User talk:SNIyer1/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, SNIyer1/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, 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! --Lst 27 18:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop adding content that is speculative and of minor relevance to Canada and the 2004 U.S. presidential election - SimonP 05:38, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you re-added some content to the Ronald Reagan article that had previously been removed. It was removed because of some discussion on the talk page. If you disagree with the reasoning behind removing the text, please discuss the issue with us there. Thanks! Neilc 05:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JFK[edit]

You are adding several emotional opinions which I am sure are heartfelt, but it is not up to you to decide what is the MAIN reason people are sorry about his assassination -- and I think stating it was his youth trivializes it.... --JimWae 22:01, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

How can you say what is below? Even though those are the TWO most shocking events in my life, many people in many parts of the world have felt shock on other occasions too. I am sure people who lost family members in the SF earthquake might feel differently. An encyclopedia is not supposed to focus on people recounting their feelings about events

Only one other event since the assassination has the shock of the assassination been felt: the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

You have both Sunday & Monday as "the day of drums".

Your edit that starts a sentence as Like 9/11 makes the construction of the entire sentence awkward - and puts another topic ahead of the topic of the article. 9/11 is also referred to elsewhere in the same article, is it not?

Please be careful about how much sentiment you try to convey in your contributions - an encyclopedia is quite different from both a novel and a poem. --JimWae 20:41, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

I know something is bothering you and you are trying to express it. But your words here are inappropriate for an encyclopedia - in fact sometimes they barely make sense. I have tried to phrase your contributions to improve the wording, but you are making the entire article seem too sentimental & too much like a cheap romance novel or cheap tragedy.

Have you noticed other people are bothered by how maudlin some of what you add is? Yet you just keep putting back the same inadequate wordings that others remove. Are you aware that in the end, all your melodramatic words will disappear from the encyclopedia? Wouldn't you rather work on a lasting contribution?

It is one of the protocols of wikipedia that you discuss disputes on this page, rather than just making changes that are little different from vandalism. You are being rude by acting as though you own the article.

There are so many problems with what you have written.

The #2 guy from Soviet Union did not lead the procession. My Internet search indicates it was indeed the person whose name you keep removing (without indicating why), the King Baudouin of Belgium

There were 111 countries in the UN that day - why the continued focus on just 3 of the 20 or more that were not here?

The term "Years of Lightning, Day of Drums" comes from a documentary film so entitled. We do not need comments here so tied to a film that make a entire day begin at 11 am and end before 4pm.

If you can find some reference to it being called the "day of drums" other than the film documentary, please say so. It does seem somewhat appropriate, given the steady drumbeat that accompanied the funeral, but you have not built a foundation for such a reference.

I can tell we are making some headway, because you did not add the other term which you had not laid foundation for "Years of Lightning". (If you do it now, you will be demonstrating your immaturity even for a lady your age.)

Perhaps you can also give some account for why 9/11 need be mentioned thrice (so far) in this same short article, and why intricate details of 9/11 belong here.

You are very high maintenance, Lady SNIyer1

The more melodrama you put into the article, the more closely others will scrutinize it - and some have already removed some wording that could have survived otherwise.

--JimWae 07:45, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Hello. Why did you unlink some names at the UPI article? Were you just removing links to articles not yet written? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 22:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

PA 103[edit]

Hi, I saw your edit on PA 103 and that you removed that the first flight was PA 103A. I was just wondering why you did that, because I believe you did it a couple of weeks ago too (if it wasn't you, my apologies). Best, SlimVirgin 03:01, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

JFK DOB Info[edit]

Plese stop your constant removal of the John F. Kennedy fact that he was the first President born in the 20th century. I have put this on the article's talk page, but you have not responded to my question about why you are doing this. He WAS the first U.S. President born in the 20th century and this is in nearly every history book I have ever seen about him. I have put this info back into the article and will continue to revert your changes. If you continue these deletions, without explaining why or giving some reason, this may become a case of article vandalism. Dont mean to upset you, but I dont know why you keep on taking that statement out of the JFK article -Husnock 24Jan05

PA 103 again[edit]

