User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 7

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Military of ISIL. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...taking a squint at this?

Feel free to correct ill-advised spoutings of nonsense by people that ought to know better. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no need for that - you had more or less the right of it, in-so-far as the genetics are understood. The only person I noted who was in fact speculating wildly and in a fashion likely to muddy the waters was the one person on the desks who can always be counted on to do that. But any event, thanks for the head's up on this one. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was absolutely brilliant. Hence... --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For a particularly diligent - and very good humoured - response at the Humanities Ref Desk, as well as generally being a good egg. Dweller (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dweller! It's always lovely to receive a barnstar and this is the first one I've ever gotten in connection with the Ref Desks, one of my favourite areas of contribution, so it's particularly special -- I really appreciate the sentiment! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 02:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for your amusement: DYK ... that Prince Nikolaus Esterházy, who commissioned Beethoven's Mass in C major for his wife's name day, found it "unbearably ridiculous and detestable"? (It's remotely related to our prior conversations, see talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no accounting for bad taste - I think it's a fine piece of work, and I'm not even a huge Beethoven devotee. We should really look into enhancing that article with some free-use media; there must be something out there that has passed the threshold of reproduction rights. Anyway, glad you're not facing an uphill battle with regard to the infobox on this one. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is an uphill battle? - I do not fight battles, did you know? - I was against infoboxes in 2012 and learned that they are useful for some readers whom I want to serve. I learned that in half a year, others seem to take a bit longer. I ask from time to time if understanding changed and take no for an answer. Sometimes I am amazed by vigorous defense of preferences, accusing the others of vigorous defense of their preferences. Back to Haydn's Creation (same team as on the mass) and Bach's Just resist sin ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather meant that it seemed that consensus seemed to be in favour of the infobox proposal you had made on that article. I also vaguely recall reading the comments of another editor, whose name now escapes me, noting that the counter-argument seemed significantly more predicated in WP:IDONTLIKEIT/personal aesthetic mentality than actual policy, and that this seems to often be the case. I admit, I've had that thought myself. I do check up on all of these discussions when you mention them -- it's just that I generally avoid involvement, lest you be accused of canvassing. Except of course on Chopin, where I had previously been involved in the discussion -- one of those handful of infobox discussions I've happened upon over the years. But I do appreciate the notices, as I like to know what's going on in the discussions; they can be highly contentious, to the point of being breeding grounds for incivility and other policy violations. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - I hope not to have to mention many, - most suggestions ripen their three days without comment. Interesting how the same editor is seen as diplomatic in one discussion (thank you for the barnstar!) and almost the opposite in the other, depending on the POV ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gog and Magog. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano has chipped in, too, with commons:File:GDC Feelin'Good.jpg and commons:File:GDC_onlywayaround.jpg (still waiting for them to send in the OTRS permission I gave them to copy-paste). I'll jog their memory tomorrow morning. FourViolas (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome photos! The second one in particular is really great for addressing that issue we've talked about before -- the difficulty of capturing the quality of movement in a single frame. And Ray Leeper's work no less. Thank you so much for acquiring these for the project. On a side note, how do I know that young woman in the foreground of the first photo; I'm feeling I'm familiar with her from somewhere, but it's ping-ponging back and forth in the memory association centers of my brain. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out permission had been sent, OTRS had requested a signed letter from the photographer, and he agreed but is out of the country for a little while. OTRS is faster than I thought! Also, it turns out if an image is deleted while awaiting permission OTRS can undelete it.

Does "Ashley Downs" or another name at http://www.giordanodance.org/dancers.html ring a bell? FourViolas (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not jogging any bells. Maybe she's reminding me of some other dancer with a similar face. But I did love the more recent Giordano media I found while looking. :) The choreo is a really great blend of jazz and what I'd almost call lyrical. Very cool.

