Jump to content

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archiving Talk Pages

Hi Snowded. Just noticed you've sorted out some difficulties with archiving. I seem to have buggered up my own system some time ago, and have meant to sort it out but not sure what's gone wrong. Could you take a look if you have time. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything special - others have automated it. All I do is set up the page link as a pipelink (see top of page), click on that which allows me to create the new page then cut and past current contents into it. Happy to do it as a once off for you if you want! Others (Sarah for example) have a bot going which I keep meaning to get round to. --Snowded TALK 14:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. If I remember, I had it set up to archive automatically (bot?). Also, some previously archived material seems to have gotten lost. Don't worry about it, I'm just being a bit lazy and looking for a simple fix (ie get someone else to do it!). I'll sort it out when the motivation levels rise again. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"edit warring"

I am a little confused about your recent stubborn, snobby behavior and accusations of edit warring. As far as I remember you are the one who reverted my legitimate editions and keep doing so despite the accepted consensus on the article. The map must be removed because it takes only one view of European borders into consideration. You can not simply ignore every source that does not agree with your personal convictions. In regards to the three revert rule: I have been here for quite some time and dealing with POV pushing like yours for so long, I should know how the three revert rule works. I, nevertheless, do appreciate your concern about me being blocked, even though I am convinced you would love to see me in that position--Satt 2 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Try and answer questions on the talk page, read WP:AGF and WP:BRD. You have no support for your proposed edit, two editors have reverted your change but you keep putting it in regardless. You really have to learn to engage on the talk page. Running to arbcom is laughable. --Snowded TALK 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome note - It is my utmost wish that you do not litter my talk page. You see, as a result of various disagreements the talk page is already full and can not hold any unnecessary material. I thank you for the welcome note though.--Satt 2 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Dispute over the neutrality of the leading European map and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Satt 2 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

BNP

Recent POV editing aplenty. I'm off to bed. Goodnight. Verbal chat 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I picked up another POV insert but will now also retire for the night --Snowded TALK 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You have not commented there at all, tomorrow wil be ok..I disagree that your edit without any discussion is beneficial to the article at all, I look forward to your sharing on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:BRD --Snowded TALK 04:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

FYI

The ip is mentioned here BigDunc 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

request for clarification

I don't understand some of your comments and would appreciate you helping me to understand. You said that there were 2 out of 5 editors who agreed with me. I didn't actually suggest the wording - someone else did but at the end of it you applied the change based on what 5 editors had said. How is that not 5 editors agreeing, how is it not a new consensus and how is the editor in this dispute allowed to undo what 5 people have agreed? I will happily withdraw the ANI and apolgise to Verbal if I have misunderstood yesterday's discussion and your subsequent change being a fresh consensus. Leaky Caldron 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Two of us (myself and Ghymrtle were happy with political, and I for one think its correct. However I was prepared to compromise over that and made the change - I was BOLD. I did that before Verbal had a chance to comment. When he came on line did not agreed so he REVERTED. That is per WP:BRD, my change was not the consensus it was a bold edit based on talk page discussions. I've also fairly clearly that if there is a direct cite then its no longer an issue anyway - politics goes back in. Its normal practice to engage all active editors, and the end of the day one editor may be in a minority, but not until there has been discussions. As I said, going to ANI will only ever inflame things. --Snowded TALK 21:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There was a total of 5 people who either suggested, agreed or nodded to the change. Gabagool, Ghmyrtle, BritishWatcher, you and me. Does that not change the consensus regardless whether Verbal had been able to join us, it is still 5:1. I've looked at the WP:CONS and "consensus can change". Why is the old consensus still be followed when 5 editors appeared to agree that a change was appropriate? What am I missing? Leaky Caldron 21:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Not within that time frame no, Verbal was entitled to revert, especially as at least two editors were not happy about the change but wanted the controversy out of the way. You need to allow time in these disputes and avoid (i) the vandal word which was entirely wrong and (ii) ANI reports on content disputes. --Snowded TALK 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'm sure I never accused him of being a vandal. He was never going to discuss this. He has a deeply entrenched view and the sources are useless. Other editors are telling him this but to no avail. It's all going a bit silly. I'm only interested in verifiability per policy. If you were uninvolved in this but came across it, what would you do if you felt strongly as I do that the most important policy is being disregarded and appeals to discuss blanked? BTW, bad luck last night. This will not make you feel any better but I've supported Sunderland for over 40 years! Leaky Caldron 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone has to support Sunderland and Rugby is my first love, but at Euston station 0500 waiting for the train to Liverpool for meetings today I expect the twon to be depressed. Feeling strongly is part of life on wikipedia, but other editors (on the other side from you) will feel the same. Best to keep to policy, discuss and don't take absolutist positions. You are coming across as at EDL apologist whatever your intent! Seriously, its best to stay calm, stay reasonable, keep to 1RR if you can 2RR at the most and use other mediation or requests for comments before ANI --Snowded TALK 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I was brought up on the Welsh RU of the 70s - my father was from Bridgend. Leaky Caldron 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Caution

