User talk:Snowded/Archive 5

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I only wish to use ROI in text, because that linking article continues to be Republic of Ireland. If it gets moved to (for example) Ireland (state)? then I'd prefer using Ireland (state) in text. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry reference was to mooretwin not you! --Snowded (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious Snowded. What's your take on the reason for some editors not agreeing to Ireland(State) Ireland(Island) with Ireland as the disambiguation page? No matter how much I think about it, I just don't get it (maybe it's just me). Jack forbes (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Motivations are difficult to assess but I think there are four (i) editors unaware of Irish History who just see ROI as an easy option (ii) editors wanting to perpetuate sectarian language who wish the GFA had not happened (iii) Editors who are paranoid about nationalists and (iv) innocents. --Snowded (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The first three I can see being a reason for their stance. The fourth one? I've yet to see any innocents on that article talk page. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but 'assuming good faith', its a possible (generous) explanation for some rather odd statements. :) RashersTierney (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free Rashers, but I am not sure what you are saying! --Snowded (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Only that there are probably editors that don't fall into the first three categories and honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Genuine Innocents! Maybe! RashersTierney (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that, although some would come into category 1, My good faith levels are pretty low with (ii) and (iii) however --Snowded (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. Seriously. RashersTierney (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Mind you compared with Ayn Rand the Irish naming controversy is a edwardian tea party --Snowded (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand! Jeezz... now I need a hug.:) RashersTierney (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche

(sorry my bad English)

Hi. Why did you revert my edition on this article? Could not be so important thing, but very biographies in Wikipedia contain sections about how popular culture featured these peoples. Examples: Oscar Wild#Biographical films, television series and stage plays, Albert Einstein#Effect on popular culture, Mozart in fiction.There are many films and references about Nietzsche in popular culture and I don´t know what we culdn´t write about this. Well, it is my opinion. A hug from southern. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You should really take this to the talk page. I think there is a space for a section, but one canadian film is not notable. Why not put together a section on the talk page and get buy in from other editors? --Snowded (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Allright. Thanks for attention. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Like... this film, Saint Ralph, explores Nietzsche´s ideas (such as God is Dead and Übermensch), so I think this very important. I know other film that portrait Nietzsche in person. The idea was creat the section "In popular culture" for more people add information about this. Anyway, I took this to the talk page. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Im puzzled! What do you think is Controversial? Wgh001 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing "civil war" and the later NATO removal (someone else reversed that) was also unexplained --Snowded (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Free Entrprise

Why? There are only two pages for Free Enterprise: Capitalism or Free Enterprise (film). It will take one page to reach Capitalism, and another to reach Free Enterprise (film). That's two pages maximum. With a disambiguation page, it is two pages for either article. By the looks of it, most of the incoming links to Free enterprise refer to Capitalism, so we don't need to have one unnecessary page. If there were three or more possible pages for the term, then a disambiguation page would help; but not in this case. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just get this nasty feeling that we could end up with lots of such comments on the top of what is a political page. I don't feel that strongly about it though --Snowded (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I undid your edit. If there is another article that uses "Free enterprise" in its name, then feel free to create a disambiguation page. Gary King (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Sorry. I added another option which might have messed up your vote. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary at Flag of Ireland

When I seen British english is used in this article in the edit summary I got worried for a minute. I know their isn't much difference between British and Hiberno-English but can you consider using Hiberno-English is used in this article or even WP:ENGVAR is used in this article which covers all situations Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm Ok with that although I can't get worked up about it. They (the English) did create the language, even if the welsh, irish and scots have made better use of it :-) --Snowded (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland Act and description of the state

Hi Snowded

I was puzzled to see that you chosen to declare an abstention on Proposition 4 of my statement, about the Republic of Ireland Act.

Obviously, it's your right to take whatever view you choose, but I found this one puzzling. The proposition is not about whether any of us approves or disapproves of that Act, merely that it defines the official description of the state.

Could you perhaps use the statement's talk page to explain why you take that view? Have I misquoted the 1948 Act, or do you believe that some other piece of law has repealed it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated over that one to be honest (and I thought you did a great job with the multiple propositions). My reason was the elapse of time and the GFA, of you had said that the 1948 Act described the state as a republic or similar I would have agreed. Not Ireland, unlike Britain has a constitution so the evolutionary nature of law etc is different. However in this case I felt that time, the use of names as political labels didn't permit a yes. I also remain convinced that for some editors the GFA either didn't happen or they are trying to pretend it was a temporary aberration before we return to sectarianism. My reading of the process was that commentary would have to be a statement but happy to state the above! --Snowded (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, do u think you could tell me please why you support this statement - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 ?. Perhaps i and some others are reading it wrong or something but i cant understand how anyone can agree with it. Theres an island called Ireland, a country called Ireland and yet hes saying the word Ireland is not ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with several of the statements (and this is one) is that they contain a lot so determining truth or otherwise is difficult and to some extent you have to go with the overall thrust. Here I think the point is that Ireland can be used without any real ambiguity if care is given to the contextual phrasing. --Snowded (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh i see thanks, agreed it does depend on context and wording used in the articles, although it seems like that statement is arguing theres only one meaing to Ireland and there for no ambiguty when it comes to the article titles. Anyway i can now see why some people agreed with it which puzzled me before. Thanks :) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I split things out into a series of simple one-item-at-a-time propositions, and I'm glad you liked the idea.

But the Good Friday Agreement didn't repeal the 1948 Act, which remains on the statute book, unamended. The GFA did lead to constitutional amendments, but those did not address the name of the state.

You're right that law evolves differently where there is a written constitution, but that doesn't mean that an Act of the Oireachtas can somehow ceases to be law without being repealed or amended. I can see nothing in any part of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 which even mentions either the 1948 Act or the name or description of the state. So I don't understand how you think that the 1948 Act does not still apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Act of the Oireachtas still applies. However the constitution does not (I think) reinforce it which you might have expected and also history has moved on. Also the way this act has been used in the debate so far has at times been toxic. An adjacent sentence on the agreement between the governments of Britain and Ireland on naming conventions would have meant I would have said yes as then the complete picture would have made been presented. Actually the addition of a well worded statement on language change agreements following the use of 1948 language for unintended purposes during the Troubles, would mean I I would be happy to agree.

I do think your list demonstrates the need to someone with knowledge of the history to provide the structure for resolution. Its difficult to see conventional dispute resolution techniques working. You might remember I left a message on your talk page suggesting that you might consider taking this on some months ago! --Snowded (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge

Can you please explain why you are reversing my edits? The section has a formatting error (phantom bullet point), there appears to be a disconnect between the two parts (separated by the bullet points) under 'Defining Knowledge' and the latter part of that section contained some unconnected quotes and references. Bang ton (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the phantom bullet and I agree that the whole article needs improvement. However inserting a heading for a couple of paragraphs does not make sense. Also the text changes you made meant that citation support was lost. You appear to be a new editor which is why I put up the welcome note. I suggest you propose changes to the section on the talk page and get agreement. You will find people very willing to support you --Snowded (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

realm descriptions etc

Opened a new discussion at Talk: United Kingdom. You might want to help decide the point. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) --Snowded (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
• Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem. I rolled-back on the edit-summary alone, when I took a closer look I couldn't see what change they;d actually made to your talk page but I figured it was worth a rollback to remove that nonsense from people's watchlists. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a troll was it? ;) Tumblin Tom (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff

Good afternoon Snowded. You might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff that I have just created. Its main aim to improve Cardiff-related articles, but you can see its other goals on the project's homepage. If you are interested in joining, please add your name to the project page and {{User Cardiff project}} to your user page. There are already requested tasks to be done but also feel free to add your own to-do points to it. I look forward to working with you. Many thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining. I'd like you to be a co-ordinator on the project. See the project page for details on what this entails. As there are few other members yet, you'd be appointed without consensus. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK have self-nominated --Snowded (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

HighKing

User:HighKing refuses to engage in correspondence with me and removes my (admittedly confrontational) messages on his talk page, ostensibly because I am not a registered user and apparently this warrants treatment beneath contempt. Would you mind speaking to him on my behalf and asking him why he insists on behaving in this manner? --89.242.111.56 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

People are entitled to delete whatever they want from their own talk pages. The IP address you used here has only two edits neither of which are on HighKing's page so its impossible to tell what you are talking about (except by guess work). If I have guessed correctly then your remark was deleted for its incivility which (reading it) seems a reasonable thing to do. --Snowded (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it was incivil? He had already removed a previous message, which, judging by the edit summary, was on the basis I was not registered, so I think I am perfectly entitled to confront him about it. Anyway the principle I am trying to bring up is that if someone refuses to engage in dialogue then it is impossible to avert the escalation of edit wars. He may be entitled to remove what he wants from his own talk page, but that's the equivalent of burning letters that come through your front door. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It a lot easier to relate to people when they have an identity. If they choose to use an IP address then at least use one or you never know who you are dealing with, can't check for 3RR etc. I would strongly recommend that if you want people to engage with you then you should use a less aggressive tone that you did on HighKing's page --Snowded (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll post once more on his talk page (where I shall be all sweetness and light), and if he deletes my question a third time, I will expect you to help me. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its an improvement but its highKing's choice what he does on his talk page. As to your edit, you are entering a controversial area. That paragraph has been much debated and you should make a proposal for change on the talk page otherwise expect most editors to revert you. This history if IP addresses and sockpuppets is not good, and your using different IP addresses will trigger suspicion. You should also be aware that there is a Arbcom mediated attempt to resolve issues over Irish naming and there is at least a tacit agreement to leave things until that is resolved. --Snowded (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not playing any of the partisan games over that article like HighKing is, I'm just another Wikipedia editor who happened across the article and attempted to improve it. There was nothing controversial about my edit; go and look at it again. I really couldn't care less about HighKing's quest to defend Irish sovereignty; I just take umbrage at an innocuous edit being reverted with no explanation. That's all.

Well if HighKing continues to be stubborn, and you refuse to help, I shall just make my edit once more. If I am reverted again, then I bear no responsibility for any edit war that may ensue, as I have already attempted to open a dialogue. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You've had an explanation and I will revert if you make the edit without first gaining agreement on the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Every edit requires discussion? That's ridiculous. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No only controversial ones. Now please stop this, I've done my best to explain things to you but from the above comment you are not reading or thinking about what I am saying. I therefore conclude that I am wasting my time. Goodbye --Snowded (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus??

May I point out that there is no consensus on the BI article, as the word is understood in normal usage. There is a majority imposed POV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but that does happen sometimes. Also I think the best approach on this page is to treat it as geographical. More important is to achieve the renaming on Ireland. --Snowded (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've replaced the word "many" as there wasn't a consensus to remove it. I've checked the Talk page - if I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate consensus-reaching discussion. Not picking on you in particular or anything, but you've been involved in reverting to remove the word "many" so perhaps you can quickly put me right if I'm missing anything. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed recently HighKing, if I have time I will look it up, that aside if you want to change it explain why on the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out on the last edit and the consensus appears to have been reached here, although judging by the subsequent discussions, many people object....  :-) --HighKing (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Redthoreau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk Wales

Hi Snowded. You have probably observed my thread on the Wales talk page talking about the meaning of the name Welsh. Trust me, I thought long and hard before I even brought the subject up over whether the Anglo-Saxons used the word to mean slave. I would be keen on your opinion on the subject and would not be offended if you told me I was talking nonsense. Jack forbes (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Accidentally used rollback while clicking back to my watchlist after some vandalism work. Sorry bout that. :) Cirt (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) There but by the brace of God .....