But getting back to Wiki, I have to say that this is great work and these photos could find useful places in a number of articles now. :) I was also looking at your involvement on Carnism (having followed the link on your talk page) and, though I'm not sure that I completely share your outlook that it is definitely notable enough to warrant an independent article, I was really impressed by your efforts to move it towards more neutral, self-consistent and encyclopedic tone. I almost joined into the discussion, because it's a massive convergence of interesting policy issues, but the amount of work it would entail is just not feasible for me this week (work, work). But as usual I was struck by how solid your expression of your policy conclusions was; I hope this doesn't come off as patronizing, but I'm really impressed and proud of how quickly you have assimilated and internalized editorial procedure over the last year. You have a real natural gift for this manner of editing and the intellectual and social demands of the project -- please keep at it! Snow ^{let's rap} 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! I'm glad you think I'm doing well. And I don't blame you for not wanting to dive into that discussion…

I'm grateful to WP because it shares many of my values—being fair, being logical, being useful—and it has created an enormous nuts-and-bolts guide to accomplishing those elusive goals. As long as I can steer clear of the flaming which is endemic to the Internet, I feel that the time I spend editing is as valuable to me as it is to the project. FourViolas (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I would put it myself. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 22:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just added the the only way around is through image to no-less a namespace than Dance; although it is technically a jazz dance company, I didn't think that still was stereotypically indicative enough of jazz movement to be a great fit for jazz dance, though the other image is perfect in that regard and I'll be adding it there next. On a side, and this is not the first time I've thought it, eeeeesh on the state of Dance; for the touchstone article of all of our coverage on dance, it's a wee bit embarrassing. I'm not sure if you are familiar with WP:WikiProject X, an effort to reinvigorate slumping WikiProjects, but I'm going to talk with its coordinator Harej about approaching WikiProject Dance. I'm not sure it will do a world of good -- the problem, as it has always been with coverage of dance topics on Wikipedia, is the small number of editors interested in the topic -- but it can't hurt to have some new tools at our disposal, all the same. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Haha, thank you, Rich.  :) Snow ^{let's rap} 21:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Humanistic Buddhism. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daniel J. Caron. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent ref desk answer to me on pregabalin. That was so helpful! I couldn't get here for a couple of days so have answered here so you don't miss it - thank you. That was exactly what I wanted to know and at the right level. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to have been of help! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 19:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at Talk:Cantata academica. None of the people talking edited the article before 2013, so for a change the mighty influence of a "principal editor" is no concern ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really am sorry to have brought you into that, and to have failed to address the concerns so far. I like dance rather a lot more, but once I'm invested in an article it's hard to leave before finding consensus. I can certainly make myself take things slower per Deadline; I think I've been a little too earnestly engaged for everyone's peace of mind. Please don't feel obliged to stick around if you get sick of it. FourViolas (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, nonsense, it's not a problem at all. Truth be told, I should have commented sooner, as I have some useful understanding of the scholarship involved. As I said on the talk page, any sourcing I provide will probably come piecemeal, as my editing time is limited right now, but I will do what I can try to help the disparate parties come to some kind of functional consensus that sorts those issues out. Like you, I'd much rather be putting my limited time towards working on Dance, but sometimes if you can save a large number of editors a lot of wasted time with the proper sources, its a better use of your time than working on the article which is of more direct interest to you yourself, and I think this certainly qualifies as one of those cases. A truly massive amount of discussion has taken place on that page in just the last couple of weeks but, despite the fact that most of the parties seem cordial and civil and to genuinely want to find a middle-ground solution, there has been slow development to that end. Some extra sourcing and some nuanced arguments on how they ought to be approached might pay dividends. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Rise, progress has been slow (actually, non-existent) because of the extensive talk-page discussion, not despite it. We're expected somehow to read two or three books and at least a dozen papers in the blink of an eye, and write the article and respond to endless comments. If you have any influence over FourViolas, I hope you'll impress upon her the importance of giving people space to do the research. If the article is still a problem in six months, criticism would be very helpful, but at this stage the only thing it has achieved is to halt the work. Sarah ^(talk) 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Well I can't really claim to know 4V's mind on this matter in detail, as we've barely discussed the article, but my observation of the current talk page discussion seems to suggest that her main concern at present is that the article's present title, and the general approach it dictates, are deeply problematic with regard to several key policies. That's no minor issue, and it really is one that ought to be addressed before proceeding with overhauling the articles content, for two reasons: 1) so as to save a lot of work on the part of you and other good-faith editors on content that may have to be significantly altered or even discarded if its found that this article topic is misleading, and 2) so involved editors don't become attached to their preferred model for the article should they do that work, if, ultimately, an alternative approach is found necessary. And honestly, having reviewed the present sourcing, and contextualized within what I know of the broader research on this field of inquiry, I'm finding that so far I strongly agree with her assessment that this topic represents a kind of POVFORK to the core topic, that the current title is inappropriate and that the severe neutrality issues that arise from this approach are probably not something that we can just leave be for six months. Under those circumstances, I don't know that I feel comfortable advising her to hold her peace on the matter, even though I recognize a couple of experienced editors presently involved in the page at present, yourself included; not only do I think she is within her rights to object strenuously in this instance, I think she's doing the right thing by you, the other editors, the article and the project broadly by raising this particular issue now, rather than later.

