Hello, Snori, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

For example, the article Pit oven, which you recently created, is about the same thing as Cooking pit. Thanks. —Keenan Pepper 07:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snori, as per your suggestion, I cleaned up the section on treatment of plantar warts. It was horrible! Philiphughesmd 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded, cleaned up, and very much reduced the tone of the Bill Hilf article, which you created. I'm not sure why you thought the original version was neutral, but please do try a little harder to not create articles with such negative tone. Thanks. ... aa:talk 00:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also cleaned up the Daniel Robbins article, to which you contributed. ... aa:talk 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many modern bows do work with elasticity instead of strain. Furthermore there do exist ballista bows. So I want to point out the use of torsion springs, elasticity or strain does not define a bow, but the use of a chord and a bow like multiplie prod crossbows (not only existing as siege engines). Wandalstouring 10:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again ballista belongs to the family of crossbows. Wandalstouring 10:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. --Snori 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note you reverted my correction of what I felt was poor syntax. Obviously we disagree on the syntax. However, rather than continuing an edit war on this, can we get to the root cause of the problem? I think the problems arise because the whole scentence is rather clumsily written - perhaps a real solution would be to break that scentence up into two or three scentences. Any objection? Winstonwolfe 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. I've plowed in with what I think is an improvement, but feel free to improve, or even revert if you've a better way to knock this into shape. --Snori 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See comment on Talk:zip gun, relevant to your latest edit. scot 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might want to add the tag {{User NZ res}} to your user page Onco_p53 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added two good articles and one website (talkpage) the review article gives a good outline of the development!--16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snori, I would have preferred you edited or added to the history additions to the Rowany Festival site, rather than deleting them. It took me quite some time to write those out, check references, and quite a few discussions with SCA people of our recollections of the timeline of Rowany. I apologise if the odd line was cut and pasted from SCA.au, my oversight. I will have another shot at it and this time make sure its a bit clearer. Deathlibrarian 13:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe. I really think there was too much detail for Wikipedia. It's great to recall/record - but sca.au would be a better place to do the recording imho. Snori 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A change you made to the Broadband Internet access page left an incomplete sentence - "Internationally "broadband penetration" is now seen as a key economic indicator, growing rapidily from a near-zero base in 2000 to", with no indication what it went to. Guy Harris 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, fxd Snori 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time you removed the reference to the Haka being Tongan, I reverted the change with a comment indicating that the information was cited and posted a topic on the article's talk page: Talk:Trinity High School (Euless, Texas). Let's talk about the situation there. Thanks! :) --Hebisddave 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your earlier comment. Have put some clarification on the article's talk page now.Snori 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure about some of those edits you made. The first thing that struck me is that most of the lead section disappeared. An article should have a lead (as per WP:LEAD) that summarises the article. It went from being two paragraphs to three sentences. Also I don't think you should have renamed the "Seventies and eighties" section "Anti-apartheid protests" — the section was not exclusively on the anti-apartheid protests, but also on their rugby matches. Lastly, the structure of what you have written leaves a lot to be desired. There are many short or one sentence paragraphs, and it's not linked together very well. I don't link to be critical but I really fail to see how many of your edits have improved the article. - Shudde ^talk 06:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I overdid it by clobbering most of the lead (I see it's back!), but frankly it needs a good rework with far too much emphisis on the World Cup. As for the Anti-apartheid section that's not just a renaming of the 60-70s, but a reworking all the items from 1960 up until to 1990. It is a bit "choppy", but if no-one else smoothes it out I'll have a go at some point.Snori 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs smoothing out. There is nothing wrong with adding information, but the prose was ok (not perfect) beforehand and now is pretty poor. My point about that section title is that it's inappropriate. The section is on more then just about anti-apartheid protests and so should be named something more generic. You may want to work on the prose of the sections you edited, because a lot of people will find it difficult to read as it is now. - Shudde ^talk 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular word? --Kevin Murray 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mi skellin aint sew gud. --Kevin Murray 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you altered the headings in moa? I had only just changed them to conform with the usual way of doing things on bird articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the spelling (Realtionship?, sciencee?) and layout (3.3.1 1993 account) were bad? A look through a few bird articles brought up only one, (albatross) with a layout anything like what you had, so I'm not sure that it's "the usual way". If those issues are fixed I have no problem with that layout though. Snori (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not all the bird people do it. It just seems to make sense since the things are all linked and follow on from each other. Thanks for your copyedits by the way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you just removed this image[1] from the moa page, and referred to the talk page, but I didn't see anything there. Is it not a moa foot? This says so: [2] FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you created the article on Bain. I wonder, did you use the source you added in external links, or do you have others? I don't ask this to question the article. I ask because my wife is interested in Bain, and is trying to find some sources on his work. Thanks. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the external links as backup, but I've got his book, and it's pretty clear that he was the first to treat knotwork etc seriously. Snori (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Snori (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the talk page. Bzuk (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

...and also my edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I think you'll be interested in the thread I've started about your recent change of the lead to the article on Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire. I can understand your reasoning behind the edit, but as I've explained on the talk page, I think some important information has been lost in the act and your opinion on the subject would be welcome. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got an email "Wikipedia sayfası Kullanıcı mesaj:Snori, Vikiçizer tarafından yaratıldı" but as don't read Turkish it's all Greek to me :-)

Do you know anything about this? Snori (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your e-mail about a "welcome message"...U created a user page in tr:wikipedia 'n we said "welcome Snori":) See ya...Vikipedist (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love the name, is it reference to the Erbyggja Saga or was it a personal choice? SADADS (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I picked it yesrs ago for use on a BBS. I'd read Grettis saga a few years before, and based 'Snori' on mis-remembering the spelling of Snorri Sturluson who I knew had written or preserved some of the sagas.