Hi, I wonder if you would mind explaining what your aims are regarding the PA 103 article? You often add factoids that don't seem quite relevant: for example, adding that the U.S. ambassador and a British politician thought it might be a bombing on the night, when we now know, years later, that it was a bombing, adds nothing to the article, and somewhat disturbs the narrative flow. (Almost everyone thought it was a bombing on the night, not just those two.) Or you add material that is both irrelevant and not verifiable; for example, today's edit that it was a Boeing spokesperson who said the aircraft was the 15th to be made. First, how do you know this and second why is it relevant? If you want to cite a source, you'll have to say where the spokesperson said this, and if you feel it ought to be cited, we could add a link to the reference, but simply adding that a spokesperson said it somewhere to someone isn't citing a source. At other times, you have removed information, without explanation, that was true and relevant e.g. that PA 103 was the name of the flight from Heathrow to JFK, and that it was called PA 103A from Frankfurt to London. If you could explain what you're trying to achieve, I could perhaps help you, rather than just reverting. Best, SlimVirgin 15:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, as you can see, I'm doing a rewrite of PA 103 in order to make it more complete and to improve the writing. First, can I ask you to mark your very minor additions with an "m", so that I know not to check them? You are making several tiny changes in a row, saving each time, instead of using the "preview" button, and not marking them as minor, which means there is a lot to check, most of it unnecessary. Second, the non-minor additions you're making are not improving the article. For example, you added to the intro: "It was also the worst act of terrorist violence against the United Kingdom until September 11, 2001--44 of the victims were British citizens, including the 11 residents of Lockerbie. However, the bombing remains the worst act of terrorist violence within British borders." It was not the worst act of terrorism against the UK. It was not directed at the UK. That it landed in Lockerbie was pure chance and almost certainly unintended by the bombers. The target was the U.S. Secondly, if you're going to add all the worst things it was, you will bloat the intro, and it is already very long, so we have to choose our "worsts" carefully. You also added this: "The aftermath of the bombing saw the best of the people of Lockerbie. In the days after the bombing, they pleaded for relatives of the victims to come so that they could get comfort. In the time that has followed, the people in Lockerbie have formed a friendship with relatives of the victims. They also have helped them locate where their loved ones fell when the aircraft exploded. Over the years, they have shown that they will never forget what had happened, but they're keen to look ahead and reclaim their town for the future." This is POV and non-encyclopedic, and unfortunately it can't stay in the article for that reason. Regarding adding that it was the 15th 747 to be built, I don't see the need for that in an already very long intro.

As I'm trying to improve the article at the moment, would you mind discussing your changes with me, or perhaps waiting until I've finished the re-write? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 04:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note that you didn't reply to my first enquiry to you about the article. SlimVirgin 04:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are disputed: use the talk page to discuss them[edit]

Hi. I'm seeing that some of your edits to September 11, 2001 attacks and other pages are being disputed. At the same time, I can't help noticing that of your last 1000 edits, none of them have been made to any talk page. I find this very worrisome. Note that it is Wikipedia policy to achieve consensus in case of a dispute (see: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes). I therefore urge you to state your case on the relevant talk pages, rather than just re-inserting deleted content over and over again. Thanks. --Plek 21:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You NEED to communicate with people regarding their objections to your edits. You can't ignore their comments. Please do not continue to ignore others' objections and refuse to work with people in getting to a consensus. Moncrief 22:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. You have just reinserted a disputed section of text into the September 11, 2001 attacks article. I have removed it: a discussion is ongoing about this topic at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Again with the children. I strongly urge you to work at building consensus by adding to that discussion. --Plek 23:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Use the edit summary field, please[edit]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Plek 23:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election, 1976[edit]

Hi:

When I excised your sentence about Richard Nixon being term-limited, I gave reasons for the excision on the talk page, namely:

Your sentence gives the impression that the only reason Nixon wasn't running was that he was term-limited, when, even if there was no 22nd amendment, he wouldn't have been nominated.
Nixon isn't relevant to the election. He wasn't the incumbent (that's Ford). If merely being a term-limited former president is sufficient to get a sentence in the election article, then there should be sentences in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 presidential election stating that Nixon was term-limited.

If you wish to reinsert your sentence, please give some sort of reason for it. — DLJessup 13:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parliament Hill[edit]

SNIyer1, this is to give you fair warning that if you continue to insert schmalz into Wikipedia, I will revert your edits on sight without even reading them. Edits like this: "During many major events in Canada, Canadians gather on the lawn ... and understand the life of Canada ... They also understand that they are part of history," are unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. You've inserted similar material into numerous articles, and you're wasting the time of editors who have to hunt it down and delete it. Please stop. You must also leave a description of your edit in the edit summary, and should tick the "minor edit" box if it is a minor edit. Also, please start using the "show preview" option rather than saving all the time. SlimVirgin 01:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Trudeau[edit]

Will you please clarify why you chose to upload image:TrudeauLyingInState.jpg even though it is copyrighted? - Montrealais

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

I am trying to bring this article up to featured standard, and in looking at the article's history, I noticed that you added a substantial amount of info to it. I assume you got that info from one or more external websites, and if that is the case, could you tell me what those websites were, so I can cite them properly? Denelson83 22:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotation Marks[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks. You make edits that consist almost entirely of reversions of the punctuation recommended

also why do you keep deleting 1st president to be born in 20th Century?--JimWae 04:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Oops, it seems I misread some of your edits re quotation marks. Sorry about that, but what about 20th century? --JimWae 04:50, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

cut and paste moves[edit]

Use the move button or submit a move request. Do not cut and paste the contents of articles to change titles. Gamaliel 05:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please follow the rules outlined at Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. DO NOT cut and paste the contents of articles merely to change the titles. We have these rules in order to preserve the continuity of the page history. This is the second time I've had to ask you to refrain from doing this. Please do not do it again. Gamaliel 18:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin[edit]

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

How is your repeated deletion of material from JFK article without any explanation (when I do include explanation & request your reasons) any different from vandalism?--JimWae 2005 June 30 04:13 (UTC)

July 2005 - JFK stuff[edit]

Do you even know what NPOV is? --JimWae 2005 July 8 00:00 (UTC)

JFK again......[edit]

see: Talk:State funeral of John F. Kennedy --JimWae 03:36, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

Why do you switch between SNIyer1 & SNIyer12? --JimWae 03:36, 2005 July 13 (UTC)