This is my notice to you that your edits and continued behavior are not inline with this collaborative project and I will seek administrative action to prevent disruption to cleaning up this article if it continues. The article is a mess and editors seem to be happier edit warring over three words in the lead then expanding and improving content. We could easily have twice as much information with the amount of coverage available. Please also see my recent talk page comment regarding your revert. The content was both critical and not. "However" and "claim" were both in violation of WP:CLAIM and Searchlight requires an inline citation for verification. Your edit summary making the accusation of POV was also inappropriate. Please take a minute to make sure you can edit this article without letting personal feelings or trying to WP:WIN. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I did just notice the small mention of searchlight on the next line. It still poses counter and weight concerns.Cptnono (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:AGF and stop removing material which is cited and relevant - then you won't attract a POV accusation --Snowded TALK 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
And a PS, try not to patronise experienced editors it does you little credit and is unlikely to be effective. --Snowded TALK 12:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't meant to be patronizing. It was meant to be clear that I was informing you of what looks to be serious POV transgressions so that if I do seek administrative action all of the bases are covered. Apologies if it came across condescending but I want this to be done right the first time. Also, your inlie citation was not on the line so it was an easy mistake to make. Furthermore, it is still disregards easy fixes to put it inline with POV. Moving the source over would have been a good step to assuring it does not happen again but you chose to revert instead. We can have a pissing contest and throw wikilinks at each other all day if you want (you know that edit count does not equal your proficiency here, right?) or we can fix it. You are tight: I am not from England. I actually think that makes me a better observer of POV in this scenario. I'm not disputing POV because I want to promote EDL, UAF, or anything else. Funny enough, I actually have been following it for a couple of months (probably as long as you) so don't second guess the power of the British media. I am disputing it because there has been a failure to create a neutral summary by editors. Take a look at what I am trying to say and figure out if you really think that improvements cannot be made.Cptnono (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't improve an article by ignoring WP:BRD and you are not as far as I know the arbitrator of what is or is not a neutral summary. If you want to make that claim then do it on the talk page. My comment on your talk page was a polite note to the effect that you might not be aware of the current controversy over far right activities in the UK with the Nick Griffin affair. If you are aware of those then I suggest you should know to pay more, rather than less attention to the need to discuss changes on the talk page first. --Snowded TALK 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cardiff - cityscape

Snowded, I'd be interested in your take on these edits.[1][2][3] To my mind, the line "Cardiff already has by far the largest number of tall buildings in Wales" isn't particularly notable - it certainly isn't surprising, given the size of Cardiff compared to Swansea and Newport! I'm a little concerned that these edits look like statements of local pride rather than what you'd normally expect to find in an encyclopedia. Cheers. Pondle (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you - have made a change--Snowded TALK 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