The Erbyggja Sago focuses on Snorri the Priest as one of the prime leaders. I would suggest it if you like other Icelandish Sagas.SADADS (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Legend Holdings Limited, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Legend Holdings Limited and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Sorry for the template. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thomas Howard, 3rd Earl of Effingham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Raziman T V (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It was a pleasure meeting at Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington. Hopefully catch up again soon. Cheers Lanma726 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori, I have a picture from the meetup and I wanted to email it to you, and also get your permission to publish it. Could you please email me? brianna dot laugher at gmail dot com. thanks --pfctdayelise (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. ttonyb (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your test page has been moved to User:Snori/test (note the 'user' not 'users' namespace). Please use User:Snori/test for your testing. Thanks, Peter 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don´t understand what the removal of the influence of greek has to do with the logic of the article. Maybe for the flow but in no way for logic (ironically considering that vocabulary relating to logic comes from greek). The influence on our vocabulary including scientific, natural and other terms of academia and study as well as measurements, prefixee, suffixes and tons of words that cannot be categorised is IMENSE. Is it wise to chop that out of the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're right of course to an extent, but in the structure of this sentence it didn't fit - and in fact I'd probably argue that the influence of Greek probably isn't worth a mention in intro.

Hi Snori, Just to let you know, I've amended the top speed on the Veyron article to 3 decimal places. I think it was confused when you edited it as an IP editor had changed to 407, then to 432 for some reason. Although the source only shows 431 in the top paragraph, it does have the speeds to 3 decimal places for the average and the two runs further down. I did the same thing previously, please see the talk if you would like further information. Thanks. Bertcocaine (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol thanks for that link. That could be Altiyan? but that sort of information is not needed on the article. ozurbanmusic (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's why i posted here, so you could use yr judgment. surprising tho in this day and age how much isn't widely known about the guy - yet.

Yes, I was suprised to hear that about him. He's different on X Factor. But you can help me find reliable sources to prove what you posted in Altiyans Child talk page is true, so I can add it on the article. ozurbanmusic (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Players.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, saw you removed the following material:

“

But Kireka-Whaanga, the leader of "Aotearoa Māori Muslim Association" (AMMA),<ref>Ruth Berry, ''Peters claims Muslim group funding radical'' in [[The New Zealand Herald]] (aa August, 2005)</ref> said numbers had shot up since September 11, as global media focused on radical Islam. The AMMA, the most influential Māori Muslim movement, has roots in the [[Hawkes Bay]] province.

”

What's the reason for this deletion? Your summary only said "trimming". Do you feel the section is inaccurate? Just removing it without explanation seems a bit odd, and I was concerned about it being removed as politically unpalateable vice inaccurate. Comments? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing a general tidy-up of several related articles. I don't have a particular agenda, but the "shot up since September 11" bit now looks a bit dated, and has now been overtaken by events - the 2006 census.Snori (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori, re your edit comment on that page

Tidy. See http://www.waikatomuseum.org.nz/page/pageid/2145844106/Long_Term_Exhibitions, the detail is only in Māori though, so I can't confirm)

Can you tell me what parts of the article you couldn't confirm because the details were in Maori? Kahuroa (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I couldn't confirm any actually, as I understand no more than a few words, but I though if the section by Our Anonymous Friend was to stay at all, (and maybe it shouldn't), then a link to the waka in question was useful.Snori (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The info in Maori doesn't relate to her additions. It's tribal history relating to the canoe rather than structural details etc. Her stuff itself seems plausible enough in this case although it is unsourced - just need to make that clear. My main objection to her edits was that they were placed as if the material was supported by refs already there. The link you found is useful definitely as background now and as a future source, so thanks. Kahuroa (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Juliancolton (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It helps the article be less inappropriate in my opinion, which matters, as it seems we're going to keep it. I appreciate the evenhandedness. Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help - I'm on a bit of a "trim binge' at the moment. Surprising how often "less is more" here! Snori (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All five terms relate to the same type of craft and create much duplicated information...however, the Waka page is really great. All Wa'a gets is a redirect o the page Outrigger Canoe. The big problem I'm having is mainly with the two va'a and vaka. Hawaiian, Maori, Samoan all lack a the letter V. While others may refer to items by different spellings, it is more logical to create pages and refer to items on Wikipedia according to the use of the word instead of the sound. Otherwise Hawaii would be Havaii. Well never mind. I'm most concerned with Wa'a. The neighborhood of Wa'a Wa'a is just down the road from me and means double canoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fdm (email utility) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fdm (email utility) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori Thanks for setting me straight on the contribution I made to the false advertising article. I'll have to be more careful about checking my sources in future. Psyd-winder (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That whole False advertising article is pretty shocking. Can't be too hard to improve it greatly with some robust, referenced, definitions and examples from consumer protection law surely? Snori (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:NetWare#Long_file_name_support. Thanks --Vssun (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the information on Maori enfranchisment and putting in in the correct section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.154.239 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for creating this article back in 2008. It's been tagged for multiple issues for 5 years now, including notability. Would you be able to take a look over it and see if you can help? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Re your cn's- the details are I believe all or mainly from Ron Crosby's 2004 book about Gilbert Mair's campaign against Te Kooti. Cosby is light on the utu aspect of the attacks(that sounds more like Judith Binney in Redemption Songs). From memory(I haven't read it for a while) Cosby writes that the attacks were more to get food, guns and other supplies to support his cause. It may well have been a combination of both. Cosby makes it clear that Te Kooti wasn't the killer -he was the planner and political/mystic force behind the attacks -more like the traditional Maori warrior leader of old. As far as I can see the Ringatu religion was just another Maori attempt to come to grips with the massive cultural changes happening to them. The Ringatu cult was in fact quite close in many of its beliefs to Pai Marire. Both were heavily influenced by the stories/sentiment of the lost tribe of Israel. Both incorporated aspects of traditional Maori beliefs. Pai Marire had the Hau hau and Ringatu had Te Kooti's utu killers roaming the Ureweras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, though I have been on Wikipedia for a number of years I have not been that active. This morning I saw my first example of blatant vandalism, which you corrected in "record time". I was just wondering if you could tell me how common this sort of thing is for editors who have decided to watch a page. I opted not to change the year of the film back to "2005", simply because I feared a change-counter-change "war", but you are evidently not worried about the time commitment that such an activity involves, at least potentially. What's to stop that vandal from simply putting "3049" back where it was, at any time? Thanks MerlintheMad 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MerlintheMad (talk • contribs)