What I can do is give you some time myself, despite my own considerable qualms. As to 4V, given her comments above, I suspect she is already planning on backing off the talk page for a spell and probably only got drawn back in by my own comments. I think you'll have your space, for a time, but I can't promise anything, not even with regard to my own involvement, certainly not on the timeframe of months, because I think there are some fundamental policy issues with regard to the article is being approached by a number of the more active editors there, and not just in terms of things that editors have not yet had time to address, but with regard to perspectives on how they view the article moving forward. Both of the two camps which represent the extremes on this issue have proposed approaches which seem to me to fail various guidelines, and neither is really reaching for a middle-ground solution which means just proceeding with working on the article without further discussion is likely to result in further furor, and maybe even edit warring.

But perhaps I can make a suggestion of quick fix that would probably buy you the breathing room you need. I can't guarantee it will still 4V's concerns outright, but she and I seem to be of one mind on some of the issues here, so perhaps she will be as reassured by this change as I know I would be. Specifically, my recommendation is that you concentrate your next efforts on the neutrality of the article by massively reworking the lead. Specifically, we need to remove that reference to carnism as a "belief system". I don't think it accurately reflects the sources, and frankly, even if it did, I still think it would represent a massive semantic blunder in describing this subject as an encyclopedic topic, especially in the first sentence of the lead. Carnism is not analogous to the semantics which govern vegetarianism or veganism. In those cases, people willfully, volitionally, and unambigously embrace the tenets of those dietary philosophies and claim them as their own. Carnism is not a term which people embrace as a self-descriptor and is therefore not really consistent with how people generally parse the meaning of "belief system" nor with how we treat it elsehwere on this project, including our explicit coverage of the topic. Carnism is instead a neologism which is used more or less exclusively by precisely the people who do not practice the acivities to which it is meant to apply--and indeed it is used most prominently by people who are ideologically opposed to the activities it is meant to describe. That is clearly not a belief system -- it's a term used by those who are opposed to a certain class of activity to classify that activity for easy reference.

Keeping that statement in the first sentence of the lead sets the tone for all of the neutrality issues that follow in the article. Frankly, I think it's self-evident that any discussion of carnism should be done within the context of an article on Meat paradox or Psychology of meat consumption, the real core topics here. Carnism is just a word which contextualizes those topics in a certain light, its not a topic in and of itself, and (while I think he's missed the mark on just about everything else) Martin was right about one thing: Wikipedia does not have articles on words, that's what Wiktionary is for. If we were to allow an article on carnism (and to my mind that is a big if), then the title of the article should be Carnism paradigm or Carnism theory, which more accurately represents what the article is really about and doesn't mislead our readers into believing this is a belief system in the sense of an explicit set of overt beliefs. And the first sentence should then read something along the lines of...

"The carnism paradigm is the theory [emphasis mine, not to be included in actual lead] that many human beings make unspoken, and generally unchallenged, assumptions which cause them to view the consumption of meat as a default societal norm, and to construct frameworks of personal belief which validate those choices."

I think that is equally or more consistent with our sources on this matter, would suit both proponents and opponents of the theory as neutral, and just goes a long, long way to sorting out the confused meaning which currently sits in the lead. If you feel you might agree with me on this point (which I will introduce myself to the talk page briefly, then let's see about implementing it as the next change. Again, I can't speak for Violas, but if the lead is improved in this regard, I for one would readily agree to give a month or two before I raised even a single one of the other numerous neutrality issues. I just want to see some positive step to addressing issues on the article which bring it uncomfortably close to any attack page, imo. Anyway, let me know your thoughts! And on a side note, those sources are coming briefly. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article to "carnism paradigm" or "carnism theory" would be a great step towards proper framing, and would be another solution satisfactory enough to set my mind and tongue at ease re NPOV problems for a while. It would also be consistent with the majority of RS i've found while looking for sources, which mention "carnism" at arms' length, as the name psychologist Melanie Joy uses for the psychology of meat-eating. I'll compile a heap of those sources later, to help with presenting this idea at talk:carnism.