Arbcom new comments

User:TallNapoleon has opened a new discussion on misconduct on the Ayn Rand talkpage. Here is a link.[1] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's IP Editor

As far as I can see, the IP editor who has put in a huge amount of work on the Rand article over the last few days is also the primary author of Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism, which is about 80% a personal essay. The editor clearly has a staggering amount of knowledge about all this stuff, and all kinds of cites at his/her fingertips. Right now, he/she is proceeding as if there were no Wiki policies or other editors. I think we need to get his/her attention somehow, but I can't characterize the work being done as disruptive. Just kind of solipsistic, I guess.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That same editor did a great deal of POV pushing back in December. I'm not going to go through his edits since I can't edit the main space, but he definitely bears watching. Idag (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the pattern seems to be that he does lots of useful edits (references) then sneaks in a POV and waits to see. --Snowded (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed he/she has now adopted the "see also" language instead of the "for a rigorous defense" so he/she is paying attention.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Tongwynlais

Hi, I notice that you patrol the Tongwynlais page. I live near there and I kind of disagree with the temperatures that have just been added to the article also the last few edit by the same IP regarding schools and forests ect! Sorry to bother you. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the IP lives there too and is a user who was previously banned for insertion of un-referenced material there and on Cardiff and elsewhere - if you look through the talk history you will see it. --Snowded (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Randism vs Objectivism

Yo, pertaining to the comments you made on the distinction between Rand's philosophy and Objectivism, I wanted to ask what you thought about the merger of {{Objectivism}} (see here) and {{Ayn Rand}} that happened a while back. Skomorokh 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have it under watch, but have just added a comment agreeing with you. I think the separation is important, hence my suggestion of finding a way to rename Objectivism. The various disputes around here have meant I have had to read more in an area (which I would have preferred to avoid), but if nothing else has come from that its been increasingly obvious to me that Rand is an author who inspired something, but did not create it as a coherent system of thought, others are engaged in that work. --Snowded (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the swift response. Skomorokh 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Collective (Ayn Rand) Nominated for Deletion

Discussion here.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Suggestion

Hello Snowded. Public rebukes on talk pages (like you have done a couple of times recently to Wiki-Ed at B.E.) can be counterproductive. I humbly suggest that you either let sleeping dogs lie, if noone has taken the bait, failing that a quiet word on the user's talk page would get your point across without risking a round of snipe and countersnipe on the article talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A public rebuke may actually have prevented a public reply, better I do it than someone more extreme and in the case concerned its a regular pattern. Its not helpful, maybe the suggestion would be better coming from you? --Snowded (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

{{Article issues}} is an umbrella template. Editors need to specify what are the issues the article has in order to be fixed. Moreover, if the problems can be issued by WP:BOLD or by discussion in the talk page is no need to add a cleanup template in the article's page. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk page shows the history of the issues, a major POV table and generally poorly written with partial representation of the field. At the moment the original creators of the page (I think it was a university project) show no interest in improving it and it has little or no interest. Until someone works on it then a tag is more than legitimate. If you want to to suggest a different one fine - otherwise I will reinstate. --Snowded (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So we have to add the POV and copyedit parameters. Am I right? -- Magioladitis (talk)

Probably attention of an expert as well, it could be an important article if someone would come along! --Snowded (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think we have it now. Please free to adjust it they way you think it suits better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate the help I hadn't realised how to use that template. --Snowded (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Ahhhhh, I've been deleted. Anyways, the bickering on that article, does tend to be entertaining (for its political mud slinging). GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It will be good for you --Snowded (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher

In light of your revert on Margaret Thatcher, I have made an amendment to my original version so that the article now both maintains its original content, and introduces the subject as being a living person. When anything begins with "was", it is not the case. Compare the following former heads of state and government from their intros:
John Major, Tony Blair, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Paul Martin, Ayad Allawi, Janez Janša, Željko Šturanović, Ion Iliescu, Guy Verhofstadt, Yves Leterme, Wim Kok, Yawovi Agboyibo, Eduardo Rodríguez, Carlos Mesa, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, Said Musa, Konstantinos Stephanopoulos, Paul Bérenger, Seydou Diarra and Paavo Lipponen. These are living people and so their introduction is invariably "...is", even if only to say that the subject is a "former" or "retired" statesperson. Whilst this practice stretches far beyond international politics, you may care to examine the following presentations in this list of deceased leaders:
John Compton, Saddam Hussein, Levy Mwanawasa, Canaan Banana, Zoran Đinđić, Thomas Klestil, Zurab Zhvania, Rafik Hariri, Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Laurent-Désiré Kabila and Taufa'ahau Tupou IV. To which category does Thatcher belong? Atleast for the time being? I am following a code of practice here so I'd appreciate it if you accepted the article on Thatcher as it now stands. Many thanks. Evlekis (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked it an hour ago and was happy, sorry should have left a note on your page to say so. Thanks for the examples above, I look forward to the page being amended to reflect your second example of deceased leaders at some stage in the future :-) --Snowded (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the hen wrach has dementia. She probably has numerous other medical problems. I hope she lives for many more years, perhaps well into her hundreds. She has already outlived contemporaries, whose politics she so admired (and probably would have emulated, given the chance), such as Pinochet. Wouldn't want to wish her into an early grave, now would we? Daicaregos (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, while she is alive criticism is easier and we are saved the lobby group wanting to build an statue of her in Grantham to rival the planned horse in Kent --Snowded (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bizarrely, there's already an effigy of the hateful woman in the Senedd. Did we ever discover who's bright idea that was? Daicaregos (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same people (or their descendants) who supported the "coronation" of Charles, every society has its class-traitors! --Snowded (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But George Thomas is dead and had no children (quelle surprise), Garel-Jones doesn't care enough about Wales to actually live here, and Kinnock's only allowed back if he keeps his anti-Wales mouth shut (I hope). All the others left Wales after Thatcher put them out of work, didn't they? Daicaregos (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably no, the petite bourgeoisie are always suckers for the Windsors and working class Tories are the worst. That said I would be interested to find out who allowed the effigy (unless it has a Guy Fawkes function) to be placed there. I do some work for WAG from time to time, I will ask around --Snowded (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your diplomacy, and glad you like the revision. If we chatted in real life, I'd tell you what I too honestly think about her!! But I'm worried that if we continue to exert our feelings out in the open as we've so far done (I did too in my original revert summary), we might all get the bullet for inciting negative sentiment! But if it's jokes you want, I recommend Sickipedia; it's the last place in the world that we can all share gags and nasty remarks about people in such a way that PC now forbids (atleast in the UK where I'm assuming the two of you live). Evlekis (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think both of us would see ourselves as Welsh, rather than UK. As such we saw the impact of Thatcher on the community --Snowded (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the Thatcher legacy is likely to live longer than the carcass. Daicaregos (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, I see. I must admit I hadn't previously looked at your user pages. Now I detect the Welsh connection :-) ! Not truely UK here either; Wiltshire born and bred but to parents from Balkans (former Yugoslavia). Yes we all have our little issues with each of the heads of government, and I can certainly see why as proud Welsh citizens, you both feel bitter towards Maggie. Let's just all wish for a brighter tomorrow rather than reflecting on a gloomy past, for Wales and for the world! Cheers!! Evlekis (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor old Maggie, I'm sure she was just misunderstood. Poll tax (tried out in Scotland first, it makes us so proud), pit closures, high unemployment, letting us all know there is no such thing as society, selling off council houses by the thousands. Poor old Maggie. Jack forbes (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anwyl of Tywyn Family

Hello Snowded, its been a long time since we spoke! lol. Ive been away largely. Anywhose, I have questions regarding some deletions on the Anwyl of Tywyn Family page. The original author of this content is James Frankcom, who has done much research on the topic. He cites that the Anwyl family trace their decent from Owain Gwynedd, and gives the history as provided by Burkes peerage. Well, that does not seem original research to me per se. Nor does the claim that they may be the leading contenders to the throne as Prince of Wales and of Gwynedd, as the court case in which Sir John Wynn, then a represenitive of the Aberffraw claim, demonstrates that "had Welsh law" been in effect and static, that John Wynn would have been Prince of Wales. So, by logical extrapolation, so too would the Anwyl claim. Or do you have a different point of view? I know that James doesnt always list in text citations like he should, something Ive recommend he do. But Burkes Peerage is almost beyond reproch in terms of genelogy. What are your thoughts?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing which concerned me was the insertion of links to Royal Family of Wales which is a nonsense and several reverences to the current survivor of this supposed link. If Welsh Law had been in effect and static then all sorts of things might have happened. However it wasn't and at no stage during the history of Aberffraw was there an uninterrupted succession. Priority did not go to the eldest, but the one who defeated his brothers. The Anwyl claim is original research, its OK on the page itself but to insert it elsewhere is simply a nonsense. Having discovered that I found the other changes to the Wynn family. Normally I would have missed those. My suggestion to the editor is that he creates a central area for discussion if he wants to take it forward. --Snowded (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Snowded. I have written to James Frankcom asking he discuss the concerns of the articles. I make attempts to "clean up" the reference and citation of Mr. Frankcom's contributions as best I can. I know that he has been researching the subject for 10 or more years and has a great deal to share. I have contacted historian Gerald Morgan about the articles. Mr. Morgan is contacting Mr. J. Beverly Smith for input as well. Mr. Miles Wynn Cato, (who's mother is an Anwyl of Parc), of the Nanney-Wynn family has contacted me. He has shared a photo of their family crest from 1861 (it matches the depicted crest attributed to Owain Gwynedd) and has an extensive family genealogy to contribute. The Anwyl family genealogy seems well documented; what it means to present day Wales, and where it will or could lead is not clear. Where should this be discussed as you suggest? Keep it on one article talk page, or do you mean a new project? ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 22:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article on the Anwyl family is concerned the issue will be the degree to which the material is published in reliable sources. This may mean that James Frankcom has to get some of his material published before it can be used. The issue for me is the implications for modern day Wales which brought me to the Anwyl article in the first place. I can't see any other than as a minor curiosity on a biographical article. Its insertion on Wales or Kingdom of Gwyneth is (as I said to Drachenfyre above) in my opinion inappropriate. As to discussion I think its easy, pick one of the Wynns and have the discussion on their origins there before editing all the articles, on any modern day implications have it on the talk page of one of the articles (if that is to be advocated); in both cases notify other editors on Project:Wales. --Snowded (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded again! Anywhose, according to historican John Davies, the succession law in use in mideival Gwynedd and the Aberffraw family was patently primogeniture by convention, as the eldest surviving son inherited before any junior son. Especially following the Aberffraw restoration with Gruffydd ap Cynan who recovered Gwynedd for the Aberffraw family and Welsh from the Norman Earl of Chester by 1098. Davis argues that the biography on Gryuffydd ap Cynan explicitly cites primogeniture as the source of their claim as the primary Princes of Wales. Only twice between 1098 and the Edwardian Conquest of 1182 was conventional Welsh law superseeded, and that was with the Gwynedd Interregnum 1170-1200 (dynastic civil war) and when Llywelyn II had his older brother Owain imprisioned and thus denying his claim as Prince of Wales and of Gwynedd. Owain sold his claim to Prince of Wales/Gwynedd to his younger brother Dafydd if Dafydd would free him from captivity.