There's plenty of such blatantly silly changes. Just Be Bold and revert them - it's typically bored schoolkids or drunken sillies. If they revert back, which almost never happens, then revert again - no-one's going to call it an edit war. It's very normal to stress over substantive changes to a page - but zapping these vandalism things should just be a reflex, like swatting a fly, or wiping up a spill! (see WP:Vandalism) Snori (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Snori . Though Te Kooti seriously disliked having his image taken there are at least 3 or 4 sketches of him done when he was distracted and one photo that is believed to be him -it certainly looks like the sketches and matches his description extremely well -especially the staring eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting to an editor they take a break .It seems that several editors who edit Nz Maori topics are a danger to their health and themselves. They seem to mistake wiki for the real world. Ive noticed an increasing trend in wiki towards bad language and very aggresive lamguage-almost threatening -I can alnost see the steam coming out of their nostrils. As a lady I dont appreciate that one bit. I have too much of that in may actual job! Good on you for your calming words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your edits have me tearing my hair out at times too :-) Very often they take a perfectly presentable, well balanced article "off into the weeds" with massive amounts of poorly presented material. I don't doubt your sincerity, your knowledge and research - or your Good Faith - but it certainly feels that unless a circle of editors are eternally vigilant in cleaning up after you, then these articles would be a disgrace - something none of us want. Perhaps you could could also occasionally take a break, or spend a little more time getting your contributions up to a reasonable standard? Snori (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already wrote a comment and ran int to the edit conflict, let me put it here (and reinforce you change of mind): The actual book (not the Google page) seems to be "Foundations of Geology", which makes a bit more sense. Can you be more specific which phrases you think are plagiarised? The quote in your query is not in our text. Also, the book was published in 2009. Our article has been here since 2002, and in 2008 was already quite substantial on the issue of Rutherford. So plagiarism might go either way. See e.g. this version from June 2008. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Came here from the 'Age of the Earth' article - I was responding as you deleted your comment). You may well have discovered evidence of plagiarism - but not by a Wikipedia contributor. The phrase you highlight, "Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step" appears in the article right from the first version, written in April 2002, [3] while the source you link states that it was first published in 2009 - and note the publisher's attempt to hold the author responsible for any plagiarism on the first page! Incidentally, there seems to be confusion regarding the source you link: how does a book entitled Foundation of Geology relate to Nanotechnological Applications in Cancer Treatment? I suspect this is a bug in the Google books search tool. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the publishers, I think we should probably let them speak for themselves: [4]:

Quality Control

We believe in high quality of content, design and production of books, thereby, we approach highly academically established authors, as well up coming up writers to encourage their research and writing skils. Our books are printed in latest printed machines. In addition, our aim is costumer satisfaction, prompt delivery of our products to domestic market as well over the globe. Our organisation, professionally committed and devoted team of editors, proof reader to look after and ensure each detail before sending for printing.

Not exactly reassuring ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of phrases such as ""Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step."", and "Many geologists felt these new discoveries made radiometric dating so complicated as to be worthless" stand out as "bookish" rather than in the normal plodding WP style. However, the so-called book I found via Google is almost certainly plagiarising WP rather than the reverse - so I've reverted my comment for now. Snori (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori. I noticed that you add "[citation needed]" for the "Dangers" section. It's hard for me to find the exact citation right now. However Riley, M. (1994). Maori healing and herbal. Paraparaumu: Viking Sevenseas (p.195) states the following "...if drunk to excess, will cause paralysing effects to the limbs. ...While kawa does not have narcotic properties, the compounds it contains have an increasingly relaxing effect on the nervous system and on skeleton muscle as dosage is stepped up - Weiss 1988. The effect and length of torpor also depend on the variety of plant used. The site of the action is thought to be the spinal chord and subcortex of the brain - Cox 1987. Over-indulgence in drinking kawa causes an affliction termed "kawaism", wherein the skin becomes flaky and the user's eyes red and rheumy. A clinical experiment showed that a daily intake of 300-800 mg. per day did indeed lead to an exfoliative dermatitis and the test was stopped - Keller 1963." Will it suit the requirements of Wikipedia for citation? Because if not I will need more time to find another book. In regards to the reputable sources listed, those sources do not have much information at all, moreover the .pdf link does not even work (http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/42013/Poisonous_plants_nz.pdf). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihtenish (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds very much based on kava and kava culture elsewhere in the Pacific. It may also apply to Maori in New Zealand wrt to Kawakawa, but this isn't clear to me. My links do work, and are exactly where you'd expect to find mentioned if indeed the seeds contained a "..virulent alkaloid poison, which brings on convulsions of the limbs which, if the person does recover, are usually permanently distorted..." - which is too bold a statement to make without a good source.Snori (talk)

Hi, no worries, I will find a citation today, if not I will amend the paragraph based on Riley, M. (1994). In regards to links, please check your .pdf link, honestly it does not work (I'm taking about the actual kawakawa page, but may be it does not work only on my computer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihtenish (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snori, I could not find the citation in the books I have on hand. I will go to the lib on Friday 19/07, in the meanwhile I took the paragraph out. I will come back to you with the info next week. ihtenish (talk)

Aha, I see where your quote came from: http://naturatomica.com/post/kawakawa. I'm reluctant to see that page as a reputable source, but they do give their sources (books) and it may well be that they are solid. Snori (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snori

I saw your last edit and compared it with the old diff. I am sorry, but I do not see any tidying up. All see is unexplained removal of sourced (and some unsourced) contents; plus your edit still has those typos and grammar problems.