As for sources, here's what is reliably attested to be a mainstream compilation of contemporary sociological meat research, which doesn't mention "carnism": [1] [2]. Here's my own list of a few highly-cited sources published since 2014 discussing very closely related topics without using the word: Boer 2005, Loughnan 2014, Dhont 2014, Hayley 2014, Schôsler 2015, Graça 2015, De Backer 2015, Blidaru 2015. And here is a parallel list from GB for sources which do mention carnism: Braunsberger 2014, Freeman 2014, Reutenik 2015, Stoll-Kleeman 2014, Shapiro 2015. Comparing citation counts and impact factors, I think there's firm evidence that Joy's ideas are Fringe. FourViolas (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sorry, forgot rothgerber 2014, who adds a little weight to "carnist". FourViolas (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi Snow Rise, re: the behavioural issues, she has claimed on the talk page to be an academic, [3] but on other talk pages to be a teenager not yet in college. That should be clarified. The talk page is a complete mess, and the content policies have been seriously misunderstood. The result is that the only three editors there at the moment able and willing to write this and see it through to fruition have more or less stopped. I've tried to AGF, but it has become so difficult that I've taken the page off my watchlist.

As for the content, "belief system" has already gone from the lead. In case you were looking at an old version, I made some structural changes yesterday. As for "meat paradox," you misunderstood what it is; I left a note for you on the talk page, but I don't know whether you saw it. Some of that work emerged out of Joy's, so I'm not sure why you see the latter as article-worthy but not the former. Regarding your suggestion for the first sentence, yes, that or something close would work, though the current first sentence is close enough. Re: "many human beings make unspoken, and generally unchallenged, assumptions which cause them to view the consumption of meat as a default societal norm ..." – it won't work as written, because the consumption of meat is a social norm. But thank you, I can fiddle around with it.

These are issues that get fixed as the research and writing continues. I can't stress how important it is to give people space to read and work. Nothing will improve unless that happens. Sarah ^(talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, I only meant "an academic" to mean "a person who personally sympathizes with the academic method of treating information objectively". I can strike that if you think I was claiming to be published or something. I'm 19 and will be at Harvard in the fall as an undergrad, but having seen some negative effects of WP editors losing anonymity, I don't include that info or my gender on my user page. FourViolas (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When someone writes "I'm an academic," most people will understand that that person holds an academic position. I think you should make clear on the talk page, by striking or in some other way, that that's not the case. Sarah ^(talk) 15:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure it really matters anyway. After-all, when it comes down to it, a highschool student, an undergrad, a grad, and a post-doc all have equal standing here anyway. I'm as guilty as anyone of occasionally dropping hints about my credentials when I want to reassure someone I know about the research being discussed, but ultimately what matters are the arguments being made with regard to the content, sources and policies, not who is making them. 4V might want to be careful about the wording in any event, but I don't know that it counts as a behavioural issue as regards our purposes here on the project. As to the talk page, it does seem...active, but not much more so than one might expect from a contentious topic. I'm not sure which policies you feel have been miscontrued (I've only read mostly the more recent threads) but I think 4V means to take things at a more measured pace, and I've already said as much as time allows me on the topic, aside from the forthcoming sources. But you've still got a number of active editors there, so I doubt it's going to get too quiet. But so long as people aren't edit warring, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading, I was embarrassed to see that it did look like I was calling myself a professional academic. I clarified. I think soon I'll be putting up an education wikibreak template, which should make things clear.

