User talk:Snuppy

Welcome!

Hello, Snuppy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on February 24 2007 to Jack Off Jill

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemmani mass graves

Thanks for your third opinion, it sets the stage to take it to mediation. Thanks RaveenS 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For your recent comments regarding Children of Men. I agree with your opinion about some serious OWN issues going on. Myself, I actually tried to stay away from the article, after Viriditas bullied me and a few others away with name-calling, threats and edit-warring. I kept an eye on it, though, and got tired of him reverting almost anyone who made a choice that didn't fit his view of the article. Frankly, I don't know where to report OWN issues or his bad behavior. nyway, thanks for speaking up. Your voice is appreciated.Arcayne 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, after you weighed in, an admin directly connected to Viriditas (the other editor in the dispute) weighed in, of course in Viriditas' favor. If I wanted to dispute this further, how would I do so?Arcayne 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Holiday Magic

Thank you for your recent opinion on Holiday Magic. I realize it may have seemed to be a trivial question. However, it was not. I have added a reply under your comments. Thank you. Lsi john 01:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That selection of words pretty much nails the description I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to articulate. Now to determine exactly what is required to prove that. Thanks again.. Lsi john 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see in the Third-Opinon Talk discussion she's trying to stop me from moving forward, and again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests she chimed in to block my request for help. Lsi john 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Allegations_of_mass_graves_at_Chemmani, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

I know you just provided third opinion but I really believe that your input will be extremely valid. Please consider this invite. If you disagree to this then please forgive me and you can remove yourself. Watchdogb 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply on my talk page. Sorry for the disturbance Watchdogb 10:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping up

Thanks for stepping up and taking on that 3O at cults/government reports article 3O. I was beginning to think nobody would take a bite of that apple. Just the discussion-reading alone had to be gruesome. It says a lot about your character that you were willing to take it on.

Thanks.

Peace in God. Lsi john 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're only saying that because I agree with you. Just wait til I agree with Smee on something! Snuppy 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha.. funny, but naa, I have no issue with opinions going either way. When I give a thank-you, I'm sincere. I don't toss out smiles, thank-you's and awards on userpages without good reason.
In the case of the gov-report issue, it has been very contentious and the 3O-request sat there, untouched, for quite some time. I'm not sure whether I would have wanted to touch it myself. Simply going through the sheer volume of discussion, in order to see both sides, was a huge undertaking. You did that, and you gave a very concise and well-supported opinion. And I would have commended you for that, regardless of your opinion.
I try to remain NPOV on issues and stick to the rules. I will not object to what I see as relevant, accurate, reliable material. There is sufficient POV, OR and misquoted citations in these articles, without my having to contest legitimate, significant and relevant references.
Though, as you (sort of) imply, it is interesting that Smee and I are crossing paths so often, given that my NPOV goal is to remove POV and OR, and improve the articles and that I'm not really adding new material. I'll stop short of drawing conclusions.
Thanks again. Lsi john 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • also, I asked a followup Q to your est 3O. It appears that several of those 'cited by other works' references contain OR descriptions of intent.
Lsi john 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • another followup. I'm trying to get a basic understanding of when something can/should be included and when it can't/shouldn't. Specifically, whats the difference between the stuff you recommended to remove and the stuff I'm discussing now. Lsi john 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks again mate. For me, that entire article's notability is in serious question. However, with the extra fluff, an uninformed reader, at a casual glance, could easily assume that the article was well sourced and cited. Yet once the 'extra' unnecessary (and only superficially related) stuff is removed, the stark emptiness of the article is revealed. At the end of the day, that article says 'Once upon a time, there was a book, and a couple people mentioned it. the end'.
And pfhththt, I'm not upset at all that you gave a 'retain' opinion, so na na na na na. :-} I have half a mind to give you a BarnStar. Ok, well I have half a mind.
Peace in God. Lsi john 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you aren't watching. You might notice how Smee has now added additional wording and strayed even further toward OR by implying things about the source that aren't so 'obvious' from the title. I have no desire to fight him on this issue, it just demonstrates the problem of subtle POV interests to 'tie in' extra terms and 'imply' things that aren't necessarily true. One or two things get removed, and two more get added. Lsi john 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your son is much more important and fun. I also respectfully disagree that the Viz citation, when taken as worded, isn't OR. But I've already acknowledged that I'm being technical. The statement, as worded, claims that the source being cited "was attempting to analyzing the way the trainers emulated Erhard" which is not supportable and isn't related to the book 'est'. And, as I said above, I am not interested in fighting him over this issue. There are much bigger and more serious issues to be uncovered, and son's to be played with! Thanks again for taking the time. Lsi john 01:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further input needed