Anywhose, as to the issue at hand, the Anwyl of Tywyn claim would have a bearing on other topics as well and be of great interest. The House of Aberffraw page for one, as well as History of Plaid Cymru page which speaks on restoring a Welsh monarchy with Welsh roots. But in the end I do agree the information needs to be clearly cited and sourced.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Primogeniture really emerges in Wales with the Normans although there are precedents before. The two breaks in that are significant, and the history contains many claims from younger and bastard sons across the whole of Wales. The primacy of Aberffraw was also under dispute at times. If there is a cited claim fro Anwyl then I agree it may deserve a sentence but not more on the Aberffraw page. You have a romantic attachment to the idea of Welsh Royal Family, I am afraid I don;t --Snowded (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Snowded! Well, actually John Davies says that primogeniture was appearent in Wales as early as the 9th century, and was following simular succession laws as was appearent elsewhere in Europe such as Anglo-Saxon England and France. When one looks at the succession of the rulers of Gwynedd it is clear it is a succession by primogeniture in almost ever case. Welsh law as codified by Hywel the Good only stipulated that the rulers title passed to the Edling as the primary heir. Once Rhodri the Great had passed away his Edling and heir was his oldest son, though junior sons did not wish to observe this. The claims of junior sons are largely claims for a portion of their father's inheritance, which by law they are intitled to. But they were not entitled to the kingship nor to the majority of the father's lands. Sometimes a junior son was able to assert his own power above the law... as Llywelyn the Last did over his brother Owen... but as result became unpopular as a result. Llywelyn the Last did have to contend with the legality of his position following Owen's imprisionment.

You know I have great repsect for you, but weather or not you or I, or any others... have a romantic attachment to the idea of a Welsh royal family is beside the point my friend. We should follow due dilligence and be sure that what goes in wiki is verified and sourced appropriatly. But we should also not just throw out the baby with the bathwater either and give a chance for those sections to be qualified with an in text citation.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual respect and I agree the position on eldest sons precedes the Normans but I am not sure it is primogeniture in the sense we use the word these days. The tendency of younger sons to contest, and their rights to and consequent dilution of lands was one of the issues that weakened Welsh Princes against the anglo-Normans and was at least a part of the disputes between Llywelyn the last and the other Welsh Princes. Feudal obligation, or the absence of was another fact (all of that is Davies as well by the way). Net result its not a simple situation. Agree on verified and sources, but it also needs to be notable and pass WP:Weight. I don't think the idea of Welsh Royal family is anything other than a curiosity and while it might attract the odd sentence, no more than that is justified. --Snowded (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

NLP edits to 1970s section

Overall there is not much change. I'm trying to clarify the facts and correct some minor errors. Please hold off reverts for a while. I want to reinsert the edits one paragraph at a time then we can see exactly what I changed. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've rearranged the paragraph so it is clear what has changed. This will make it easier to discuss even if you do revert it. Please let me know what changes you most disagree with so I can make the necessary adjustments. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You have just made one massive set of changes again so its difficult to sort. I will leave it for an our to see if it improves, if not I am going to revert and summarise what I think are acceptable changes on the talk page. It really would be a lot easier if you would start there. --Snowded (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll revert my changes. I've made a list here of the changes and diffs which I can post to the talk page. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (much more civilised than the Ayn Rand pages). I will go through them later today --Snowded (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. There is a disturbing positive correlation between my wikipedia edits and pending assignments. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 09:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Snowded, hope you're doing well! Just a quick note to apologize for my extended absence but I've been busy half-a-world away. That said, we have actually been in touch (you may not have known it) as we're both on the KMGOV discussion group and I recently sent you a LinkedIn invite; that said, I prefer to keep my identity relatively unknown to most folks here at Wikipedia, I find it easier to keep work and academia separate from cyber-endeavors. More later when I'm back in the more modern world; cheers! Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I know (and understood). Will be in DC towards the end of the month if you want a drink ... --Snowded (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I'll still be an academic trying to help out in a war-torn region of the world (where some of your fellow countrymen are as well, alongside others from NATO, etc.) for another few months, but next time you're in DC and I'm back there too, definitely... we should catch-up; unfortunately I must now renew my Wikipedia-absence; best regards Harvey the rabbit (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm over on a related field - small group command and also cultural auditing/preparation for PKO. Let me know when you are next back and good luck! --Snowded (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Anwyl of Tywyn

Hi Snowded, I have replied to the question you have raised in the Project:Wales section. Best regards, James Frankcom (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I have responded there --Snowded (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

Hi Snowded. I have just been involved in a discussion at Talk:Macedonia where it has been changed from Republic of Macedonia. Although not exactly the same I do see parallels to the Ireland naming dispute. I've been wondering if the final decision on that matter will have an effect on the Ireland dispute. The admin who changed it actually wrote the policy on the naming convention, so interesting times may be ahead if the name sticks. Jack forbes (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Snowded, you have obviously got no opinion on it. I obviously wasted my time bringing your attention to it. Sorry! Jack forbes (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I' looking Jack, but I have been working 14 hour days and my two engagements with Arbcom have left me pretty disillusioned. It is similar to Ireland and it creates an interesting precedent. The problem is that Arbcom refuse to intervene on anything to do with content or proposal, they just want to confine themselves to behavour refusing to address underlying issues of policy. --Snowded (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at my post from last night I see now it sounds quite petulant and apologise if it comes across that way. Your right concerning Arbcom not interfering in content issues but if the name does remain it could be an example that could be brought to the Ireland discussion. Jack forbes (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Catterick

I see Catterick has "retired"; can a user retire in order to beat a 3RR block? I presume it will be waiting for him should he ever surface again? Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling he will be back. From the name and the prominent display of St George's Cross one wonders one wonders about the politics and an army connection. Seemed informaed on some issues, but just lost it this morning. --Snowded (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the name Catterick, I too had wondered if perhaps he had a military background. He let rip at a lot of us editors, not just you and Sarah, but GoodDay and myself; and for no particular reason save that GoodDay and I did not agree with him that Louis VIII should be listed as an English monarch! Oh well....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

At it again I'm afraid - any suggestions? (I can think of a few!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw it on the watch list and reverted to "prior stable", its ANI and/or 3RR next I think.--Snowded ^TALK 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be this situation if I was an editor you liked. LutetiaPetuaria | 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to edit? Maybe some "concerned" people should follow you around and make your wiki-life hell? You get what you're looking for, a rise out of me. Now, shoo! LutetiaPetuaria | 10:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is following you around, you are editing pages already on people's watch lists, please learn to use talk pages and insert material supported by citation rather than your own, somewhat esoteric view of history. --Snowded ^TALK 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if the 48 hour block does not correct the behaviour next time I am assembling all the abuse etc plus that and doing an ANI report, it gone past being an amusing sideshow. At least a senior admin got involved this time so I can go direct if needed. --Snowded ^TALK 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I modified the text to be clear. All of the tagged parts are corroborated elsewhere at related articles, none of them tagged for discrepencies. Your tag team of WP:WL and WP:HA will probably do as much to get me blocked or banned. Well, keep at it. I've been waiting. What's keeping you? LutetiaPetuaria | 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, it looks to me very much like he has previously edited as both User:Lord Loxley (indefinite block, Sept. 2007), and before that User:ScapegoatVandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then this tosser has wasted a lot of editor's time. RashersTierney (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

True but he is entertaining at times (Albion and Eire are both Britons etc) and is is nice to see others squirm when he supports them --Snowded ^TALK 23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if the 48 hour block does not correct the behaviour next time I am assembling all the abuse etc plus that and doing an ANI report, it gone past being an amusing sideshow. At least a senior admin got involved this time so I can go direct if needed. --Snowded ^TALK 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's obviously a lot more history that we didn't know about! - User:Kenneth Alan, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan, [2], [3], User talk:Fitzpaine, User talk:68.110.9.62, [4], [5], and, no doubt, etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

IN part my problem with this guy is that I like eccentrics! Right will look at those, a curious tale unfolds and I see we now have sock puppets! --Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More...err..."eccentricities"!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And I thought my opinion of Rand couldn't get lower.

Just goes to show you, never say never. *shudder* TallNapoleon (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless "a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer" is a reasonable expression of self interest which leads to a moral postiion? --Snowded (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And a heroic soul to boot. So much better than being, you know, average. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why can literally hundreds of women get slaughtered in northern Mexico without a gigantic outcry? Charles Manson was a hero of a generation, among them your president' s "best ex-terrorist friends". Colin Wilson' s books on murderers are full of this stuff (Wilson himself existentialist), the more interesting cases really seem to be Nietzsches Übermensch misconstructed and released--Radh (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism

Hiya, Just wondering why you reverted my edit[6] on the groupings in the protestantism article. If you look at Christianity#Denominations, that is where I took the statement from, and as it is sourced and has been in the article for a long period (in what is generally a highly contentious article), I thought that would be OK. I realise I didn't put the sources in when I made the edit, so I'm doing that now. Please discuss if there is a good reason you think it is incorrect (and if so it should probably also be discussed on the christianity talkpage as well). Quantpole (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not a major denomination, it appears to be a collective name for a series of Protestant sects.--Snowded (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so now you've reverted edits and they are different on the two different pages (anglicanism features on protestantism, whereas it's oriental orthodoxy instead on christianity). At the moment you seem to be operating under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why you are removing the reference, which has been stable on the christianity page for a long time (almost a miracle for that article) and then insisting I start a discussion about it is a bit surprising. Hey ho, that's your choice, I've started the discussion. In the meantime, I am reverting to sourced material that has been removed in favour of unsourced. Quantpole (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You tagged my talkpage by mistake. I have removed it now. (Feel free to remove this note.) -- Quiddity (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Messing an article up

Why are you adding fact tags to cited content [7]? And why are you calling something that people believe hypothetical? Are you going to change the Christianity article to say that it's a hypothetical belief? And why are you removing cited content? I look forward to your explanation. Right now you are coordinating with a stalker and vandal. Some people believe you can learn a lot about a person by the company they keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if other editors are stalkers or vandals. However you are failing to recognise that exopolitics can be used as a hypothesis without having to believe that aliens exist. You initiated the change, you should make your case on the talk page if it is reverted. You have made this change three times now without any engagement on the talk page. As I said in my last edit summary, you should take your ideas here. --Snowded (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Not wanting to delay the bot archiving with off topic discussion, but your comments about systemic issues do make a lot of sense. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request here. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your moniker

Wowsers, what happen to the fancy style? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, may be the new computer will have to reset--Snowded (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

nightlife "rant"

with regard to the edit about nightlife, don't you think something to that effect deserves to be mentioned? maybe something about 24hr drinking laws? I understand wanting to promote a rosy picture of cardiff, but i'm just saying the pictures from that article were somewhat shocking. Every city as drunkards but something should be said methinks.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.144.237 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you would have to insert it in London, Newcastle, Glasgow etc.etc. Expand the nightlife section a bit so its reflects on the good as well as the bad possibly but that report per se is not notable --Snowded (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Mutual Friends"

Revelation to the nth power. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I did half wonder if that would fuel your conspiracy theories, and it was an interesting probe in its own right. Actually I'm more concerned for you, that last set of postings you made were quite worrying. Look after yourself, don't let the Wikipedia get to you. --Snowded (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia? Look, set all the bait you want. It's what you do best. I won't explain my statements, but I would have you hear this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLgUuHl2xJo&feature=related Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to take a wikibreak mate, get things into proportion --Snowded (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia

You will find an apology on the talk page. My choice of words was poor. Regards, Justin talk 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand infractions