Snow, I'm putting my early notes in User:FourViolas/sandbox/Meat in case you want to add or correct before I open psychology of meat consumption. From what I'm seeing, the meat paradox is only one among several ideas, including the meat-masculinity connection, correlation of personality values with meat consumption behavior, and meat in EP, which ought to end up there. My personal plan is to get a non-embarrassing sketch of that field done while I primarily get back to work on dance topics. When patience and AGF levels are higher at carnism, we can look into moving material around between psychology of meat consumption, meat paradox, and carnism, or some combination thereof as sources merit. FourViolas (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't sweat the mistake; I don't think its germane to any policy discussion. The only relevant issue this line of discussion raises for me is that I think congratulations are due on your getting into Harvard! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 09:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! and thanks for your guidance at sandbox/Meat. FourViolas (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still adding sources. Many remain. In my limited time, is this the right intro-to-EP paper for me to get to know? FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a capable enough summary of the basic thrust of the field for a work of that length and the fact that it is a bit dated, but given the complexities involved, my preferred primer to recommend for the field is Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works--followed by The Blank Slate and The Language Instinct if the first gripes you. Pinker is not just one of the giants (and very much the "face") of the field, he is also one of the finest writers on scientific/empirical topics you will ever come across. How the Mind Works is nearly as old as the Buss article, which is to say nearly two decades in its own right, and a little technical in places compared to Pinker's later broad-audience works, but it's deeply insightful and representative of EP's value as an over-arching framework in which to conceptualize human cognition and behaviour. Highly recommended. Or, if you don't have time to read that much as you prep for uni, consider putting some of his talks on in the background, as he is basically just as good at explaining at least the broad strokes as a public speaker--part of how he has become a widely known public intellectual and one of the figureheads for the cognitive sciences in particular: [4], [5], [6], [7].

Thanks for all those fascinating links! I really appreciate your helping out, and your kind words. FourViolas (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinker is teaching Intro to the Sciences of Mind this spring. I can't wait! FourViolas (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an opportunity! I'd have given just about anything to have been able to take that class when I was an undergrad. Hell, I'd pay put the wazoo to audit the course today! Funnily enough, I had meant to respond to your previous post with a response along the lines of "My pleasure. Not sure what field you intend to study, but who knows, maybe all of this might have some influence on your interests; Harvard has some immense opportunities in this area." But with Pinker I was thinking you'd probably have to wait until graduate seminars. What a chance to start off contextualizing your study of the human mind through the guidance of a thinker with immense breadth of knowledge and a real gift for articulation. So cool! I know you'll have less time for the project in the coming months, but do let me know how you enjoy the course and if you move into the field, remember that this is an area in which I am always eager to collaborate with regard to Wikipedia content.  :) (Though I daresay it seems we will both be intensely busy in the near-term). Snow ^{let's rap} 23:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarah. I had missed that you had already addressed that point in the lead yesterday. I'm glad the need for it was seen by others and I'm grateful you were proactive on it. As a newcomer to the article I didn't want to make the change myself without first discussing it, given the strong positions there, but I daresay it's an ideal first step to clearing up the neutrality concerns. I still think it could be a little more explicit, but I gather from your edits and comments here that you'll be tinkering with it for a time yet. As regards my proposed text, I'm not in any sense married to that exact wording, but just for the record, I think it is consistent with the fact that meat consumption is a societal norm (for most cultures). Perhaps the meaning I intended would be more clear if I changed just one word: "...that many human beings make unspoken, and generally unchallenged, assumptions which cause them to accept the consumption of meat as a default societal norm, and to construct frameworks of personal belief which validate those choices." Anyway, I'm not pushing me exact wording, just want you to know that I think we are basically on the same page as to this point. Per my earlier comments, while I still have reservations as to whether carnism warrants an independent article (as opposed to being contextualized in a larger "meat psych" article), cleaning up the lead at least addresses one of my primary concerns that the basic definition we provide not be misleading to our readers.

As to the precise meaning of "meat paradox", I actually did see the comment and I apologize for not responding -- I simply ran out of time. In truth I don't see the two definitions as mutually exclusive; they are to my mind slightly different ways of expressing the same principle, and I'm certain I've seen both variations in literature, but I could be mistaken. As to why I accept it as a decent title for the/an article, where I question carnism, it's because the basic principle that underlies the term is one that has been explored in observations of the psychology of diet. It's a concept that can be sourced more exhaustively than the basic thrust of Joy's work on the carnism model and it predates her work by quite a bit, even if the specific term might by attributed to her specific current in the research. Indeed, some of the sources which have grappled with the inconsistencies with which people approach disparate animals as a source of food are very old indeed; pre-modern and ancient in some cases. Which brings neatly to my slowness in providing the sourcing I promised by way of my contribution to the article. I'm trying to put them together, but just at the moment I am on the other side of the country from my personal library, so it I am having to do compensate with online resources and it is taking me longer than I expected, in part because of other obligations. Then too, I keep re-engaging in other discussions I was involved with when I do find a few Wiki moments -- I'm sure you recognize the situation. Please bear with me just a little longer. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow Rise, the "meat paradox" is the tension between people's behaviour and beliefs when it comes to meat consumption. Steve Loughnan of the University of Melbourne described it as: "Most people care about animals and do not want to see them harmed, but engage in a diet that requires them to be killed and, usually, to suffer." I believe he was the first to use it that way.