Can you give further input at Talk:Est Playing the Game, please? This is the issue:

  1. Source - "Seminar leaders were trained to resemble as closely as possible both the teaching and personality of Werner Erhard. The main goal of the training was to get the participants to "transform their ability to experience living." The key word is experience, since the main thrust is not on new ways to believe or think but on new ways to experience."
  2. Article sentence - "Clayton Vitz cited the book in Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, while attempting to analyze the est experience and the way that the trainers emulated Erhard."
  • The issue is whether or not the Source supports the statement made in the article, and/or how to reword it so that some context is provided as to how Vitz is using the book as a source. Please respond on the article's talk page. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I, Smee, hereby give The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Snuppy. Thank you for maintaining such a polite and kind demeanor with editors on all sides when delving into difficult issues and providing neutral comments. Your efforts are appreciated by the community. Thank you. Yours, Smee 23:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planescape

The Original Barnstar
For cleaning up the article Planescape, which was in a terrible state before you worked your magic on it. A commendable effort! Gavin Collins (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Planescape, requesting a third opinion regarding the notability tag, as part of the dispute resolution process would be a good idea. BOZ (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it wasn't a good idea - just wasn't familiar with it until I saw you using it recently. :) I found out how much of an important part of the dispute resolution process it was while reading up on how RfM's work. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Gavin hasn't conceded the point on the Talk page, I do have some concern that he'll be back with cleanup tags. I'll request the 30. Snuppy 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal. :) BOZ (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, you could also go with an article RFC on Kender - "Should fictional characters be considered part of the plot?" or something like that. It would have to be RFC, since 3O is strictly for disagreements between two editors. Heck, Gavin even suggested it on the talk page for that article. :) BOZ (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matter of fact - I think I'll give a look at that one. :) BOZ (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had been involved in discussions prior to his Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planescape: Torment GA review

Hey there! In case you haven't seen, Planescape: Torment has been nominated as a Good Article, and the review has been placed on hold; some issues need to be resolved, so have a look at the review page and discuss the issues and let's get to work! BOZ (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O

[2]. Provided requested material. M.K. (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you watchlisted that page,as I made further comments . Cheers, M.K. (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Look, Here's the deal. If we can be 100% honest here, I think this can be worked out. I feel, neither you would be so all over me if there was no validity to my claims. I'm not a stupid guy, neither are you. We've established that.

This is me trying to have a civil discussion with you. Man to man. If you are indeed not a man, forgive me for assuming. But can you at least admit (without outing yourself) that you do indeed have a COI with the topics TC Smith, Jack Off Jill and Robin Moulder. I need to know I am dealing with a stand-up person, not just somebody who is spouting wikipedia guidelines, rules, and policies in order have some sort of internet anonymity. I don't want to deal with somebody who is gunning to discredit my wife. That would be unfair. I am appealing to you as a human being, a rational thinking person, and if I may be so bold a husband. (If you are indeed married)

Understand- My concern does not lie with edits to TC Smith or user: KurtneyLovelace- I'm not either of them. user: KurtneyLovelace has been warned.That's all I can do.

If user: KurtneyLovelace resurfaces and does something you don't like- have at them with all the wikipedian fury you can muster- seriously. That's on them from here on out. They are not my wife. Either is user: Rickey Goodling OK?

If you are indeed a neutral third party, you'll see what I mean and help me take action.

"This obviously places a higher hierarchical importance to Scarling and TCR over novelty acts, bands where the member is associated with a single JOJ show. This ordering is more encyclopedic and useful to a reader who is looking for the definitive post-JOJ acts by the major band members. 2) editing portions to remove breathless magazine-style writing and trivia/cruft, to reduce link redundancy, and to request citations for unsupported statements."

I have no argument to the first part of this quote. I do think that the article would benefit if removed quotes from Scarling. reviews - giving Jack Off Jill praise were put back in. It only helps the article giving the band validity and some praise that perhaps they didn't get while they were together. This change is entirely up to you. I'm fine with it either way.