re the tag

Hi again. Verb. still disputes it though. Should it remain for that reason? Leaky Caldron 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no it is you that disputes it, yet you've not yet justified it and consensus doesn't support removal. Verbal chat 19:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't touched it. Snowded removed it Leaky Caldron 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)He does and he has support. You have three groups (i) for political (ii) against political and (iii) for political but its not worth fighting about. Its looking like (i) and (iii) have a majority at the moment. That aside, the tag was put up (wrongly I think) around the "political" word so it goes. If political is reinstated I'd recommend that you don;t put it back up, its a minor issue and better to focus on improving the article. --Snowded TALK 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You misunderstand LC, I agree with the removal of the tag as it is unjustified, and the word political will shortly be restored as you have little support for the removal; certainly no policy support. Verbal chat 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggest a straw poll on that rather than just putting it back .... --Snowded TALK 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
We are both incorrect. The flag was put up here [4] against the entire article - and not by me. Cptnono should be asked. Leaky Caldron 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would his opinion matter more than the consensus? Verbal chat 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Added to which you can't tag an article without saying why on the talk page, and your reasons have to be good ones, not just that you don't like it. --Snowded TALK 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This should be discussed on the talk page where everyone can see it. I'm sure S. doesn't want this nonsense spilling over to his talk page. S. removed it. He might have thought it was only for the political thing. Now he knows it was for the whole article it is up to him. I'm loosing no sleep over it but I prefer not to discuss more controversial matters here. Leaky Caldron 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You are always welcome - however I removed it as there are no reasons given on the talk page to support it (other than your political one, hence my comment) --Snowded TALK 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You have been criticised at ANI. Yawn... I thought you should know. Cheers, Verbal chat 15:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise here:
[5]
can you take a look?
cheers.
Leaky Caldron 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good step, but I'd be interested in your opinion. Maybe I've missed something, but it looks ok to me with "social movement" removed. Verbal chat
Its OK by me and yes it is tedious, especially from an editor who seems to have take the EDL's line throughout. --Snowded TALK 09:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, they were impressive today (Liverpool, not the edits). If there is well sourced material on them let's put it in. I hesitate to say I know your "view" on them, I think we might simply disagree on the threat they pose in reality. I have a less idealogical view, I think. The football hooligans of the 70s as I recall were not really "political" but some of them certainly carried racist undertones. IIRC though, some of the London teams had West Indian members but targetted Asian lads. Leaky Caldron 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well no so ideological, although yes I dislike them. I suspect a lot of these things are either fronts, or spontaneous things that get exploited by others. The danger is that WIkipedia becomes a mouthpiece for them. The 70s had a more overt racism as I remember it - it was more common etc. Similar issues with the National Front as with the BNP as I remember it from student days. --Snowded TALK 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NI

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

I put the issue aside since Saturday but still can't abide with "country". I've added some proposals on the NI page. (I've also added further comment on the constituent country page.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Constituent country

Hiya Snowded, how's it going? I've had no previous with Armchair. See what you mean, though. What got me was that there were two consecutive posts referencing the Principality of Wales, neither of whom had bothered to look at the article before posting. Rather than thanking them for sharing their ignorance with us, I thought I'd enlighten them instead. See you around :) Daicaregos (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Its going a lot better after last night's result for the Blues! Worth enlightening most, but not ArmChair, just encourages long tedious poorly formatted posts --Snowded TALK 09:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A mystery

Howdy Snowded. Can ya figure this out? How is it possible that Irvine22 & Fynire are still editing. The former is a comfirmed 'sock master', the latter hasn't been giving a CU yet. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 did sock, the sock was blocked and following an apology was allowed to edit again.. Fynire is new to me --Snowded TALK 15:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as Irvine22 has not socked since, I'll begin to trust him. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well no socks proven, there was a brief question during his last ban but not clear enough. Given his behaviour its only a matter of time before there is another ban and the temptation may prove to much if it is for a longer time period. Clear single purpose POV editor. --Snowded TALK 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and AGF, for now. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Which