This is related to, but not the same as, the "species paradox," whereby certain non-human species are loved, others treated with great cruelty. The two are related in that both are forms of speciesism and (arguably) exploitation – neither the pampered chihuahua nor the pig in the factory farm are allowed to say no. The argument is that most people "like" animals in the way that patrons of strip clubs "like" exotic dancers. [8] Anyway, please take your time re: sources, and thanks for your help. Sarah ^(talk) 20:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, I'd love to hear what you think of Draft:Psychology of eating meat. I don't know much about psychology myself, but I've followed secondary and quasi-secondary sources very closely for material and weight. Even so, I could easily be misunderstanding important concepts. FourViolas (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and do the merger, since nobody opposed it. Lbertolotti (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#Talk:Inventory_control_problem.23Merger_proposal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have completely misinterpreted the dispute. Catflap's 88 reference, for instance, was never even mentioned by anyone other than me, until the last ANI thread, so you claiming he was rebuked and warned by numerous users was flawed. I'm not going to respond to the rest, but claiming that I should be "TBANned" (de facto SBANned) for complaining that Catflap08 has been violating our IBAN without ever violating it myself (in the last thread you told Catflap08 that he violated it and I didn't -- has your opinion changed?) was way out of line.

You and I (I think) first interacted as a result of one of the botched RFCs in question, but to the best of my knowledge you and I don't normally edit in the same article areas, so I have no reason to come into conflict with you again. Should the present IBAN issue come up again I will not ping you, as I think you requested earlier.

Good bye and good luck.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've never specifically requested that you not ping me--I've only pointed out that some of those pings have apparently not resulted in the support or perspectives you've anticipated. You can feel free to ping me in the future or not, as you wish, but if you do, I'm going to be honest as to which of you I feel is, at the time, pressing this disruption forward, whether it's you or Catflap. The fact is that in this case you brought your disruptive personal battle back to the noticeboards for a seventh round, without proper evidence, as part of a tit-for-tat response to Catflap's AN posting. And I suspect you only narrowly avoided a topic ban because an admin shut down discussion before consensus could resolve itself--and this is the not the first time you have been lucky in exactly this way. I honestly would not press that luck another time.

You actually were right that it would be better for everyone had the IBAN at least been removed, but as it is still in place (and indeed regardless of the status of the bans) I think you really, really need to take Drmies' comments in closing that thread to heart, because patience with this feud between you and Catflap is clearly exhausted on AN, ANI and for the community broadly, and I don't think you can count on luck seeing you through the next discussion if we have to have one; I don't think Drmies was being dramatic for effect when he said he very nearly blocked the both of you just to be done with this drama. You and Catflap (by failing to reach for common ground and instead creating a gravity well of animosity and drama that has repeatedly pulled in numerous other editors and sucked up their time) have lock-stepped yourselves into a classic scenario of mutually assured destruction, as tolerance is so low for either of you on this matter now. So both of you are now sitting on the trigger, and either one of you could easily get the both of you banned or indeffed. Time to find ways to deescalate this situation, no matter how devoted you each are to the content area. Just my two cents. Good luck to you as well. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't ping you (or anyone else) for support; I do so to get a full, rounded discussion with all the relevant viewpoints represented. You were involved, whether I like it or not, in the previous dispute, and actually headlined the previous drive to dissolve the IBAN, so not pinging you because I didn't think you would support me, even while pinging other users who I was 100% certain would, would have been a borderline WP:CANVAS-violation. I have a long history of ANI threads that result in massive fusterclucks between two users (me and whoever it is I'm arguing with), that almost no one else is willing to read through to resolve it; inviting as much participation from all concerned parties as possible is in my experience a good way to get around this problem. Additionally, it was technically not me who brought the disruptive personal battle back to the noticeboards; I moved the misplaced AN discussion (which was not opened by me) over to ANI where it belongs, not long after the other one was archived (before which I would have likely been accused of WP:FORUMSHOP for having the same discussion open on multiple noticeboards). I don't think that this time I narrowly avoided a topic ban -- no admins weighed in (Drmies' close made it pretty clear he hadn't actually read the whole thread one way or the other, saying my posts and those of another one or few users were TLDR, and so he was unwilling to cast judgement either way), and among non-admin participants the TBAN was actually pretty unpopular, receiving only one support (BMK) apart from my latest wiki-stalker (TH1980) and the initial proponents (you and AlbinoFerret), in the face of pretty firm opposition from four users not including me (Blackmane, Wikimandia, Johnuniq and Elspamo). (Blackmane said "support", but read his full comment there and his subsequent post on my talk page and it's pretty obvious he was not in favour of sanctions against me.)