Look, my friend, I do not mean to deter your efforts to do good edits; but I am afraid typos, grammar errors and style inconsistencies are bad. Will you please be more careful about them?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

typos and grammar problems? I don't see any. However, guilty as charged otherwise, so I'll wait until I have a bit more time before editing this article again. Snori (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori,

Much as I would like to support your changes in the article Stone (unit), we need a reliable third party to state that things are changing - for us to say so amounts to synthesis. We can however let the reader come to his or her own conclusion by assessing the information that is present. Also, I don't want to get an edit-war going on this page.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re SYN but I'll leave it to you to update as you see fit. However, my revert of your revert of the judo thing was inadvertent. I do think though, that it's unnecessary to mention the olympic sports - it's surely obvious that such an international sporting event would be using kg - I'll not be fighting over this.

I agree that it is obvious in the Olympic games, but not everybody is aware that the corresponding British associations use the same weight groups. Martinvl (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sing Sharp is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sing Sharp until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hi.

Just a reminder for the next time you edit Wikipedia: The source that you add must actually verify the claim to with which it is associated. For example, when you say Windows XP's market share in February 2014 is 30%, supplying a source that says it is 11% does not fit the bill.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Lucy Lawless, that you were referring to, it was hours ago. Later I and other one would revert them. But it took you long enough to acknowledge, next time acknowledge right after you notice. OccultZone (Talk) 10:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori. I've moved it to User:Snori/Shōninki. Let me know when you're finished with it, so I can move the edits back to the main namespace. Graham87 01:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snori,

I just went to the page that speaks about Koha, and found you deleted the following explanation (bottom of this entry). Koha is much more complex concept than a gift. The part that is harder to explain that what you left "Koha is an example of the reciprocity which is a common feature of much Māori tradition, and often involves the giving of gifts by visitors to a host marae. Traditionally this has often taken the form of food although taonga (treasured possessions) are also sometimes offered as koha." It's a lot more than reciprocity, and by deleting the rest, you disrespect Te Reo Maori and Nga Tangata Maori.

Please restore it, and if you have a problem with how it is written, please bring it up to Wikipedia standards, but don't leave it blown away. That is tantamount to vandalism.

I need it. I'm constantly encountering Pakeha (and even Maori) who do not understand the subtle nature of Koha, because they have a western understanding of reality, rather than the far more dimensional Maori view. I refer them to this page. I am visiting someone overseas and went to the link to help explain Koha to an American. But I found the key information was gone. Your cryptic explanation is NOTESSAY, with no further explanation (even though the Wikipedia explanation is very long and involves many choices) is unacceptable. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangihanga. Is this an Essay too? Have a look at http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2001/he-hinatore-ki-te-ao-maori-a-glimpse-into-the-maori-world/publication/at_download/file the Ministry of Justice's scholarly article on the subject, where they write

“Tohunga were trained to cope with and placate necessary spiritual infringements and perform purificatory rites. They both caused and cured mate Mäori and fixed the utu or koha necessary to restore the mana of the offended persons or the atua present in all natural life. Development was achieved through tohunga who had to ensure that it could be done with harmony and balance, equity and justice in accordance with ancient lore.”117

Note, that it not only proposes the Tohunga make a measure of the persons, but also of the atua present in all natural life (I presume you know what "atua" means). What you left in the encyclopedia lacks any reference to the harmony and balance, and the spiritual world that walks along side the physical. You don't have to believe this, just acknowledge that Maori do (or did) believe it, and it's their word for it.

Please fix it. I won't undo your work because that just gets you and me into a tussle. You changed it, I need you to fix it.

Please either restore, or rewrite and restore (presuming you are a Maori scholar or tonhunga) the following

In isolation, Koha is a gift brought by the visitor (manuhiri) to the people of the land (tangata whenua), often food or treasures, and it is part of the process of Maanakitanga which defines the realm of hospitality or the sharing of information. The Koha reflects the Mana of both the giver and the recipient. This concept of mana is difficult to understand. In effect the gift reflects on the one hand what the giver is able to give, and on the other, the esteem they hold of the person or group they are making the gift to. Thus, for example, two people may give the same gift (let us say the same amount of money), but one of the two people making their gift is wealthier. Either they then diminish their own mana by not giving the appropriate amount, or they insult the receiver because they are suggesting they do not hold the host in high regard. When both parties understand what is going on, the koha plays an important part in cementing good relations (or intentionally not). When one of the parties is ignorant, koha can be fraught with unintended consequences

From a very practical standpoint, if visitors came a calling, the host was expected to provide hospitality of food, beds in the communal sleeping hall and appropriate attention and honours – something that could be difficult in lean times when food was scarce, so a visiting party might offer food as Koha. Or perhaps the visitor came from the South Island – called in Maori Te Wai Pounamu – the waters (Te Wai) of the treasured greenstone (pounamu), and their gift would be the pounamu greenstone, a taonga – a great treasure, such a gift would bring great honour to both giver and receiver. See this University web page for more information on the protocol associated with koha today.