account is the newly formed one that is problematic? Give a diff, and I will leave a note on his page. What you are describing is disruptive and would not tend to improve the aim of te project. Objecting just to object is poor form, and I really don´t support that type of stuff. We are likely to disagree on a lot, but I think we can agree on this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we agree on this and will disagree on other things! (Oh and pleased to see you were allowed to keep your name by the way). User:LiberalJames is the account in question
Which time? I´ve been around the bend with it a couple of times. If it was the first, it was an unpleasant introduction to wikiculture for sure. I´ll have to dig around in my history to see where you fell and at what time it was.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw it come up at ANI or similar by chance - having an interest in the confederacy in general and the civil war specifically I remembered it. There was no need to intervene at the time as your position was Oked but if you ever need help on that one let me know. --Snowded TALK 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If you ever need access to documents or need someone to search archives, let me know. I have electronic access to several data bases and scanned documents. I checked here [6], as I couldn´t remember seeing you there. Thanks, and sorry if I was an ass about the Marxist angle. As a former Bircher, I sometimes run with the bit a bit. I´ll tone it down.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been an ass myself on wikipedia! Thanks for the offer! Did a project a few years ago that involved an alternative history of the world in which the South win - designed to create a game based environment for decision making in current policy situations. It was a lot of fun (although we did it in Richmond which brought accusations). Interestingly as we ran it through, real racism/slavery actually died out faster under that scenario. --Snowded TALK 17:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool. This is one of the databases [7]. Let me know if I can ever get you something.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

No

There is no forum shopping. I wanted the neutrality tag and opened an ANI. It was deleted so I reopened it. This is a specific issue. I also do not see how you can dispute it with the fresh sources. Furthermore, I am becoming agitated with your repeated personal attacks. If you do it again I will be shopping more to get administrative oversight.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You keep threatening to get administrator oversight. You keep arguing your case even after everyone else has agreed a way forward, You keep arguing a position with matches EDL's PR position and I see you already have a sanction. You raised finally, after a lot of requests your issues about POV on the talk page, and they were all handled but you persisted. I have made observations as per this statement, I am not the only editor to have made them (you might like to think about that). You really do need to read up and attempt to understand the nature of what is or is not a reliable source. --Snowded TALK 06:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I just recieved the sanction for telling another editor he was pushing POV on a tlak page. He deserved it but I should have been nicer. I'm trying to play by the rules now. The rules requir extra extra warnings and I am trying to be nice with them. I warned another eiditorr, too. I'm sick of it. If you allege that I am an apologist or supporter or memeber again I'm reporting it. I even said that I am not arguing if theya re or are not right wing.
In regards to the rest of your comment, BBC and the others mentioned are reliable. Not everyone has agreed. People got sick of arguing. Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see, you were right (despite the sanction) and you think that other editors should be warned when they disagree with you. The BBC is not a reliable source, and people really agree with you but don't want to argue. Well if you live in that reality I can see why you are having problems. --Snowded TALK 07:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
He's also at ArbCom. Who'd have thought it? Verbal chat 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
And he says he is not forum shopping! Just going to run through his evidence on EDL --Snowded TALK 08:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That was a little uncalled for. No, people are allowed to disagree. I believed the other editor was pushing a POV and railroading content and said it on a talk page. ::::::I have warned you since it was explained that I shouldn't be a jerk on the talk pages. You and Verbal or working in tandem in a manner that is rail roading content. The edit history shows that you two have focused on keeping "far right" as a label. You have ignored the random IPs (who want it removed for the wrong reasoning) and editors who drop in. That is reality and we have it documented in months of edit history on the article. I doubt you guys have an evil plot but you certainly do swamp pages. I went to ANI to get an outside opinion and you flew all over it. I went back when you both refused to let it stay on the page. I then went to this current board since your chosen wording is not neutral. I have made two proposals to get it fixed + sources. Your reasoning now is that those sources are not good enough when it is clear that they provide the detail you refuse to let in. There is no forum shopping and I am not trying to have a double standard. It looks like you are going out of your way to make sure that the group is labeled as far right when we don't need to do it like that.
And if we are going to bring up other articles, UAF is a double standard. I'm not the only one who has said it. “Political” and “left” were taken care of over there. I also don't know how many good articles you have worked on but your edit count isn't that much higher (I screw up and revise a lot though) and I have made a habit of looking out for the general interest of the article and not subject matter. And as big of a jerkoff as I have been at times I don't edit war. Over time (as you have) or 3rr.
And I'm not trying to start a dick measuring contest. I am letting you know that you both come across as being so assured you are right that you fail to see an easy solution. I honestly assumed there would be some action against you for controlling content with the ANI. Getting a POV check was the primary goal but I expected it none the less. It didn't happen. I think it should have but enough comments were made that people just stopped bothering. That isn't convincing people that is winning. I also am not trying to tell you off just because or since the EDL seem so peachy and great. I honestly believe this is a simple and necessary fix. I also never said BBC was not reliable and actually have used it to asrgue for adding 5 words to the lead.Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to chime in on someone's talk page, but since I'm involved in the article can I just say it is regrettable that you to are going at it in this way. You have both helped me in my understanding of this article since I happened on it after the Newsnight coverage. The balance of the body of the article is now much more neutral and S. has not objected to any of that, even though it has involved painting the EDL's position in a more neutral light. Ctp. provided an excellent list of issues out of line with policy and they have been worked through. Again, S. has not objected and indeed has commented supportively on the updates. Why not just let the NPOV noticeboard come up with fresh outlook? I've just checked over there and it's just us again! Snowded, Verbal, 4D, Ctp. and me! No fresh eyes. I support Ctp's. desire to confirm neutrality from a WP Policy point of view. I still support the consensus I have contributed to for both right wing and political. I will defend it against any subtle changes. But if there is a fresh outlook on it, let's hear it. We are not bound by it. Leaky Caldron 09:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, you didn't get action because you were taking a content dispute to the wrong forum. You are also deluding yourself is the reason is the reason is the number of comments If you check back over the ANI list you will find that volume of comments has nothing to do with consequent action. Its much simpler; you didn't have a case and you were using the wrong forum any way. Just look back over what happened. Several of us have reverted edits to remove right-wing wich were against the evidence, and removed your POV tag when no evidence had been given of POV, or where the evidence presented had been handled. Several of us participating in getting an agreement on the "political" issue. That is the way the wikipedia works. You have no presented compelling evidence for your point of view which sustain themselves under examination. As a result you have not been able to get agreement to change the article. That is life. You think you are trying to make the article more neutral, I think that you are doing the opposite and are trying to move it away from reliable sources. You have then been forum shopping which doesn't hel.
LeakyC, getting additional editors to look at the material is a good idea, a simple request for comment will do. --Snowded TALK 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Can you explain, by reference to specific diffs, your comment that I may be engaged in edit warring. I have been trying to encourage user Verbal to take a step back from a heated exchange in connection with the Human disguise AfD. If you feel that any of my comments have been inappropriate, please let me know which specific comments you take issue with. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone deletes your comment from their talk page, then they have confirmed that they have read it. You should not revert once, let alone twice. That applies regardless of the comments you are making. --Snowded TALK 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk: British Isles