I am heading off this weekend to take care of some obligations, but when I return I will see what I can do to help further stablize the topic area. I will see if I can find an administrator or two to help police the edit-warring and other problematic behavior. Failing that, I will watchlist the topic set and intervene as an administrator myself as necessary. I believe there are enough cool heads and sensible people involved in the discussion aspect that mediation is not needed, but looking over things briefly due to your comments, it does seem that some problematic behavior needs to be curtailed. It appears that if the edit-warring and such is kept under control that some serious productive work could get done on the subject. (Feel free to correct me if you believe this impression is mistaken.) If I can help out in any other way, please let me know. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, it needs someone to keep an eye out. There is productive work going on, but it stands on the edge all the time. Having admin monitors would help. The article set can be OK for periods, then you get some real nonsense, especially when Rand's name is being inserted inappropriately in other Philosophy articles. The most recent edit war was here. Some of the resulting behaviour is very odd. I got stalked on the WIkipedia (and there were two attempts to play the wiki game and get me a block when I went to 3RR on clear vandalism. I even have my own user box!. Equally on my blog any mention of Rand produces comments from Texas here and here. I hasten to add that I have no objections to the blog which is public. It is as i mentioned before a more generic problem when an article or a group of articles attracts cult like or extreme followings (similar to the many debates on Intelligent Design, Macedonia etc.). I am very busy at the moment, but I am working on a draft protocol/problem statement here for something which is not meat puppetry, but does involve a large group of editors in effect baton passing the maintenance of a position, and the problems of editors (few in number) when they attempt to stand up to them. Our recent IP was finally banned for a period, and they are now suspected of WP:COI along with another newby editor who is either a close acolyte or a sock puppet. Reports to Arbitration enforcement produced no action, in part because the report was "snowed" by noisy counter accusations--Snowded ^TALK 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for such a complete response! Can you provide me with a list of general philosophy topics where this problem arises? (No need for a full article list. I'm familiar enough with philosophy that I can add groups of articles based on general topics.) I'm fishing around for a few philosophy savvy admins to step in (I believe a bit of topic familiarity is desirable), but I will do so directly if I cannot find enough help for the area. --Vassyana (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Vassyana, only just seen this (have been working long hours on a project). I'll send you some material later today or on the weekend when I get time to research it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

Ta. Reason is in short supply at times ;0) --Bill Reid | (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it reasonable to flip flop in order to gauge the response, whether the right time to strike and change the pov to reflect his own opinion? Reason and mindgames are not synching up for Pat and myself. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

IN any wikipedia debate Catterick you have to make decisions, sometimes you say "ah well" sometimes you say "ah someone agrees with me". When you stand to wax poetical about albion and eire all being british I panic--Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are not interested in the technical data, then why bother? Oh right, you're there for the kicks. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What technical data? I'm interested in content issues and the dynamics of Wikipedia and across a broad range of subjects. You might like to broaden yours.--Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You know that's hypocritical. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any wooden spoons. Anyways, I was just trying to lighten the mood there; trying for a laugh (which I didn't get, from anyone). GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No Silver Spoonings? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWNership

I'm very proud of the fact that I got BE to FA status - there are only 2,500 featured articles at Wikipedia. The cost of investing a lot of one's personal time in an article rather than a talk page is that you get accused of ownership. Rest assured I can live with it. In this particular case, however, I'm just contributing to the debate like everyone else. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And you are right to be proud of it, but you need be aware that some of accusations may be correct. I have defended you when I think the accusation has been unjust, but I have also observed where it has been the case. As I have already said I am really surprised your didn't support a simple solution early one before this became contentious. Ironically at the moment (as someone all to familiar with the debates) you have the extremist pro-BI group engaged, the extreme anti-BI group have yet to arrive and you rejecting attempts by the moderates to find a solution. Pity really. --Snowded ^TALK 20:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the whole thing was kicked off by one of the "extreme anti-BI group", though you very quickly picked up the baton from him. Had you not reverted two editors (twice) this thing probably would have died a quiet death and the wording that had happily survived for over two years may have done so for another two. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

True, and I looked it and decided he had a point (as on other occasions I have felt otherwise. However the whole thing seemed to me a storm in a teacup (as I said on your talk page at the time) and it was easily resolved by getting rid of any geographical reference. You accepted that for a bit before the masses assembled. That said, at the moment you have a group of moderate editors most of whom have been around this issue for some time trying to find a solution. It would be lot easier if you helped. Unless of course you enjoy the association with Mercian Nationalists and people who are so far gone as to assert that Eire and Albion are all British. --Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it not WP:OWN, with respect to the "Celtic alliance" of anti-English conspiracy theories, driving a possessive urge to control all usage of the terms "British Isles"? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of fringe nutters arguing against its removal, I'll admit that. But then I find your readiness to leap to DG's causes a mistake. It's the second time it has happened at the BE talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to be objective (but not objectivist) as incidents come up - now how about trying to work on a solution? --Snowded ^TALK 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As any solution you'd be happy with involves the removal of the term, there's not much else I can say to you really. Again, aside from the fact that it succinctly describes the situation, I am totally uncomfortable with this attempt by stealth (unconcious or otherwise) to remove the term altogether from WP, as that is an attempt to right WP: GREATWRONGS. Although the examples given there are a little more serious, the general principle applies here too. It's pretty hard to argue we are not riding the crest of the wave when the BBC and the House of Commons quite happily use the term. I know you say you are only trying to remove it where it is "inappropriate", but once you have set criteria where it is deemed inappropriate, you open the flood gates. The term is either inappropriate or it's not, there is no half way house. And until mainstream media deems it inappropriate, it's appropriate - in any context - at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

All terms are appropriate or inappropriate in different contexts and sometimes they are unnecessary. --Snowded ^TALK 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You will not find those in Ireland stating that it's OK to use in certain situations but not others. Ditto publishers that have stated a policy on usage: if there is a policy, it's that it will not be used at all, not that it won't be used in certain circumstances. Your position on this, with a self-invented set of rules stating situations when it is "allowed" (ie when you think it's OK), is the most problematic of all. At least the "Irish" position is internally consistent. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the silliest thing you have said yet. It is a geographical term, it was used historically. I would prefer (where its necessary) in the current age to say Britain and Ireland but that is personal preference. Its all completely irrelevant to the Empire article where there is no need to use the term. --Snowded ^TALK 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is silly in the slightest. I am trying to tell you that you are failing to see that you are putting your own spin on the matter. There are only two positions in reliable sources: it's either not to be used (Irish govt, Nat Geo) or there is no position at all (BBC). Which mainstream media organisation or publisher has a policy like the one you are trying to introduce? Noone. You are defining acceptibility and unacceptibility on the basis of your own views. That is WP:OR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irish government position is clear where the term is political and that impacts the lede of the article "British Isles". Otherwise it is used by the Irish official bodies in a purely geographical sense and in academic papers. Other usage is mixed (including the use of Britain and Ireland). So its not a simply position and difference sources in different contexts support different views. I think you will find precedent is in line with my suggestions. However in the context of British Empire there is no citation support for other than overseas territories, you have simply decided that it needs to be there to explain things. In this you have the support of about one editor who is not on some mystical trip or has one of the worst blocking histories in Wikipedia on these subjects. First take out the OR in your own eyes before you make observations on that in others. --Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One does not need a cite to use particular words in the English language in a particular order. Otherwise Wikipedia would be purely a set of plagiarised sentences conforming exactly to the sources they were taken from. It is not advancing a new position to state that the BOTs are outside the British Isles, because it is verifiable what is meant by British Isles (see Britannica or Encarta) and it is verifiable that the BOTs are outside of that geographical area (see an atlas), and it is not advancing a new position by putting the two facts together. I really thought that you would have understoood what does and does not constitute Original Research by now, Snowded. As for support, are you on the ropes so badly that you now have to stoop to the depths of pretending that the only person who agrees with me is that oddball? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Its fully verifiable that the overseas dependencies are outside of the British Isles, as they are outside of the UK or Antartica for that matter. Its simply unnecessary to make the statement to get the point across and the use of BI here is potentially misleading. As ever when you do not follow the exact quotation its a matter of avoiding a set of plagiarised statements, but when others take a similar position on articles where you have (and you really do have as many editors have pointed out) an ownership issue, they they are engaging in original research. As to the "ropes" if I was relying on the support of what you yourself called two nutters then I might be wondering why my second did not throw in the towel and act gracefully. --Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, Red Hat has his mission to preserve the article and I wish him well. I trust his judgment and will not prevent his good graces from being put into it. I likewise, don't believe you have the good graces. Just because I may agree with him, doesn't mean he agrees with me. Don't do straw man attacks on Red Hat. You think you can make him look bad, by an association that barely exists. We are not in synch. That's plainly clear, to the opposite of your grand alliance of racist Anglophobes, all bound by a fake Celtic identity. Look at how ideology divides people, even if the land and shores all feel like home. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before and I will say it again Catterick, your words speak volumes, although adding conspiracy theories is the icing on the cake. I wonder if the Grand Alliance has covert meetings? Stray English tourists placed into Wickermen and burnt, sexual orgies at Beltaine and a grand conspiracy to great a new art form from the bagpipe, male voice choirs and dancing? --Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, your inferential and tangential humour doesn't change facts. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Look Snowded, if you are going to resort to pretending - and frankly, lying - that there are only two people who are opposed to your point of view then I'm not going to engage with you any further. As for the ownership issue, I worked a lot on this article, and I engage in discussions on the talk page. Please learn to live with both. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Red hat you have a couple of others, one reasonable, one a veteran of many an edit war on Irish issues, plus the two I mentioned. I didn't say anything to imply they were the only ones. I've lived with the ownership issues even since I came to the article, and defended you against the odd false accusation. Its why I remain surprised you are taking such a stand on this when alternative wording could resolve the issue and improve the article. Resolving minor issues early is one way to prevent this article getting sucked into the maelstrom of edit warring around BI and Irish issues. --Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, how much more do you wish Red Hat to disown me, to declare his neutrality? I highly doubt your sincerity in anything you proclaim, only believe that expressed through your actions, which have always been activist on this subject. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RedHat is a reasonable guy Catterick and a compromise is normally possible. You on the other hand ... --Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you are still pandering to make this partisan and try to mold people against one another, in your own favour. That's offensive. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More expressing sympathy for someone I respect as it happens Catterick --Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Still trying to get on his good side? Have you read any of his replies? Do you intend to talk at him all day long? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people are worth spending time on Catterick --Snowded ^TALK 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For someone whose first edit was on 25 March, he seems to have an extraordinary knowledge of WP protocols, wouldn't you say? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure he was Lord Loxley before he got chased left the project and has now metamorphosised as Catterick. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Metamorphosed seems about right, some of the comments are like scenes from Kafka --Snowded ^TALK 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure he's this guy [8] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The recorder is the give away! Loved that RedHat --Snowded ^TALK 08:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I used the Speedy Deletion protocol correctly (indeed, it was unfounded from the beginning)...and User:Þjóðólfr just happened to be here at the right moment, the right time? That one seems well invested and educated. Bite the newbie, midbie or oldbie, however you see me. That's how you see me. Personal attacks are okay if you do them. Aye captain! (or is that O Captain! My Captain!? Captain & Tennille?) Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Aritstotle (talk page)

Snowded - Thanks for responding to me on the Aristotle talk page. I appreciate it. Ti-30X (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

both sides of each argument

Can you tell me what parts you agree or don't agree with in this revert: diff. The current "NLP and science" section is biased towards a skeptics POV when there are competing perspectives. Please be specific. We must give both sides of each argument with respect to WP:DUE. It is relevant, for example, that John Grinder has reported that the meta-model was based on empirical work and his expertise in transformational grammar. We cannot insert points of view "a collection of scientific sounding jargon"(Beyerstein) or a "fake title designed to give the impression of legitimate scientific enterprise"(Corballis) unless the replies/counter-arguments/alternate explanations are also outlined. I have just done a search of psycinfo, there are 300 or so articles indexed directly about "neurolinguistic programming". Of those articles very few have criticisms as extreme as Beyerstein or Corballis. We also cited Grant Devilly, for example, who only searched pubmed which indicates his bias towards physiological or behavioral neuroscience (medical model). We have to be clear what empirical research has been carried out and what the limitations were. Most of the recent articles about NLP indexed on psycinfo shed a far more positive light than what we previously thought. They expressed a desire to conduct further studies. Few psychotherapies, except maybe "exposure therapy" for treatment of fear would satisfy Beyerstein/Corballis/Devilly's requirements for experimental evidence. At the moment it is not clear what perspectives each source is arguing from. This could be done a lot better. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 06:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you insert new material relating to those claims without carrying out widespread changes and deletions. You have a COI here and while a lot of good work can come from your work it too needs to be balanced. You might for example have created a section on recent research (without deleting the existing material) that could be validated or contested. Downstream would be the time for a rewrite. --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You may want to revert yourself as you've breached 3RR, although I was about to revert the same edit. --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, but I am on 3, the earlier revert was different vandalism from a different IP

