
Do you think I should withdraw it and do an RFC instead? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'll probably get more traction that way, yes.  Please let me know if you do proceed thus and I will be happy to provide my support behind the merger.  I'm uncertain Rape in India is the right home for this material though, since that page will undoubtedly eventually be broadened to include all manner of domestic occurrences of rape in India and the Rape in Northeast India (and the similar Human rights abuses in Assam and Human rights abuses in Manipur) mostly concern events taking place during civil unrest.   My first impulse is to go with a merged article of Human Rights issues in Northeast India (or Human Rights issues in India, which would allow for the merger of content from Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir as well, though this last one is already a long article in its own right and thus may not be ideal for amalgamation).  But it must be kept in mind that that the RfC will have to reach out to editors on all of the articles to be merged, so bear in mind that you're taking a huge task in hand in making the effort.  But again, if you do, I'll be happy to participate in the RfC until a consensus is reached. Snow (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have followed your advice and closed the AFD. I have also started an RFC. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've commented with my initial position on the RfC and notified another editor who proposed a similar solution a while back.  I'll do my best to keep up with the debate.   Once editors come to an initial agreement on the ideal location for the merged article, I'll be happy to contribute to the drafting process (and will even host a project sandbox on my user page, if you like).  Snow (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to Talk:2012 Assam violence
Hi, you are welcome to discuss here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Assam_violence#Disputed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette advice
Hi Snow, I'm spending less time on Wikipedia these days; perhaps as a consequence I'm getting out of touch with Wiki-culture. Specifically, I thought after weeks of no replies on this Talk:Abortion, that I may have carried the day discussion wise. It appears User_talk:Roscelese, I have not. I mean is Wiki-culture shifting, am I wrong here? Am I encountering a clique or just overlapping good-faiths with small pieces of the puzzle (subject) more complex than they appreciate? - RoyBoy 04:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A Gate Keeper Barnstar for you

 * :) Was my pleasure! Snow (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?
"Geez-a-loo, even Jack's jokes are surly".

From your talk page, it seems you yourself don't take kindly to implied accusations. Most people don't.

So ... would you care to say more about this alleged surliness? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As you found the comment offensive (or at least questionable), I apologize. For the record, it was meant in good humour.  The fact of the matter is, there have been some occasions where I've found your responses to queries or comments on the Ref Desks to be a little terse or critical sounding, hence the comment, but rest assured I typically find your contributions to be quite relevant, informative and helpful to the OP,  so please trust that I didn't mean anything negative with that comment. On the contrary, it was meant to be good-natured ribbing of an experienced and valued contributor who just happens (in my view) to be a little curmudgeony on occasion.   Again, my apologies if the comment didn't come off that way, coming out of the blue as it did.  If you like, I'll refrain from making any similar personal comments concerning your posts in the future.  Snow (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up, Snow.


 * Can I be a little curmudgeonly at times? Yes, I can.  Sometimes I derive great enjoyment out of it, but mainly it happens when I'm more than just a little annoyed at weird goings on, such as editors doing the exact opposite of what they've been asked for, or refusing to abide by simple indenting rules, or generally behaving in a particularly wrong-headed fashion.


 * However, these expressions of spleen are not the real me. Outside of these isolated instances, I am the epitome and living embodiment of sweetness and light.


 * I have no issue at all with you or anyone making comments on anything I post. But when the comments are not confined to what I wrote, but stray into not exactly laudatory observations about the way I generally behave, that's when I become troubled.  Unless I know it's a joke, which I had no reason to suspect in this case.  I don't always remember to do this myself, but the safest approach to making jokes online is to clearly signal that that's what's going on.  Small type, smileys, LOLs etc can all be used for this purpose, and they can often head off potential issues at the pass.  Out there in RL, we hardly ever need to do this, but in here we are deprived of the non-verbal aspects of language, which account for something in excess of 90% of the meaning, and so we sometimes need to compensate.


 * All the best. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's interesting you mentioned that. I distinctly remember thinking I should edit that post yesterday to include a smilie or some other contextual clue to reinforce that I intended the comment in jest.  I can't recall why I didn't.   And then just a bit ago when responding to the matter on the Ref Desk, I almost included a comment about the irony of the fact that the miscommunication was occurring on the language RefDesk, where ostensibly we spend time specifically because of our interest (and somewhat presumed expertise) in language -- lack of verbal ques and other contextualization notwithstanding.  But yes, usually I do try to provide more explicit markers for exactly those reasons, so that's on me. *


 * In any event, glad we got it sorted out. All joking critiques of grumpiness aside, I think the purpose of the RefDesks are vastly better served by contributors who keep things on track and relevant to the query being explored.  We do have a little bit more latitude in how far afield we can go in discussion of a topic when compared against other areas of the project, but people need to be mindful that the pages are meant to serve specific functions and are not, despite format similarities, to be confused with a completely open forum.   I have a little bit of a pet peeve with contributors who are in such a rush to engage any topic that they often post highly speculative (and sometimes potentially confusing) responses to questions they are really not ideally qualified to answer, and then sometimes compound this issue by taking the discussion down bizarre avenues to defend their speculations or to examine a completely auxiliary issue.   Of course, I would never comment on this issue on the desks themselves (unless the situation grew out of control and things were obviously stepping outside of the boundaries of the page guidelines) because I don't want to create a useless (and likely toxic) debate that could chill or hinder genuinely useful discussion and because I think some indulgence is worthwhile if it means maintaining a larger and more engaged collection of voices for those pages -- but the self-indulgence and misdirection (intentional or not) does get irritating at times, so I see where you're coming from.  The point of all of which is that editors who show an understanding of the function of the RefDesks can be as dour or even outright tactless as they like and I'll still prefer their contributions.


 * * In fact, I sometimes wonder how those things are going to amalgamate into standard formal/written language. The resistance of prescriptivists and language mavens notwithstanding, there's too much need for emotive elements as we rely increasingly upon text-based communication. Snow (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * So You Think You Can Dance (Belgium and the Netherlands, season 5) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Cha-cha-cha, Jive, Usher, Keane, Nobody's Perfect, Ben Howard, Diplo, Rock with You, RAI Amsterdam and Loreen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)