Anyway, I bear you no ill will following this incident. Your judgement was sound in well over 50% of my interactions with you in this case, and that's more than I can say for a hell of a lot of other users with whom I am still willing to work amicably. Should we cross paths again I will be happy to collaborate with you. If not, then fare thee well!

Best regards,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Rise, I have blocked Hijiri for violating the iBan, following remarks made here. I'm sorry your beautiful talk page was the occasion for this. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure it's seen worse, and probably will again. I hate saying it, but this development may be for the best; I hope this will underscore for Hijiri that he is his own worst enemy in these situations, his perspective on certain other editors not withstanding. Hopefully this short-term block will save him a much larger sanction down the line, but who can say when he continues to view every community member who comments critically on his behaviour at the noticeboards as one who is therefore "in conflict with" him; in truth, I was more bemused by his comments here than anything, but had I been BMK or AlbinoFerret in this instance, I might have been more annoyed. His 'adversaries' need not respond to his accusations at all if he is busy finding ways to exhaust the patience of every uninvolved editor who doesn't completely endorse his representation of matters, as I've tried to explain to him on several occasions now. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rubin Carter. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joan Crawford. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bebe Rexha. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snow Rise - As I may have told you, as I read Wikipedia articles, the edits I make are mainly to fix grammar, word usage, spelling, punctuation, and text formatting. I sometimes come across a sentence that doesn't sound right. Sometimes I can fix it, other times I'm not sure how to fix it. I usually leave a note for other editors who I think are more knowledgeable than I am in that area. About a week ago I left several comments for Fayenatic london on his/her talk page starting with User talk:Fayenatic london#John Dominic Crossan, but just at that time, Fayenatic london took a wiki-break. I think s/he doesn't have time to deal with them now. I'm wondering, if you have time, if you could help resolve the issues I've raised. If you prefer, I could copy all the sections here. Corinne (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aloysius Stepinac. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rudolf Hess. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vani Hari. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where that request comes from, because the matter was amicably solved already, - thank you for your support anyway! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked closer and saw that the RfC wasn't about the infobox but the presentation of the bibliography ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're quite right -- look at that! I guess between the notice, the poll, and the fact that I've seen my fair share of infobox debates (especially on composer articles), my mind just filled in the blank without my looking closer. Thanks for the head's up, Gerda! I'll have to find a minute later to answer the actual issue pending. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue on BWV 38 where a single opposer wants to not enclude how Bach himself titled the piece (removed twice), because it might confuse readers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look out of curiosity, but if I were to comment on that issue, I'd be exposing you to accusations of canvassing, since I didn't arrive there via a normal third-opinion request process. I will, however, try to lend a hand in the GA process that I see has been initiated there, if I can find some time this weekend. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 20:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email me about this with the keywords yellow is special once it drops off the ref desks (let's say in December, given we have far too many trolls attacking people by name there currently) and I will gladly give a synopsis, and a link to the original article showing Locke's hypothesis to be false. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Long time no contact. Sorry to bother you (I know you stated quite a few times that you'd rather not be involved in the dispute), but I thought you might be interested since this seems to have drawn a lot of interest from users who weren't involved in the dispute previously, and given that you were involved your input would probably be welcomed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roger Waters. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's always amusing to see what other people will think is funny. Sometimes I say something that I think is hilarious, but no one notices :) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malala Yousafzai. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norman Milliken. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genesis P-Orridge. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snow Rise. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sundayclose (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fields Medal. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mount Sinai Beth Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - If you ever want to talk more about OMICS then I would talk to you by video through Skype or Google Hangouts, or we could talk by phone. Sometimes talk through text on Wikipedia does not result in mutual understanding.