Hmmmm ... 3RR covers reverts to a single page, regardless of whether it was the same content or not or the same editor or not! I suggest you revert. --HighKing (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would count this as vandalism, but given the amount of watchers I suppose playing safe makes sense! OK will do and leave it to you. --Snowded ^TALK 01:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Plea

Snowded, there are two occasions which spring to mind where I've backed down from a position on Wikipedia, and I have to say, from a much stronger position as I had a whole host of references behind me. The first was over depicting Portuguese colonies on a map of the Spanish Empire, and the second, as I pointed out on the talk page, was over the "overseas" thing. I still feel the original state of affairs in both was the correct one, and I had references to prove its verifiability (which you notably don't in this case), but I relented and moved on. I urge you to do the same now here. Do you really want to take this to dispute resolution (because that's where it's going to end up), with all the acrimony it will cause, and the time it will waste? Are there not many, many things to do in Wikipedia where energy is better expended? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've backed down on several things over the years RedHat and did my level best to diffuse this one early. You various commentaries on people's motivations and at times abusive language are simply unacceptable. --Snowded ^TALK 15:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Never ignore a pooh-pooh" Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Very clever GoodDay, but its stirring the pot and not helpful --Snowded ^TALK 06:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And never pooh-pooh a pooh-pooh. [9] Watch that before replying, Snowded... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain?

Hi there,

Puzzled by your edit summary of "not sure excommunication means communion was broken"? When you excommunicate the head of a church doesn't it de facto break communion with the church? Or is there some subtlety I haven't spotted... the period when the C of E and C of R were back in communion is 1555 to 1570 surely? I agreed that the Pope declaring ELizabeth's reign illegal because of his view of her illegitimacy implies the relationship wasn't rosy but... "Briefly" surely isn't factual anyway it is to try to imply the reunion wasn't "proper", which breaks WP:POINT even though it is verbatim copied from "Catholicism for Dummies" (which seems to be an uncited source for other bits too?) --BozMo talk 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a bit cyptic. My point was that other monarchs had been excommunicated so that was not the point at which the Anlican Church became "other". In practice James achieved that before Mary with the 39 articles. Mary was a temporary reversion --Snowded ^TALK 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Both Statutes of Repeal were worded as definitive and revoked previous legislation definitively. It is therefore very hard in fact to argue that their nature was temporary, although they failed to endure certainly. Furthermore the reunion with Roman was recognised by Rome in 1554 (when Cardinal Pole was sent) and I am pretty sure that was worded as definitive by Rome as well. When you trace backwards from the current broken communion the last time the Roman and Canterbury branches were in communion was 1570, when they had been . That was therefore the definitive break. Saying that anything prior to that was "temporary" or "brief" is arbitrary, you could equally argue that Henry's break was temporary and that Elizabeth's break was definitive. --BozMo talk 09:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a more elaborate version and something along those lines is fine. The wording I objected to was the "excommunication so ...." --Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Are you happy if I move this to the relevant talk page? That is probably the right place to propose some wording. --BozMo talk 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea --Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as another note I see the article uses the phrases "British Irish". Isn't this expression offensive to the Irish (many of whom object to the British Isles, or am I being over sensitive? --BozMo talk 10:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Snowded. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you..?

David Snowden by any chance? I took a peek at your website. No offense if your not! Just couldn’t help but wonder.--Adam آدم (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The web link makes it fairly easy to find me! --Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does!--Adam آدم (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding/Deleting British Isles

Due to recent frustrations at Derry & British Empire, I've restarted discussion at the BI-Taskforce. Above all, we can't have editors getting blocked over this term. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Wayhay! Let me be the first to say congrats. Hope you decide to 'give it a go'. You'll make a great admin. RashersTierney (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that Snowded is a good moderating voice in the community, especially in the Ireland related articles, and is a voice that both sides will listen to. I believe it's deserved, and have been watching Snowded for a while with this in mind. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowy's got my support. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He has my support as well. He always keeps a cool head during heated disputes, and gives calm, lucid replies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Full support from me. Go for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Snowded, are you interested in the nomination? If so you need to indicate your acceptance in the article, and make a statement if you like, plus be ready to answer some questions. Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes! just been working 20 hour days for the last two, hope to indicate acceptance and answer the three questons (and more) starting tomorrow --Snowded ^TALK 13:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

okay, no problems. Just didn't want you to think it was pressured, or to miss you need to accept. :) Keep up the good work, and speak soon. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you become an Administrator? my advice would be to avoid the Ayn Rand article. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I've screwed up with regards to the Ayn Rand issue. Seems to be the thing stopping you. Maybe we were hasty, in which case it's my fault. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just put a notice up to say hold it! I am chatting to the Arbcom guy involved and there are some interesting questions here relating to what happens to editors to deal with problematic articles. --Snowded ^TALK 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have detranscluded it for you, this will be a kind of "on hold" or suspended function. You can add it back in when you feel ready. Best. Syn 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, that is appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have popped in here from my retirement to say to you Snowded, please, please continue with your Admin nomination. Quite frankly, if your not good enough for it then there are not many out there who are. I shall keep an eye out for it and I may even come out of retirement (don't let that put you off) to vote for you. Jack forbes (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, I plan to. This week is a bad one though I have a project capturing narrative material in the UK, Pakistan and South Africa and I'm getting about 4 hours sleep a night tops so i will be back onto it over the next few days. Appreciate the encouragement --Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded: as the discussion is temporarily on hold and it's not possible to add my views on that page, I'd like to offer you some feedback for when it reopens. I have two main concerns, which I am phrasing as politely and constructively as I can so you don't view this as some kind of vendetta given our recent disagreements.

• You have an area of interest (British/Irish related things) which you do hold strong views on and you get very involved in. I worry at the prospect of you ever wielding admin "powers" at the same time that you are involved in content disputes to this degree, or at the very least your ability to stop yourself from doing so to the advantage of the position you are arguing for, or attempting to influence the discussion purely on the basis that you are an admin. Will you be able to separate your role as an enthusiastic (but opinionated) contributor with the impartial, housekeeping, role of an administrator?
• I sometimes seriously question your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. In my experience with you at Talk:British Empire, you tend to form opinions first and then try to make the references (or lack of) fit around that opinion. In fact, you rarely, if ever, bring any references to the table in discussions that require them in order to be resolved. You even recently added a "fact" tag to a sentence which was already explicitly referenced in the article, which means you didn't even make the effort to look at a reference which had been provided, conveniently also linked to in Google Books. To me, this all suggests that the policies of WP:NOR and WP:V are not as important to you as getting your view into the article, and this is a major concern for me if you are going to be helping enforce policy.

I don't want to bring content disputes here so I'm not going to give specific examples, but I can if you want me to explain myself further. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RedHat, feedback appreciated. In respect of the first point I think it is clearly wrong for anyone with admin powers to use those in any article where they are actively involved in a content dispute. I think that is an absolute and you have my absolute assurance that I will adhere to the principle. I am in fact (professionally) much more interested in the process by which issues are resolved. So if the RFA succeeds I think you will find that I radically reduce my engagement with those disputes. On the second point I think we have had some disagreements from time to time (and also resolved most issues). I'm always happy to learn and take that concern on board. I have (and I said this to you before the FRA thing came up) considerable respect for you as a content editor although (to reciprocate) I think you take a strong position very early when there is a debate (it takes one to know one as they say). If you want to talk that through I'm happy to do so, either here or on skype or whatever if it would help. The original nominator is more inclined to your perspective on BI matters than mine and it was that which persuaded me to accept as he has been involved with me over a range of articles. That includes the very difficult debates to secure the retention of British Isles as the name of an article. --Snowded ^TALK 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, Snowded. If that is the case then you've addressed my concerns. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Model answers are here.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Have just burst out laughing in the middle of high level conference call with FCO and a couple of Embassy's you may not be forgiven! --Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Romano-British

Thanks! Yeah, the article needs some serious work, but I figured that at least "Britons" ought to be mentioned in the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat

I am open to on-wiki communication, but you are also welcome to email me. If you would like to chat in real-time, I am available via Google Chat, Skype, and IRC. (Other instant messengers are also possible.) Please let me know what you would prefer and we'll get to talking. :) --Vassyana (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Care to explain how my edit was controversial? Perhaps I would use the talk page more often if it wasn't for me being the only one using it currently. Aogouguo (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Read some of the history. It is agreed that the name is the Flag of Ireland. Anything involving names of the state and the country or flags is conroversial --Snowded ^TALK 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock support

Thanks Snowded. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he had already unblocked you by the time I posted that! Did my best to warn you, but not fast enough on the old keyboard. I got one self-revert in with about ten seconds to spare yesterday (I think) otherwise it would have happened to me too. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

It's good to get some citation in the England article - a page in desperate need of attention and upgrading. I'm not sure if you're familliar with them, but when citing sources, it's best practice to use one of the citation templates. As it says there, they provide a uniform, easy way to cite sources, and also help others to verify the info and retrieve the link (if it's an internet source) by using the archive date. England is on my to-do list..... but there are so many others to tackle in the mean time. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I know! I was just putting some markers in for the moment, I'll pull up the templates over the weekend, I need to get them as shortcuts in text expander then its easy to get it right first time. --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Sidebar

I revamped the "Celts and Modern Celts" sidebar. Please tell me if you think it needs anymore revision. I see you've taken my revised version off of all the pages I placed it on, I'm not sure why since my application of the sidebar mirrors the pattern of use for other such sidebars like the "Jews and Judaism" sidebar. Please give me some advice. Thanks Andrewsthistle (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sidebar then you have the following issues

• Religion links to Religion nothing to do with the Celts
• Texts and Chronicles links to Irish articles on those subjects
• Population links to Population nothing to do with the Celts
• Society links to Society nothing to do with the Celts
• The Celtic congress and league are controversial
• Some of the articles it was added to are dubious given the politics and history

OK in some of the above cases the subsidiary articles provide a useful set of cross references. However I think this would be more appropriate as a bar at the bottom (see British Isles on the Wales page for an example. --Snowded ^TALK 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Al & Jesse

Ever noticed. Whenever an African-American celebrity passes, Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton jump in to try & steal the spotlight. Always claim to be the late celeb's (and his/her family's) friend. Ya gotta a camera & microphone? Jesse and Al will be there. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to ignore it, I managed it with Diana and will hopefully with all future celebrity deaths. An obituary page fine, but all the front pages? Insanity --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Things will cool down (at least until June 25, 2010). GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Name change

"This flag once was red" is too long and unwieldy, and other editors never knew what to call me (not that I care what people call me, but still...) I figured the new name preserves the original username to some extent, so I don't feel too confused! (I was, however, shocked when I fired up my browser this morning and found my watchlist empty - no one warns you about that at username-changing school!) For the time-being I'll keep the old signature, though.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call

That IT revert was spot on. It keeps getting dropped but its significance is blown out of all proportion. Talk Page is the right place for it, if anywhere. RashersTierney (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looked like near racism to me when I checked it out, isolated not in context. Thanks for the comment. --Snowded ^TALK 22:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornish people

I gave User:Ghmyrtle a nudge, and I'd like to ask of you the same. I want to welcome you to edit User:Jza84/Sandbox5 and try and collectively create a proper, informative, befitting lead to the Cornish people. I'm thinking about tackling one of the Celtic people and/or home nations to try and assert that I'm not merely interested or capable of writing about British or unionist topics (which I'm not!). I think the Cornish people would be the easiest, but would like your input (and references?) at the said sandbox page, if possible. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I've made much progress with the draft I'm putting together. I'm really hoping to get some more input about User:Jza84/Sandbox5. I'm confident with the opening paragraph, but some of the rest I want an extra pair of eyes on. Would you be willing and able?