While called traditional usage, the practice of koha remains active today in New Zealand, and Maori make it clear to Pakeha that if they intend to use Maori words, the spirit of them should not be debased. Thus when a Pakeha asks for or gives Koha, Maori say that it should be in accordance with the traditional usage. Otherwise, call it donation, payment or some similar English word that does not carry the same deep meanings. While Te Reo Maori (the Maori language) is a legal language in New Zealand, and may be used by anyone, the language is regarded as a treasure and Maori expect that it be used correctly and properly. Thank you, Huriana --Huriana Hanara (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it a little. I have no problem with you taking it further in the direction of your first edit, but you need to include references to back up your points - the lack of this is what led to my "cryptic explanation" of "NOTESSAY" (Wikipedia-speak for "this looks like a personal essay, rather than an encyclopaedia entry"). The tangihanga article has a lot of unreferenced Maori terms, but is otherwise fine. Note that the "the Ministry of Justice's scholarly article on the subject" is discussing tohunga, not koha - and the quote is actually from the Waitangi Commission. Snori (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have a look at the additions I made on Koha (custom) to see if they are acceptable. Huriana Hanara (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, traction trebuchet were used by Chinese as early as 4th century BC, used by Byzantiumc and Muslim in the late 6th century. Then this article claims hand-trebuchet was first used in around 965 AD. You insist hand-trebuchet is in front of traction trebuchet by "chronology". I wonder in what kind of "chronology" the event happened around 965 AD will be earlier than events happened in 4th century BC and 6th century. Moreover, the section of hand-trebuchet cited only a single source [5] [6]. Even in these sources, the traction trebuchet used in 4th century BC was in the leading paragraph and the source also firstly introduces the traction trebuchet. We should edited based on the source cited not some personal ideas from editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.242.67 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you're correct. Snori (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hv added this section to this page and have future plan to add this type of section for similar type of product related articles. If any product related articles have information of industrial Production then it might have good chance to be well written articles, what you always want. More oven through image it is easy to understand main process of a product rather describe. Apart from this when image of finish product presented then it is difficult to avid the brand name. Only to avoid brand name need to be careful during describe. Keeping these entire things in mind I am again going to add the above section. If you are not agree with me or even any good suggestion to go forward pls let me know. Thanks, have a look at the additions I made on above section to see if they are acceptable, now. thanks Fahad Faisal. Fahad Faisal — Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of your photos are valuable, and certainly it's important to cover the industrial production. Please note the changes that I've now made - you need to take care otherwise editors are likely to simply revert (as I did!). Some details: The Wikipedia style is caps for the first word only; be careful with your apostrophes; beware of looking nationalistic (ie the repeated use of Bangladesh). By the way, I mistook RMG for a company brand name - "Ready Made Garment" isn't a term I was familiar with, and it was not used elsewhere in the article. Snori (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you perhaps explain to me why you felt the need to remove the section on Australian/New Zealand Duct Tape from the [Duct Tape] article last year? This is an argument I'm getting exceedingly tired of. It is simple truth that if you walk into a store in Australia, the products labeled "Duct Tape" are nothing like the products labeled "Duct Tape" in the US. US "Duct Tape" has a cloth component, while Australian "Duct Tape" has no cloth component. Duck brand tape when sold in Australia is labeled "Cloth Tape", and is slightly distinct from Gaffer Tape in its construction. I have been told that the situation is the same in New Zealand, though I will admit to not being in a position to check that on a day to day basis. This is not exactly the kind of topic one can find an RS on, though. Myk (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but I thought my edit comments at the time made it fairly clear. I've now searched for some better references, but can't find a good one - but it does seem clear, as you say, that "Duct tape" or "PVC Duct Tape" in Australia is *generally* not the same thing as the subject of this article - which is known there as "cloth tape" or "gaffer tape". Looking for suitable sources I find http://adhesivetapes.com.au/category.do?idCateg=55 which seems nice, but then on there blog they have this article: https://adhesivetapes.com.au/blog/duct-tapes-premiere-adhesive-tape-products-multiple-purposes/ - with no disclaimer to say that Aussie usage is different. Also lots of "normal" duct tapes available, such as: http://www.bunnings.com.au/tarzan-s-grip-22m-super-strong-duct-tape-_p1210344 Snori (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that in this diff you added "If a great deal of oxygen is dissolved" inside a reference. I doubt it is something to do with a volume number, so I removed it here. Searching that phrase with google yields Arsenical bronze as an article, so it might come from there? Sumurai8 (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good spotting! Thanks. Snori (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove content just because a link is dead. A dead link does not make the content suspicious unless you have contradicting information. Not everything needs to be cited at all times to be included. If you do not know the content to be false a dead link tag or a citation needed would suffice in most cases where there is temporarily no citation. FYI not everything needs to be cited , just things that are under dispute. 104.2.168.238 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally kiwifruit is eaten raw, so the suggestion that they should be cooked, even briefly, seems to require a good cite. (http://www.foodandnutrition.org/January-February-2013/Kiwifruit-Dont-Judge-This-Fruit-by-Its-Cover/ is not bad.) Snori (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, unless you think the original citation did not support the statement in the first place the content should not be removed, unless you are removing it for some other reason. Also it does not say you should cook kiwi generally, just if you don't want them to dissolve your jello or whip-cream (it is common to do this with many acidic fruits as well as fruits that "tenderize" like papaya and pineapple) 104.2.168.238 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original cite was missing. After your objection I went to the bother of finding another one, and mentioning above - if you care about this, by all means put the text back with that cite, I have no problem with that. Snori (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between missing and broken. I don't remove content due to a broken citation link without warning, as clearly there is a citation for it (just not at the location specified), and the publication still exists. Agree to disagree. I already found a link to the original document which are pamphlets produced by the government and haves an ISBN#, just have not got around to it yet. Good luck.104.2.168.238 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, please try to provide more specific edit summaries than ellipses. They are next to useless and mislead people into thinking you added ellipses. Opencooper (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, will try to do better :-) Snori (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). I know it can be an extra step but even acronyms like "mv" that you use are better and give a general idea. I also find that viewing the diff helps me remember what I changed and summarize it better. Opencooper (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cryptography into Strong cryptography. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I hadn't thought of it that way, will follow this in future. Snori (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that example, I've now saved it away as a template, and have used it for one of my recent edits. Will check back and apply in a couple of others as needed. Snori (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each current published list of weet-bix cards tend to be incomplete. My list drew on a range of sources to fill the gaps and of course the most accurate publication are the cards themselves. Public interest is the Wikipedia list is quite high as measured by the Google search citings. With all this in mind I'll create a separate Wikipedia article on the cards. Roger Garland (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think splitting it off into a separate article probably makes sense. However, my other point, WP:OR, is that you need to reference reliable sources for anything non-obvious that you post. I suspect that will be a struggle if you're piecing this stuff together from ebay postings and visually checking your own collections etc. Best of luck though! Snori (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you've been doing, tidying up NZ history articles. As you can probably tell from the talk pages, many of these articles have over the past six or eight years been the targets of an IP with rather "individual" ideas about NZ history - now the IP has been community banned, hopefully the article improvements will stick. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. If you look up at the entry for 28 June 2013 on this very page you'll see that I have some prior history with this issue... Snori (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was unhelpful (and superfluous) in the 2010 Canterbury earthquake article, a local magnitude (M_L) is the correct description for what is better known as the Richter magnitude scale - you'll probably never come across it again, but that's why it was there. Mikenorton (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from PyCharm. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the belated welcome. Yes, "OKish" was perhaps a bit terse. I've now however made enough improvement to justify the removal of one of the three templates - and provided a suitable explanatory edit summary. Snori (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fuzz testing, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. The removal of referenced content is the biggest problem here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that edit was a bit brutal. Working now to do a better job. Snori (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Gary Faulkner should be deleted. Reference to Faulkner in target article, Search for Osama bin Laden, was deleted by User:Snori without comment on 15 Jan 2011. Gary Faulkner does not rate an article from lack of notability (speedy A7) and does not rate a mention in the Osama bin Laden article. The redirect is simply confusing. - Fartherred (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your comment. You are correct, it is a lot of data for one reference, but it is a part of a college assignment I was asked to do, so if you could leave it for a couple of days until I get graded on it, it would be awesome.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannaCh91 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a policy section was a good idea, and there's nothing specifically wrong (as far as I can see) with the content - its just far to wordy, and asserts a few things which are arguable. (and given that you have not backed them up with references, are simply begging to be argued with, reverted etc by some other Wikipedia editors). Note, Wikipedia:Student_assignments is also worth a read. Snori (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be correct in thinking that the edits by the following IP editors were by you? Like you they were editing the article on the Green Lane Masjid.