The talk at ANI came to a minor milestone conclusion. The decision reached there is not the end. If you want to talk more I would continue to discuss, but I think moving to natural conversation might be a next step to consider if you want to continue. Thanks. Email me if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the offer, but I prefer to conduct all conversation pertaining to the project on the project. I will however return the open sentiment by informing you that I will be bringing this decision, which is very explicitly against policy and broad community consensus, to a central community discussion space for review. In practical terms I don't see how it is going to change what is going on with the OMICS article, since the socks are all banned anyway, but there are deeper issues here and I can fairly well guarantee that the community at large will not accept a handful of editors at ANI making policy by minor fiat without going through the appropriate community processes. If you and Nomoskedasticity wanted the option to blacklist an organization, you should have opened a discussion at WP:BAN, promoted it at WP:VPP, WP:CD and elsewhere and then attempted to get a consensus to alter the policy to that effect. We do not make changes to policy by proclamation, nor do we form broad community consensus at WP:ANI, which does not exist for such over-arching discussions nor policy change. The purpose of that form is to apply existing policy, not create it.

This is a serious mistake that is going to cause a lot of disruption, as the decision runs contrary to our most basic community principles. The amount of effort that is now going to be required to grapple with this issue is now going to be exponentially larger because of, if you'll forgive my saying, the panicked over-reaction of a handful of editors who wanted to make a statement to the company rather than just being satisfied with the existing process for dealing with sock and meat puppets, which already had led to a ban for every involved bad-faith editor. But if left standing, the ruling could lead to an amount of disruption even exponentially larger than that. Anyway, our being on very different sides of this issue not withstanding, I recognize your interest is only in protecting the project and I hope we can continue to engage in civil debate on the matter, regardless of the considerable chasm between our perspectives. I will of course let you know when I open the discussion some time this coming week. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Karbala. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leader's Greetings!

Dear Snow Rise,
A wise man said "man is the master of everything and decides everything". Reflecting the single-hearted unity of our editors, I have decided to send these Leader's Greetings to you – Snow Rise – a masterful Wikipedian professing indomitable independence, creativity and consciousness in editing. May the popular masses and world progressive people enjoy your contributions next year, too! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays on behalf of the North Korea working group, Snow Rise!

Wow, thank you, Finn! Those are really very lovely and welcomed words to hear as an editor and a member of the community. :) Thank you very much for the kindness; it's an ideal shot in the arm heading into a new year (both with regard to editing and in general)! Snow ^{let's rap} 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to reply to a user's page so I hope this is correct. Thanks for all the info and links to my question regarding small noses (I feel slightly embarrassed typing that, it was just something I had noticed where I live!) I'm interested to know your discipline/profession as you seem to know a lot about anthropometric studies, a fairly specific area of research, but more than that you know about the historical, social, psychological and geographic interactions that are involved in those studies. My knowledge of anthropometry, which I have never studied, would lead me to think of a profession that focused on ensuring people had a comfortable place to work, but you have gone way beyond that. 95.146.213.181 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! I'm glad that I could be of help to you in your inquiry, which was an interesting one. And yes, you got the format/methodology for leaving a user talk page message down just right; and thank you for taking the time to leave one, as few of those who ask a question on the desks take the time for such an expression after the fact. :)

As to my familiarity with the topic at hand, my background is largely in cognitive science, including a particular fixation with visual perception. But I also have a broad interest evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, and other related areas which extend from the nexus of theory of mind, physiology, and heritability. Between these interests, I've had a lot of exposure to the study of the pressures that come to bear on the human form in general and the face in particular. So while anthropometrics is not really my field in any real sense, I am broadly familiar with it.

Please do let me know if you have any follow-up questions and I'll be happy to tell you what I can. Or, for that matter, if you have any unrelated questions, you know where to find us at the desks! Snow ^{let's rap} 00:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for "You Can Dance, Po prostu tańcz!".jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]