Also, any chance you know of an extra 6 notable Cornish people (with free to use pictures) that I could add to this? Hope you can help. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get onto it at the weekend, have a frantic week of work and also need to get my RFA back up and active. I've pulled the Cornish books out of the study in preparation. For names A.L.Rowse is an obvious addition as is Winston Graham (unless we have a strict birth qualification), John Trelawny, Captain William Bligh, John Opie and you can't forget Jonathen Trelawny --Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Modern Celts, Sport

How do I find the "Edit History"? Ausseagull (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The menu bar on each page (including talk pages) has a "history tab". Press on that and you see all the edits listed with the names of the editors and their edit summaries. You can click on radio buttons then to look at the difference between edits. If you want any other help or a guiding tour let me know. I grew up over the border from Chester so pleased you are enjoying it! --Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. The guy who deleted it was Superfopp and I've contacted him.

When we were in Chester recently I noticed bi-lingual signs at the railway station, and I'm told that Chester FC's ground is half in England and half in Wales! By the way, Ian Rush is a Welsh Roman Catholic from your part of the world, and I read that his father is/was a Welsh Nationalist.

I agree with you that the UK should be in the Euro-zone. I gather that when/if Scotland gets independence they will adopt the Euro. That'll shake the Poms! Ausseagull (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you kindly refrain from talking down to me in offensive terms. Ausseagull (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There were no offensive comment, your edits were clearly unencyclopaedic and I made a point of suggesting a way forward. --Snowded ^TALK 15:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronise me, mate. They were no more unencyclopedic than the bits on politics or music and literature. Ausseagull (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

eye of the beholder mate, it needs improvement, can't stand as is and other editors agree. --Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

2 points

Hi, I see you've returned the B.I.N.D. article to neutral language - thanks for that. Two points - the current text uses the term "British Embassy" which isn't supported by the reference, and Mister Flash also removed a 2nd reference that I'd added but I'm not sure if it's needed - what do you think? And in case you're wondering, I'm trying out sticking to 1RR while there's only me arguing for a particular version, so I appreciate the involvement of another editor, no matter what position they might take. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the removal of the second reference - I'll look later (or in the morning if I fall asleep!) --Snowded ^TALK 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI the last paragraph of the article suggests that it was an Embassy document: "A spokesperson for the British Embassy in Dublin said last night it had provided extensive briefings to civil service departments. But she could not discuss the briefings." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That falls foul of WP:SYNTH I'm afraid. It doesn't make any mention that it was an Embassy document, and the context of the article makes it unlikely. In all likeliness, the newspaper reports wanted to get an official reaction and contacted the Embassy. --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

MITH / Wikipiere

Ya know what would help clarify things? MITH & Wikipiere accounts 'posting' on the respective 'User-talk pages' simultaneously (assuming 1-person, doesn't use 2 computers simultaneously). That would help both accounts pleas of innocence. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Has the possibility of Wikipedia:Mentorship been discussed in relation to this? RashersTierney (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I offered ... --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All a bit academic now anyway, we seem to have passed a point of no return. ('Til the next incarnation anyway). RashersTierney (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Has the consensus turned towards them being one and the same? --HighKing (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, contrary to[10], MITH house has been quite reserved in all of this. Tfz 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If they are the same, then we have evidence of reform. MIH has been a good editor and would be a loss.--Snowded ^TALK 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle. Better inside the tent and subject to toilet training. RashersTierney (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the editor-in-question (using the MITH account previously) has evaded his block. Not a good move on his part. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Music made a brief reappearance as User NoMusicInTheHouse. RashersTierney (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He's not exactly trying to hide it, is he. Jack forbes (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Downright relishing the liberty of 'ignoring all rules', and everyone else for that matter. RashersTierney (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No one could tell me what the actual purpose of the block was, therefore I did what I thought was best. FYI Snowded I'm a he.194.179.120.4 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pity though, s/he can be a very good editor--Snowded ^TALK 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. RashersTierney (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, there could have been one way to find out if he was wikipeire. Ask him if he thought Wales was a country. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever thought about it. Depends what you mean by country.194.179.120.4 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The pope = Emperor palpatine?

Scary stuff-http://www.unsoughtinput.com/index.php/2006/12/27/pope-benedict-or-emperor-palpatine/

What do you think? --79.71.167.173 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I (with others) had a run in with him back in the 70/80s over Liberation Theology (something that more or less finished off any vocation I had at the time) so I can believe it --Snowded ^TALK 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, damn that last image is scary. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The recorder player....

FYI [11] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Depressing isn't it. I just reverted some abuse on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and he immediately put it back. Worse, he's now put back his unreferenced gibberish in the article. I've already reverted twice so I'm not going to risk a block. Hopefully someone else will (nudge nudge). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Beat you to it but its the start of the day in Singapore (just arrived) so I may have to leave it until after my first meeting to check again --Snowded ^TALK 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh - first thing you do on a business trip is check WP - you Wikipedia addict you! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I told my son off the other day for spending too much time on computer games and the little sod produced a spreadsheet analysis of my Wikipedia edit times to prove I was worse .... --Snowded ^TALK 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. My wife refers to it as "that thing". You're doing "that thing" again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LMAO. Me to daughter: "You're spending too much time on that computer. What are you doing?" Her "Talking to my friends." Me "Well I need to go on." Her "What are you going to be doing?" Me "Ummm......" Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of Wales

Sut mae, Snowded? I've left a reply on my talk page: don't want any misunderstanding! Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

BI

So what would we do in this case? [12]

The map is titled "Philip's Britain and Ireland Reference Map". But when we read the "Further Detail", we see "Included on the chart alongside the large political map are a series of smaller thematic maps covering the important topics of population, temperature, rainfall, wind speed and direction, roads and ferries, together with a physical map of the British Isles featuring lists of the largest islands, highest mountains and longest rivers.".

So, what does it mean that the title is Br & Ir but in the description it talks of a map of the Br Isl? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the whole subject area is problematic - I'm trying to find a way forward that avoids conflict. In that case I think the change in title is significant, but the use within the text is also relevant. Maybe a table with |Publisher|Original Name|Current Name|Date changed|BI still used in text y/n| would achieve the result, --Snowded ^TALK 21:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But I've never seen anything like that in a Wikipedia article, have you? A table of observation data? If someone was writing a thesis on the pattern of usage of the term, fine, that would be appropriate, but not at an encyclo. If we had a statement from these publishers or a secondary source stating publisher policy (like we do for Folens) that would be appropriate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it used on software lists and the like where there is a need to create summary data that has not been published. Current political articles also tend to treat OR & synth in a different way from historical articles where there is no excuse! I agree Folens is properly reported, but its not the whole story. By shifting away from commentary interpreting data (which is clearly OR/synth) to a table allows a way forward on a controversial issue. --Snowded ^TALK 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But then the next question would be why limit the table to mapmakers? What about newspaper references, books and internet pages? It would be a veritable can of worms. And how many references for each "side", for and against? Can you imagine the squabbles? All for a not very professional and odd looking table. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bit "doom and dire prognostications". A table of Atlas references would be useful (given its a geographical term), newspapers less so, internet pages never. A simple table is not odd or professional, informs others and allows a conflict to be diffused. --Snowded ^TALK 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a completely arbitrary criteria though. Who says atlases are of interest but newspapers less of interest and the internet not at all? And what of all these books? [13] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to look at something from a neutral perspective. I'm settled into an Adelaide hotel over the weekend so will spend some time on it then. Thanks for the invite. --Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I truly appreciate your help in the area. I look forward to your participation. Thanks again, --Vassyana (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And I thought the British Isles had conflicts - read, attempting to absorb, reflecting ... --Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pshaw! The Troubles were such a trifle! *chuckle* More seriously, thank you again for being willing to review and help out! --Vassyana (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What are your currents thoughts about the topic area? --Vassyana (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, apologies it took longer than planned, but have travelled from London to Singapore to Australia to the US over the last three weeks. Hope those comments help, I do think a third party rewrite may be the only way to go. Enforcing BRD with an automatic block for anyone on 1RR might also help when you open it up again. --Snowded ^TALK 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Your comments are very helpful. My hope is that some neutral editors and reviews will provide the framework upon which to build a more productive editing enviroment and focus. It makes it much more difficult for the partisans involved to deride or dismiss concerns and reviews when they cannot resort to "so and so said it, so it must be biased or incorrect". Thank you again. On another note, wow, that's some serious travelling! Were the trips productive and enjoyable? --Vassyana (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, it seems to be moving in a good direction at the moment, but will watch it. Any more like that out there? Thanks for comments on Trip - it carries on to South Africa for two weeks teaching at Pretoria on Friday (I have a visiting chair there) so will not be home until Sept ... --Snowded ^TALK 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Census1911 fan

Potentially a great contributor, but will not talk. You have good instincts in this area. Can you help? RashersTierney (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got the above task on my plate (and a paper to finish) this weekend, but will take a look today/tomorrow) --Snowded ^TALK 02:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just got beyond a joke. RashersTierney (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

England and Wales cricket board

Hi, Snowded. How are you? I've been wondering for quite a while now. Why, when the governing body is called the England and Wales cricket board, do they call the team England and not England and Wales. It doesn't seem quite right to me. Any reason for it? Jack forbes (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was in Cardiff for the first test, and it was all St George flags and jingoism, a lot of welsh people decided to support australia after that. Its an anomaly really. Ireland have a good team now, but Wales and Scotland would be minor counties. WOuld be better if they called it Britain, but the Scots won't allow it! --Snowded ^TALK 17:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, c'mon. To say it would be better to call it Britain doesn't sound like you. My point was, if they call it England and Wales cricket board they should call the team England and Wales. Snowded, I'd rather be a minor Scotland team than be a British team. Are you the same Snowded I knew from more than a year ago? Jack forbes (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wales and Scotland don't have the populations to support their own national cricket teams. We have one second rate county side, you guys have none. Agree the team should be called England and Wales as it is at present, but to be honest it only contains welsh players from time to time, Simon Jones was the last and he got into a lot of trouble for supporting "anyone but England" at the rugby world cup. IN effect most of the time its English with the odd inclusion of a naturalised south african or two, the odd scotsman pretending to be English and a guest welshman or two from time to time. There are times when one has to accept reality. --Snowded ^TALK 05:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet Wales still beat England convincingly at Sophia Gardens in the 1st (recent) Wales v England game (2003?). Gave them such a shock (quite an embarrassment, really) that they took our two best players - Geraint Jones and Simon Jones - to play for England in the rematch (level playing field as always!). The Netherlands don't have a huge cricketing population, but they put up a decent team. Never saw the point for playing for somebody else's country, myself. That just makes you a mercenary. Talking of which, the All Blacks, for example, don't represent New Zealand. It's a sham. Come back the 'old' Snowded, where are you? Daicaregos (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's OK I found him - he was hiding in some bushy grass. [14] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wew, gwappew me gwapenuts. It is he. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777s block