• Special:Contributions/54.155.254.205
• Special:Contributions/54.170.19.88
• Special:Contributions/31.53.205.125

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not me. Snori (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you clarify what do you mean by "The PM's asurance now seems very dated" in you edit summary here, ie why did you remove that paragraph? Thanks, Titore (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very first reports were of an attack on the NHS, and it only later became clear that the event was much more widespread. Now from the article and current news it's hard to understand that, so May having to make this point seems a bit odd. Happy for you to pop it back in if you wish, but it doesn't really 'fit' with the rest of my "quickly became political..." narrative, so might need to be its own para. Snori (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I got your point now, thanks! Titore (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snori,

I was looking at an edit to the yam page you made recently removing a section that describes the differences between a true yam and a sweet potato yam. When I read that article a few weeks back that was actually the most informative part of the whole thing. Due to the common use of the word 'Yam' in reference to a sweet potato, I believe that to be highly relevant to anyone who is not familiar with Yams (hence why they are looking up this article). I realize that the section is not actually about true yams, but it is very useful to someone who was thinking of a 'yam' as a sweet potato - aka myself. Jonathan12456 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've referred Jonathan12456's to the discussion at Talk:Yam (vegetable)#The entire section devoted to how true yams differ from sweet potatoes. Largoplazo (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Snori (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your edits, including the addition of the section on switchblades. It certainly looks like switchblades may have been associated with a moral panic, per the standard definition; but you added no academic references making that point for you, which makes your section violate WP:SYNTH. We have a big problem with original research on that wikipedia article, as you can see on its talk page, and we work to keep it out as much as possible, because we've found it can very quickly get out of hand.

But instead of just deleting your switchblade section, I wanted to leave you this note on your talk page, in case you can add academic references that will back up the assertion that switchblades were a moral panic. Maybe someone's written on the topic, or maybe the whole switchblades thing was just indicative of a broader moral panic about ruffian youth of the 1950s? The latter seems much more likely, since the thing being demonized in a moral panic isn't usually an inanimate object but the person wielding it.

Anyway, go ahead and fix up that section if you can. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that you're certainly right - the panic was about "Juvenile delinquency" - the worldwide banning of switchblades was an outcome, not the main thing. Will do some work in the next few days to reflect that and bring things "up to scratch" re sourcing. Snori (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Token passing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

cites no sources

... BSOleader (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've now done some improvements. Snori (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)#Nival got hacked last year. Encyclopedic to include?. Pavel Novikov (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very late to the party here but just discovered the edits to the Solitaire page related to my work. I don't think I can edit that page due to conflict of interest, but I've added some comments to the Talk page, so let me know what you think. Good to see you're still editing Wikipedia all these years later :) Cheers! ciphergoth (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori, how can I create a new page. Obetaebube3 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How_to_create_a_page, and Wikipedia:Your_first_article should point you in the right direction. - Snori (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori,

Should companies or enterprises not included in this type of articles?

Please, let me know, where should be these kind of articles must be included?

BTW I've changed that two boxes as they were looking " " "funny" " ".

And, let me know, is there increase in the approximate compressed size of 11.6 GB of English Wikipedia by allowing these spaces in talks?

Regards,

Albert Deccan (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There might be an argument for that sometimes, but I think if you looked at any of the Amazon or Patagonia articles they would not have links to the companies named after them.

This doesn't mean to say you should not create a new JadeBlue article if the company is notable, (see Wikipedia:Notability, and check the pages of some similar companies). If you want to, try doing it in your "sandbox" first - it's a good idea to have the article to a good minimum standard even at the start. (e.g. A few good references - especially ones that demonstrate that the company is globally recognised). Even then, it's likely that there'll be a proposal to delete - as happened with your Dias Plot article - but it should have a good chance to survive this.