To end this and to be clear, I need some help. If you can't help me because of a COI - understood. Perhaps you can at least point me in the direction of somebody who can? I am going to, Assume good faith and hope you can do the right thing. Like I've said before- I have nothing to hide. I'm sure you are just as busy as I am, so I thank-you for taking the time to read this and wish you a good day. (Sir?) Wikipedia works a lot like the movie business- (interesting indeed) Xtian1313 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{|Chzz|Note_to_all_parties}} --  Chzz  ►  18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me assure you right now that I have no interest in discrediting, defaming, or otherwise perpetuating any ridiculous feud. You have my absolute guarantee that I will not engage in behavior that might do so without cause. My only concern is fairness, accuracy, and encyclopedic tone; I believe my only edits to the articles you have mentioned in the past year to year and a half-plus have been minor changes or vandalism reversions. I believe I have been diligent in this, and I encourage you to alert me to any edits that have not been utterly neutral.
I agree that I should have written a replacement in the press section for the JOJ article rather than deleting it altogether. Thus, I've placed a new version in the JOJ Talk page for approval; please take a look and let me know what you think.
I appreciate your help with the KurtneyLoveLace/RickeyGoodling issue, and I thank you for it. I'm going to go ahead with the CheckUser on that account, because this is a pattern of abusive edits that has been occurring over the course of years, and I'd like it to stop altogether.
I accept your claim that this person/these people are not you or your wife; I have no reason not to take you at your word. I'd offer my assistance in getting the claims you linked removed, but:
a) it looks like you and Chzz have been working together on that, and
b) Some of those edits are now archived, and it will take an admin or the Oversight board to remove them. The latter is definitely your best bet; that will scrub the database of these references, rather than disappearing them into accessible history diffs.
I would also contact User:SatyrTN, User:Prodego, User:Gnfnrf with the diffs you've listed here and ask them to remove this material. I think they're all admins, so they might be able to clear the db themselves.
UPDATE: I see that Chzz is going ahead with contacting these editors as well. It looks like you're in good hands. :)
Good luck with it. I know how incredibly frustrating this can be. Snuppy 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank-you. You are indeed a stand-up individual. You now have my word that I will do everything in my power to keep the peace here on wikipedia.

"I encourage you to alert me to any edits that have not been utterly neutral."

Most appreciated, I encourage you to do the same.

This is the first time since I've come here that I can breathe a sigh of relief. We all seem to all be on the same page. This is a good thing.

I am extend the same courtesy I did to User:Chzz- If at any time you need to get a hold of me quickly outside of wikipedia feel free to email me at scarlingmusic@aol.com

Take care - I look forward to future communication, Xtian1313 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I don't know if you've been around in a while, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeordie White

Hi Snuppy, I see you did some great work with article Jack Off Jill :) Think you could help me correctly incorporate the sections you blanked in article Jeordie White there's plenty of google evidence that he and Jessicka dated. I'd just like to word it correctly and also include the part about Gidget Gein. Any help would be appreciated. " Noticeably, most of Jeordie White’s signature early “Twiggy Ramirez“ look was taken directly from Jessicka and previous Manson bassist and Gidget Gein. " Swancookie (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is reading you incorrectly

Is it me, or is it the other guy? [3] If I'm wrong so be it, but if he's reading you incorrectly, then he's assuming you're siding with him. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should take care of that. I wasn't aware that I'd been at all unclear, and re-reading it, nope, I wasn't. But I put up an extra-clarifying statement there that also firmly declares my preference. Does that work? Snuppy 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was accused of violating policies by trying to point out my interpretation of what I thought you were saying, so I figured it was getting silly at that point, and only you should speak for yourself. :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kevin Saunders (video game developer)

The article Kevin Saunders (video game developer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid online reviews

Hi there, Snuppy. I noticed that at one time [4], you had access to the Pyramid archives at Steve Jackson's website. If you still have access, would you like to help out with reviews on D&D articles? I have checked for where the reviews were already cited, and added more where they were needed. The main thing I would need help with would be to add the name of the reviewer in most cases, and that we fix the citation template. Additionally, if you have the time and inclination, you could go through the review and see if there are any additional bits worth mentioning in our article, it would help out a ton if you would do that. Here is a sampling of articles that I would suggest you take a look at for starters:

If those all look good to you already, or if you just want to see what else there is, you can check out my full list of Pyramid's online reviews. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help, but I don't have that access anymore. In fact, when I found it there was no login, so I was a little surprised to see that SJ Games is looking for a registration for that old content. Snuppy 04:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a shame. OK, thanks for letting me know. :) BOZ (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Snuppy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snuppy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]