It strikes me that in the past you used to take a more proactive approach to mediating in Irish/Ireland related issues. Am I wrong? RashersTierney (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wiped out Rashers! Seattle, Singapore, four cities in Australia, three in the US and Pretoria on Saturday. Mixture of teaching and client work and no sleep. I should get more involved again next week. We need Sarah to agree for it to go to ANI though. --Snowded ^TALK 11:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd been unusually quiet of late :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back and...er...welcome back! Globetrotters! - doesn't your heart just bleed for them :-) RashersTierney (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

IECOLL

Sometimes i am sooooo close to quitting and striking my vote. The bad faith is nauseating. -- Evertype·✆ 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to monitor the whole thing to be honest, but stick in there. A pity that more of the uninvolved editors are not really looking at the consequences. It would have been nice to have seen active rather than passive mediation. --Snowded ^TALK 00:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. Bad faith. It's why I struck my vote and participation.... --HighKing (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Naturalism

Hello. You undid all my revisions to Naturalism, with this comment: (Too much unreferenced material in those edits. The Ayn Rand inclusion makes little sense either. Can we discuss changes like this first please) Certainly we can discuss them. I wasn't aware I needed to, but having a mentor or editor would be good. What I'm surprised about is your mention of "unreferenced" material. I was hoping I wasn't using to many references, but which do you consider unreferenced? The Ayn Rand inclusion had to do with idea that "Artigas would be correct when he states that (metaphysical) naturalism is not a part or consequence of science;" Do I need to consult with you or another editor every time I make changes? If not, then when? I certainly want to conform to the standards of Wikipedia, and that is why I could not allow that article to go unchanged. The subject of naturalism is so confused in both the academic and non-academic worlds, filled with so many contradictions, that I thought those contradictions needed to be addressed so uninitiated readers would not think the article was presenting a science filled with homogenous ideas. I am more than happy to listen to you or to any other editor, but I also listen to the academics with whom I have occasion to consult. One is the new editor of PHILOonline, a naturalist himself. Another is a well known philosopher and policy wonk who has sat in Ayn Rand's living room. Another is a deterministic naturalist who sometimes debates that philosopher, and who could not overcome my arguments to some of his deterministic positions, dismissing me by saying it would be interesting if all of Ayn Rand's followers were as dilligent in their examination of her philosophy as he thought I was. While you may well disagree with my authorship or the specifics of what I write, I am not a novice on the subject. I would appreciate knowing specifically what you did not like so that I might work on it, for your approval, before I go editing anything more. Sincerely, Curtis Edward Clark Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD makes policy clear. Be bold, but if reverted then discuss it on the talk page. When I went through the changes and also checked your web site, it seemed to me that you were rewriting the article to conform with a position you advocate. If you have a strong position then citation is especially important. Listing three anon authorities as you do above and suggesting that sitting in Ayn Rand's living room is some form of qualification does not create confidence. To be honest I don't see how Randism impacts on this article in any way. If you want to make the changes then you should provide a summary of the changes and an argument on the talk page, then other editors (including myself) can get involved. --Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quentin Smith; Tibor Machan; Tom Clark. When dealing with most people I prefer not to be a name dropper. I will remember to be more direct when dealing with you.

Had I left out the section about "some" metaphysical naturalists asserting the metaphysical idea that such things as "soul", "free will" and "mind" are real, would you have said that the attempt to demonstrate the contradictory diversity among naturalist definitions was to conform with my own ideas?

Your memo above said if you left your comment somewhere else, reply to it there. You didn't leave the comment on my talk page, so I came to yours. Are you saying that if I reply to you on my talk page no matter where your comment originated, that you will see it?

I do appreciate this exchange.

Sincerely, Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My point was that if you want to make changes you should raise them on the talk page of the article concerned. If you want to raise something specifically with me then this is the place and I will reply here. Wikipedia gives no authority to a statement that you have talked with philosophers, even if yo name them. It gives authority to citations.--Snowded ^TALK 12:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you look at the additions I made you that you deleted, you will notice there are 7 footnotes and one reference in-copy. In going back over some of your edits of other people's work, I see that you were banned from contributing from Ayn Rand for 3 months. Could this be your problem with my reference to her? Another author threatened to sick higher authorities on you for failure to respond to anyone's complaints about what you did to their work. Must I do the same? You are apparently on many people's radar around here.

Google my work. Here you go--I did it for you http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=Academ&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS301US302&q=academy+of+metaphysical+naturalism+blogger The first what--30 references perhaps?---are all mine or about my work. I have had over 25,000 readers on Scribd. I communicate with more professional people than only the 3 I used as references. What is your problem?

Tell me specifically item by item what you did not like about my work, and why. I will give each criticism appropriate attention. Then I will go back and re-write what I attempted to write before. Unless you can prove to me why you are more knowledgable about the subject than I am, stay off my back. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I took your suggestion and offered changes I want to make on the talk page of the article concerned. You never answered where you said the topic should properly be addressed, so I brought them back here. Take your own advice next time and answer where appropriate. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with any changes on the page itself or its talk page. I make no assertion as to relative knowledge, you are the one name dropping (and not very good names at that). You have a POV position on the subject, try and be objective. --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop reverting genuine edits which include relevant citations in the Derry article. Further abuse of this article will be assumed to be vandalism on your part. Your attention is also drawn to 1RR which applies to this article.--Papist Hunter (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User bocked under user name policy. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

Snowded, be aware that you've exceeded 3 reverts on the Derry article. I'll left a similar warning on "I love fenians" Talk page. I'm surprised nobody has been blocked already... --HighKing (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, don't get pulled into edit wars. You are, as pointed out above, over the 3RR for Derry. No one has been blocked as I don't block 3RRs unless they've been warned recently, and this was the first warning here above. Canterbury Tail talk 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK but I must admit I thought (i) I was reversing different edits and (ii) it was vandalism --Snowded ^TALK 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you believe that 3RR covers any reverts on the entire article? Quiet a few editors get caught by that one (including me, once, in the past). --HighKing (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism is excepted from the rule, but looking at those edits most did fall into a different of edit opinions rather than obvious vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, lesson learnt ,..--Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Papist Hunter, I love fenians? I suspect those are the same editor. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah GoodDay, you're wayyyyyyy behind the times. Already all blocked, all socks of The Maiden City, De Unionist etc. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

De Unionist? jeepers, ya'd think he would've given himself a papal name. Say Pope George Ringo (as there were 2 called 'John Paul'). GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you just picture the Pope wearing a Beatles suit, a moptop haircut, and winkle-pickers?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:BRD

You reverted my addition to the Liberalism in the United States article, with the edit summary "Please read and abide by WP:BRD. [15]] However, you're the one not abiding by it, because you reverted it but didn't discuss. Why do you revert it? Please explain on the talk page, or I will have to report this to the Adminstrators Noticeboard. Thanks. Introman (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WP:WQA regarding the above issue. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps…

You should take a look at this nationalist trolls racist dribble on Dai’s talk page before you make assumptions. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that would justify your comments on his talk page, or the sheer nonsense of the above comment. --Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the disruptive editing

You removed a dispute tag from a sentence in the Liberalism article, with no explanation: [16] It's vandalistic of you to remove a tag from a disputed statement, let alone do it without explanation. Please put it back or I will have to report this disruptive editing to an Adminstrators Noticeboard. Thanks. Introman (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OH please, you are engaged in drive by tagging, probably because you are not getting your own way on your particular mission for the ledes of articles associated with liberalism. Try engaging with other editors rather than simply asserting your opinion, then playing games with tags when they do not agree with you --Snowded ^TALK 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming Poll

Hiya Snowded, it seems you have an echo at the talkpage (your post was copied 'word for word'). GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He is trying to be clever --Snowded ^TALK 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church in WWII

Hi Snowed, I see you and anietor have rv the stuff I added to Catholic Church about Slovakia/Croatia in WWII. I've written a couple of things on Talk:Catholic Church that Storm Rider has replied to, why not join in? Haldraper (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Plan to, rv was to achieve discussion --Snowded ^TALK 21:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

John Denham

Please check the EDL wiki Article disscussion page, Many thanks

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

I think you will find that before you make a claim that i am not taking part in discussions with regards to the editing of EDL wiki page you should check the discussions page as this is exactly what i HAVE been doing.

Johnsy88 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You have clearly broken WP:3RR and you are edit waring --Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Further cause for depression

Don't know whether you've seen this - [17]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well as Cardiff born and bread I was brought up to believe that many bad things are possible in Swansea, but this is depressing. Will look up the full reports later. --Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You as well

Paragraphs of comment over the inclusion of a word or two whilst remaining civil and focussed on your WikiDuty to uphold the 5 pillars, Seems like saintly patience to me.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack - appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

It should be moved back because "radical nationalism" is more inclusive and what connects all the groups indisputibly. The term "far right" is mostly used by the fifth collumn. For instance some groups, like the Conservative Monday Club and Springbok Club are on the far-right and the earlier imperial leagues too. While its completely debated whether the fascists are (Mosley was a Labour Party socialist just before creating the BUF) many consider them a third way. And the working-class radical nationalist movement in Britain during the 1950s-1980s seem to be left-national socialist Strasserism forms. They're not simply "exotic Tories". All groups are radical nationalists, but not all groups are on the far right.

In a wider sense, I think it is you who needs to be less polemical. While in discussion I am hardly nuanced (it is just my way of expressing the point in a straight-forward, no nonsense manner) you on the other hand are calm on the talks, but in articles themselves persist in intentionally pushing a POV agenda IMO. To the extent of ripping out mainstream sources which contradict your worldivew. On BritishWatcher's page you openly claimed to be a so-called "Catholic Marxist" (which we both know is an oxymoron) and also a "liberation theologist" (a form of heresy in South America which supports communist militias and is condemed by the Magisterium and the Pope). So lets not pretend here. PS - following me around and trolling my edits isn't going to help the case. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are fully entitled to your political and religious views, as am I (and you need to read a little more on theology by the way). What matters in WIkipedia is that you do not bring those views to bear on editing. Renaming those articles is a clear attempt to sanitise the names of the far right, just as you are trying to label anything you don't like as left wing. When you want to make a radical change you should discuss it on the talk page first and you should be prepared to back up your ideas with citations (not a yellow flag you saw in the picture). As I said elsewhere you are teetering on the edge of an ANI report and possible ban. Its only my fondness for eccentrics that stopped me after on of your latest tirades against other editors. Your call really on how you want to behave. Oh, and its not trolling to realise that an editor is making a series of POV edits and track them back. That is just good housekeeping. --Snowded ^TALK 10:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sanitise them and don't have a vested POV in such groups to begin with, since my personal preference is absolute monarchism, preferably with strong dashings of Counter-Reformation style theocracy, not nationalism. Its just that it is a more inclusive, broader, article title on that particular subject (followers of Strasserism are not conservatives, not reactionaries and so logically, not on the right). In any case, all articles right across the board from Mao to Hitler are to be NPOV and not "demonised", the article of the totalitarian is to be as neutral as the liberal democrat. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well its how you are coming across. Starting with a discussion would help you know. --Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22

The sockpuppet tags were the wrong way round. JonnieIrvine is indefblocked as a sock of Irvine22, who was previously blocked but is now editing again. I've fixed the userpages. Thanks, Black Kite 06:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand by both have not been banned, although that makes more sense and might explain the awaiting apology stuff. Thanks for checking. --Snowded ^TALK 06:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We tend not to indefinitely block socpuppeteers unless they are persistently disruptive in their use of them. Otherwise, escalating blocks are used. Black Kite 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for that, learning appreciated. I still think he should at least apologise however! Mind you that mindset sooner or later steps over the mark in an edit war .... --Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs UniQ Scotti Welsh Office Northern English Gaelic games Glens of Antrim Irish Sign Language Munster Black Book of Carmarthen Federation of Old Cornwall Societies Book of Taliesin Philosophy of psychology Akrotiri and Dhekelia Northern Isles Cambrian Mountains Hibernia Presbyterian Church of Wales Welsh Development Agency Dundonald