Not sure about the effect of spaces, but I wouldn't be too concerned. Don't upload 100 big images, but anything less is unlikely to be a problem. Snori (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I didn't see your message on December 6 - I am new to Wikipedia! Thanks for the advice. Understand why this is deleted, as yes I am indeed very aware of this work. I don't know if this is allowed, if someone is aware or connected with the work in any way or not, or whether it has to be a uninterested third party. . If not, again understand why it's been deleted. Thanks for the help anyhow - at least I know how to check my messages now! All the best.

Aegean Blue Sea (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And good on you for taking this well! Might be a good idea to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:PRIMARY. All the best - Snori (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy

--Avi gan (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (?) I'm one of the 95% of the population of this planet that doesn't live in the United States - and hence am ineligible according to the link provided. -Snori (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

made me snort water out my nose. thanks! :D Sebthepleb (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, as typos go, it's one of my better ones :-) - Snori (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the intense but admittedly much-needed cuts to the Scratch page. Integral Python click here to argue with me 21:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have deleted about three-quarters of the Introduction section to this article for no obvious reason and the three sentences that you left are a very inadequate introduction to the topic.

I have therefore reverted the deletion, but if you have anything reasonable to say against this, let me know.

Sscoulsdon (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have put a little more explanation perhaps, but I stand by my changes. Those three sentences are a very good summary of the body, and totally appropriate for an intro. The swags of material I removed simply repeated a whole lot of detail from the body - what is the point of that? However, I'm not going to fight over this, do as you wish. - Snori (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only user that has questioned your deleting content, and I note comment number 12 (whose Introduction you also reduced to three sentences) referred you to the guidelines on LEAD as being rather more expansive than you suggest. The point of the Introduction is to summarise the content of the article to save someone visiting it having to wade through the detail to understand the topic. The person the writes an article and has (in this case) a good knowledge of late-colonial Nyasaland history may be in a good position to say what is important to summarise and what not.

However, I accept that your reply is gracious and within the spirit of Wikipedia, and am glad we are not going to fight over this. Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I can see the logic of your deletion of part of the Introduction yesterday in what was then an incomplete work-in -progress of updating.

However, as now completed, the point is fully covered in the Aftermath, as was always my intention, and I've restored the part deleted in a slightly altered format.

The reason I think this point should go in the Introduction is that the results of a battle or war do not end with the casualty list; the loser may undertake reforms (like the Prussian army after Jena or the British Army after the Crimean War) and the victor may become self-satisfied and conservative (like the Prussian army in the decades before Jena or the Georgian and Victorian Navy for many after Trafalgar).