Cleanup Dieu et mon droit North East England Highland Clearances Merge Pan-Celticism Ulster (disambiguation) Drogheda Add Sources Flag of England Chubut River Established church Wikify Portuguese people Murat Kurnaz Organizational learning Expand Frisians James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon Hamilton, New Zealand

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Task Force on Usage

Hi Snowded, I went ahead in good faith to kick off a discussion to help formulate guidelines on this page. Your participation, both as a potentially interested party, and as a voice of reason, and mediator, etc, would be greatly appreciated. One of the main reason I decided to go down this route was because you and BlackKite suggested this mechanism, and I anticipated some moderate views for balance. --HighKing (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly disillusioned about the whole thing, BW is bad enough, RedHat should be OK but has got himself into a mind set where he sees Irish Republican conspiracies around every corner. But OK, yes will do but not for a day or so unless I can free up some time tomorrow --Snowded ^TALK 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, help is most definitely required. Redhat hasn't turned up. Both BW and MBM have pretty much stated that they're not interested in working on any guidelines (which they claim to reject wholeheartedly), and are simply trying to make this about a pre-authorisation of changes involving British Isles. I'll be clear on this. I'm *not* going to participate in some sort of clearing-house where changes involving British Isles have to be pre-authorized. If, in good faith, editors cannot (or will not, or believe stonewalling is an effective tactic) agree to simple guidelines on usage, then those editors should be marginalized in the discussion, but there must be a collection of good faith and interested editors that can work on this. --HighKing (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I have made a contribution and await the response (as much from you as from the other two) --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. --HighKing (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave to friends, even if we don't always agree! --Snowded ^TALK 08:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. And I always thought we agreed far more than disagreed.... --HighKing (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism and Epicureanism

Regarding your edit summary question here, there has been some discussion of similarities between Epicureanism and Objectivism, especially in the realm of ethics. And at least online, there appears to be an affinity between the groups, with some Epicureans being sympathetic to Rand and some Objectivists showing interest in Epicurus. Still, it's nothing to justify a "see also" link, so your edit was entirely appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that and a skim of both links is interesting. Coming afresh to Rand after 30 years (solely die to WIkipedia disputes) it didn't seem to me that, despite the claims, she could really claim Aristotle other than as not-Plato. I never got round to saying a thank you to getting to grips with those articles by the way - its appreciated. --Snowded ^TALK 06:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Since you've been having fun with him recently, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yorkshirian. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of research, I was thinking of doing something along those lines. He can do good work though (some of the edits on England) but overall he is problematic. Its a strand of English eccentricity. Will weigh on in the ANI page as soon as I can a chance to think about it. Thanks for the notification. --Snowded ^TALK 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did try and make that clear at the top, where I said his editing has apparently improved in other areas. I'm not sure whether that justifies allowing poor editing in contentious areas though... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned at the ANI, that Yorkshirian was ban (in the past) & evaded his ban. These findings 'don't impress me much'. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are worse editors, and at least he provides amusement --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is unforgivable, unexceacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, bad spelling is worse.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was highly emotional at the time of the posting. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it’s called WIKIPEDIA RAGE. And it induces retarded spelling errors (: --Frank Fontaine (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your r-comment has been observed & ruled as outdated. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bah, i was acting like an idiot yesterday. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So.

The pope is coming to the UK in 2010...Hmmm. I know from a previous topic you aren’t a huge fan of his (And to be as frank as my name, nor am I)…I wasn’t too sure, and forgot to ask you but it came across that you have met the man before? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In a previous role he was one of those responsible for suppressing Liberation Theology (confusing it with eastern european state socialism) and instituting in consequence a few decades of right wing leadership in Latin America, I was in a group "lectured" at the time!. Bring back John .... --Snowded ^TALK 04:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, he was twice the pontiff Ratzinger will ever be...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He was also responsable for helping cover-up the priests sex-scandals. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

I've noticed you've reverted hatred to misunderstanding as this could be seen as delving into hurt feelings and the like. I'm sorry, but where exactly does misunderstanding come into play and not raw hatred seen starting in 1517ish Germany and going on in today's Northern Ireland? I know being Orthodox Christian I'm rather unsensitive to the subject, so I won't say I have experience on this tiny little disagreement, only years of looking at the differences of Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity. I don't want to revert your edit thus sparking an edit war and causing an enemy-ship to bloom between us, I'd like to discuss this little indescretion and possibly compromise. Kostantino888Z (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was 50-50 on it at the time , happy to talk about it, will look later (have to pack and get out of a hotel in time for a train now) --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe we can say that due to both a hatred and misunderstanding, anti-Catholicism came into Western Europe due to the divisions of starting in 1517. Kostantino888Z (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

EDL reverts

On the 29 April, 2003, Asif Hanif who attended some of ***Al-Muhajiroun's*** circles carried out a bombing of a café in Tel Aviv, Israel, that killed three people and injuring 60 others.[15] [16] In 2006 another individual connected with Al-Muhajiroun allegedly detonated a bomb in India, killing himself and destroying an army barracks.[7]

In 2007, five young Muslim Britons with ****Al-Muhajiroun connections**** - Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Anthony Garcia, Jawad Akbar and Saladhuddin Amin, — were convicted of a multiple bombing plot to use fertiliser bombs "which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation." [17] The targets included "the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent, the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London and Britain's domestic gas network." According to Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies.

The fertiliser bomb trial has given us the smoking-gun evidence that groups like al-Muhajiroun have had an important part in radicalising young British Muslims, and that this can create terrorists.[15]

If you really this this group is not extreme or extrmist then you are clearly ignoring the facts snowded

Johnsy88 (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are extremist, that isn't the point. Try reading the edit summary --Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm confused, and I have a (unrelated) headache now so I'm offline for a bit. Let me know by email if the complaint goes somewhere. Verbal chat 13:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He's all over the place, I'm feeling sorry for him in a way - I think he gets worked up about things every now and then and can't see straight as a result, then he gets locked in. I'll be off line most of the afternoon/evening to attend a critical rugby match in Cardiff so will check in when I get back and see how many forums he has used! --Snowded ^TALK 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, Snowded. Sorry for this. Didn't intend for you to get a reprimand. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it! --Snowded ^TALK 22:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignored. Jack forbes (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles uage

Yep, mediation cmte, is the next step. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nudge

((cough cough)) We could use the help of a fellow like you. :-) Vassyana (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been getting back into the swing of editing after a too long trip, will draft up a response here and ask you and Canterbury Tail for comments before posting --Snowded ^TALK 07:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time and get settled back in. I just figured a little good-natured harassment wouldn't hurt. :) Vassyana (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Its appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 Disruptive editor ANI request

I've made an ANI request regarding this editor. If you could leave some feedback, I would be much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Hi Snowded, I've been looking for additional sources for Great Britain and Ireland being used as a short form for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I've came up with this source and although there are no pages to view I was wondering if you thought it would be acceptable as a reference. It is the sixth one down named, shorthorn breeders society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1923. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)PS, I was going on my break from today but couldn't help myself having another look for sources. Jack forbes (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Socialism

Thanks, missed that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! --Snowded ^TALK 19:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom

Yeah, I'll support moving the 'category' to that name. Afterall, it's what we've agreed to use at England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & Countries of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Was that a mistake? Seemed to have rolled that comment back for some reason. If it wasn't a mistake then please ignore this. :) Protonk (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted - thanks --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

D'Annunzio/Nietzsche

The influence is notable, because D'Annunzio's Le Vergini Delle Rocce, introduced the concept of the Nietzschean Overman into Italian literary discourse.[18] He is also one of the most noted Italian literary figures and so it is notable (the influence is a lot more central to his work, than other people listed like Wiesengrund "Adorno"). - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the note you will see the current consensus is only to include philosophers --Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh? The fomat of the box is of a vastly higher quality and the picture is colour. RJC seems to have been trying to put out this guys messing around which was not fully fixed to its prior form. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Put the better picture in by all means, if you want to go and change the info box for philosophers to improve it fine, but don't try and make Nietzsche‎ into a writer. --Snowded ^TALK 07:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also another point, it should say that he was Prussian, rather than German. He only ever held Pussian citizenship, before he handed it in and became a stateless person. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A modern reader might not be aware of that, but I don't think I would oppose that change. The point is that a big change (switching the information box) should be proposed on the talk page. If you go with being bold fine but make it a separate edit and give a clear edit summary. If you make a controversial edit (twice) then expect the whole thing to be reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL

Thanks for your revert and support on the EDL talk page. What a strange edit! Verbal chat 20:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure, and I think he is making the right decision! --Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Except I detect a sock account... Verbal chat 20:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible, although the style was a bit different. I suspect we will get meat puppetry here --Snowded ^TALK 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe there was an EDL meeting today and wikipedia was mentioned, or some other off site canvassing. Oh well. Verbal chat 20:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be common on right wing sites - we had it at the Ayn Rand page where there was a discussion group that summoned supporters when needed. --Snowded ^TALK 20:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The new editor just accused me of editwarring to my preferred version! I've made one lousy edit in three days :) Verbal chat 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was correcting that and had an edit conflict with your response. Off contributor, his edit history doesn't look political. I think we are going to get a lot more of those from more editors as EDL and the Right in general have learnt from swiftboating. Tedious really! --Snowded ^TALK 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism

It should be alright, there is already a thread on the WikiProject by Richard about bringing things into uniformity now that the main article is at Catholic Church.[19] I'm only seeing to the European ones at the moment. Specifically with England, it was already a redirect anyway. If somebody objects, then fair enough, but its pointless starting a dicussion on something textbook on an article nobody watches. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your call, your risk! Worth remembering that a number of admins were not happy that you were not banned, so in your shoes I would be a bit more careful. --Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the talk, it doesn't seem controversial, the only previous comments dicussing any names are people saying it should be changed to what it is now. But that was before Catholic Church itself was moved to where it is. I don't think any admins would see am issue with standard clean up/uniforming across project, since the CC article went through a long process for consensus itself. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, as I say your call just trying to help. --Snowded ^TALK 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh....

I thought it was a little too quiet around here... Just to warn you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh not again ...--Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

'Fraid so... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just responded on that one, all the old habits, no change, early report I think. --Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice anything odd here? - coincidental timing perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could be, although I don't think ACV is capable of three word edits! I've put a note on SheffieldSteel's page to ask him to get involved early. --Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. (Must remember, AGF, AGF...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Within limits, hopefully this time it will be at least a year --Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 on PIRA

I admire your restraint in talking to this editor. I wish only to offer friendly encouragement to maintain your restraint. I failed in this regard, and it allowed him to make all sorts of ridiculous claims about me when his behaviour was brought to AN/I. In the unfortunate, and hopefully unlikely event that further AN/I involvement is needed, I would like it if these spurious claims could not be made. Hopefully it's a moot point. Anyways, keep up the good work; I appreciate your contributions. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I learnt the hard way with a three month topic ban on Ayn Rand articles dealing with the american equivalents of Irvine22 (and by whose standards Irvine22 is mild). The "call a spade a spade" issue was unfortunate. Either way his/her latest escapades earned a weeks block, the next will be longer. However I see that Rockpocket is setting him/her up with new targets --Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand with Americans... I can see how that might be frustrating. As you said, the "calling a spade a spade" issue was unfortunate, but it was brought about entirely by my incivility. I simply wish to avoid similar episodes in the future. I appreciated your civility thus far. Knowing how frustrating it can be, I just wish to commend you on your level-headedness and express my desire to see that continue. Cheers. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: archive. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Snowded ^TALK 13:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)