Regards Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I tend to spend a bit of time improving intros, and this issue of them having material unsupported by the body is pretty common. Bear in mind that I can't know that you were going to resolve it so quickly. All the best - Snori (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert this edit? [7] E Super Maker (😲 shout) 20:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Because Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, elves and brownies *are* legendary, mythical or whatever. Any kid able to use Wikipedia should be able to handle this truth. - Snori (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brownies? Was that some kind of joke? E Super Maker (😲 shout) 22:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I was thinking of Brownie (folklore) - Snori (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought you were trying to say that brownies weren’t “real” food. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you a favor. It seems that there are some misleading statements in the articles Shadow biosphere and Desert varnish. The citations from them:
Carol Cleland, a philosopher of science at the University of Colorado (Boulder), argues that desert varnish, whose status as living or nonliving has been debated since the time of Darwin, should be investigated as a potential candidate for a shadow biosphere;
It has been suggested that desert varnish should be investigated as a potential candidate for a "shadow biosphere".
I was almost certain it is a kind of misinterpretation or a very poor paraphrase, because the source materials clearly say that according to some scientists the Desert vanish could be a possible product (or effect/trace) of hypothetical microorganisms, but not them. For example:
1. And a promising example is provided by the desert varnish proposed as a target by Cleland and backed by David Toomey in Weird Life. "No laboratory microbiologist has been able to coax bacteria or algae to make desert varnish," he states. "It is also possible that the stuff is the end result of some very weird chemistry but no one has been able to reproduce that either." So yes, these sites could provide proof of the shadow biosphere's existence, he argues (Life on Earth… but not as we know it);
2. Cleland speculates that a microscopic form of life may have been producing desert varnish for eons, but scientists simply haven't figured out how to detect it (Is desert varnish a pathway to detecting 'alien' life?);
3. ‘But these organisms, if they exist, would leave traces in the environment,’ Cleland says. In 2007 in the journal Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Cleland wrote about just such a trace: desert varnish (Earth’s aliens);
4. I called these hypothetical microbes a “shadow biosphere" because, like all organisms, they would leave traces (shadows) in their environments, extracting energy and material for metabolic purposes and releasing waste products back into their environments (Five questions for Carol Cleland).
Also, according to the sources Darwin wasn’t wondering if it is living or nonliving, but rather biological or not - it’s not the exact same thing, the citation: Although some scientists have claimed they solved the mystery, Cleland said nobody has really proven what causes it since Darwin himself puzzled over those dark patches of varnish in the 1800s. "He himself was wondering if they were biological," Cleland said. "He might be the first person who wondered if they were biological."
I decided to contact Professor Cleland herself via e-mail, and she explained it a bit more precisely:
1. according to her response, the Shadow biosphere can be understood as composed of organisms and their effects on the environment (thus the Desert varnish can be indeed described as a potential Shadow biosphere, but only in the second meaning, I feel the current sentences are misleading, because the articles describe a Shadow biosphere as hypothetical living organisms: Other proposed candidates for a shadow biosphere include organisms using (...). Carol Cleland (...) argues that desert varnish (...) should be investigated as a potential candidate for a shadow biosphere);
2. Ms. Cleland wrote that it is not clear whether Darwin was wondering if the Desert varnish is a living thing or a by-product of a living thing, both theories are probable (thus I think more adequate would be using the term biological, or not to avoid any doubts).
Could you take a look on it, please? I just don’t know how to correct it, especially since I am not a biologist. Any suggestion would be highly appreciated. I’d be very grateful for your help. Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Jojnee (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please read WP:BLP and ensure that you do not restore material removed for BLP violations anywhere on Wikipedia. Please also see my posts at Talk:Corruption in New Zealand. I have blanked your sandbox given you posted BLP multiple violations to it by restoring this material. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will proceed with caution. - Snori (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this issue, or if I can help with BLP and related issues more broadly. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snori. I have picked up on your comment on the Talk page of this article "that there are a large number of areas where numerous commentators see "corruption" in New Zealand, and we need to have a framework to discuss this." Another editor apparently removed something you added - not sure what. You might want to contribute to the discussion. Wikiwoozil (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really just at the moment. I haven't changed my mind, but it clearly needs to done with some care. My reference to a "framework" reflect my belief that often the way forward with an article is not to slog it out with text and references, but to re-arrange the structure (headings, lists etc). All the best, I may have time/energy in a month or two. - Snori (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because the source does not support the addition. Please do not add material without a source for it, per WP:V. Also, this is not an exhaustive list of executions and just mentions a few of the most prominent victims for illustrative purposes. buidhe 10:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, not my best effort. - Snori (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you’ve contributed to a number of articles that are about email and of a somewhat technical, or at least industry specific, nature. I recently created an article on behalf of the email company SparkPost (Draft:SparkPost) and put it through the AfC process. It was rejected, but I’ve now made substantial changes to it. You may have more knowledge of the subject than my first reviewer, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look and provide feedback on the article, and also let me know your opinion on SparkPost’s notability in general. There are analogous articles for companies like MailChimp and SendGrid, and I’ve tried to match their tone where possible. Thanks and any help would be appreciated. SBCornelius (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Some thoughts: The tone in the lede is a little over the top,and "facts" such as: "SparkPost’s platform sends 37% of all B2C and B2B email, totaling about 3.2 trillion emails per year" are foolish to make, because they need very strong evidence - yet they from low-prestige sources. On refs, to me they are overwhelmingly from poor quality "we'll print whatever you tell us to" journals, and the formatting of them is also poor - ie not using the "cite" macro. SparkPost are mentioned at Crunchbase, TechCruch and in Fortune.com - you should be linking to these better-regarded sources. Personally I'd not block the article being added, but I'd probably rip it about a bit after it went live if I saw it, because it really is so clearly a corporate-written piece. Hope this helps a bit. - Snori (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and thanks for the feedback. I've made changes to the article based on your suggestions and resubmitted it for review. I also linked to our discussion here from the talk page. Thanks again for the help. SBCornelius (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, happy to leave things as they are. Snori (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my edits. I didn't notice that when I first watched the film, so I might watch it again later! --Lucero9 (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I must admit I was working from memory initially too! (and not a bad thing to have an excuse to watch again) - Snori (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to the justification for your categorization of this condition under endocrinology, when all indications suggest hematology. AL amyloidosis affects endocrine and kidney function, but the causality and cure say hematological. Let me know.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have AL, but no medical knowledge. However, as per my changelog note, it had been "endocrinology" for a long long time. A quick Google showed this might be correct (even though I go to a Hemotologist), so I reverted to that. This is because in Feb 2019 it was changed (in error I suspect) by User:Doc James to "rheumatology" - and then just before my edit by an IP to "haematology". I have dropped an note on Doc James' page, but I suspect he's no longer very active. -Snori (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it to hematology.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. 219.88.233.62 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this edit to Eddie Slovik, I am aware that Slovik was executed in France, but nonetheless he does not fit into the description as stated on the page for Category:American people executed abroad. That page says:

People of American nationality executed outside of the United States by an authority other than that of the United States or a U.S. state.

Since Slovik was executed outside the U.S., but by the authority of the U.S. government, he does not fit into the category as described on the category page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, if that's the stated criteria. Snori (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks again for the clear feedback on the SparkPost article. It was a real help in determining the best direction to go with the article.

I'm currently working on edits to an existing article that I think has an issue with original research. Before taking it through official channels, I wanted to run an anonymized summary of the issue past you, and a handful of other editors I also respect, to check my thinking on this and gauge what consensus might look like. Here is a summary (and you are probably only about three clicks away from article if so motivated):

1. A college student conducted research into a major company that uncovered lax security practices that needed to be corrected.

2. The student self-published the research on a blogging platform and got a lot of attention. He also admitted to taking up a short position on the company’s stock and stood to make money proportionally to how much his story could depress the price of the stock.

3. A major business newspaper ran a story on him and described the problems his research revealed about the company.

4. The Wikipedia article about the company has a weighty section that references the student’s self-published story almost exclusively.

5. I’m seeking to build a consensus that: the self-published article is OR and shouldn’t be used as a source. The controversy can and should be mentioned, but should be limited to what reliable sources published about the student’s research.

It seems to me that without relying on the legal teams and journalists behind quality sources, Wikipedia becomes vulnerable to short sellers who smell blood in the water and seek to inflate negative stories, even in the short term, just to boost a short sale.

Given the admission of short selling the stock and the self-published nature of the source, would you agree that the self-published article should be disqualified as a source in favor of the reputable newspaper's version? Thanks again and looking forward to your feedback.SBCornelius (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snori, I have been working on fixing dangling references that have no corresponding sources, and it appears you added a ref to Ahmed Sharif as-Senussi in this edit to the Article. Do you know the source? For now, I have hidden the ref. Let me know if you need any assistance if you do know the source! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Players.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hog Farm _Talk 07:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on your article Pharmacus montanus. It has been tagged on Twitter: https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1469373680954200064 Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Snori. This article s6 (init) is as a draft, I think it should be published because it is relevant to the world of operating systems. Thank you very much. --Rstmnq1000 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]