You could delete your recent addition to the above. I linked it in the preceding paragraph. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The possible return of Wikipiere

An IP account & an account: 83.43.210.83 & Oweyson, have self-identified themselves as Wikipiere (see Matt Lewis's userpage). GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oweyson? No such user... --HighKing (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Oweyson and 83.43.X are the same editor. --HighKing (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Check out the 'history' at Matt's talkpage, it's the same editor. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a soft spot for Wikipiere, but I will look at that later. --Snowded TALK 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a suspicion about his timing. Considering the Rfc at Northern Ireland (though he hasn't been around there). GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

RFC on "country"

I hope you don't mind but I open an RFC on our "country" debate. We were just going in circles and it wasn't healthy for either one of us to just listen to our own voices. Hopefully outside opinion will have more to say. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing the same thing - no problem although it may create its own problems --Snowded TALK 02:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's likely I'll have to withdraw from the Rfc, assuming my position is compromised. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(From Jack's talkpage) concerning re-educating me. Response: "He he he, you don't know the power of the dark side". GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I am your dark side! Ha ha ha ha ha.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed up a linkage on one of your posts, Snowded. I've been watching the discussions there (scary, eh?). GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure either but I can't sleep and it would have to happen sometime. MickMacNee and Ardmacha aside, I think everyone's pretty much in agreement. I think Ardmacha's wording is better ("one of the four constituent parts") or Peterkingiron's wording ("one of the four countries or constituent parts of the UK") but we've got to get on with our lives, man.
Hope you did't take too much of it to heart. It was tense discussion at times but good that everyone kept their tempers (myself included ... though I know I touched of the dark side once or twice!).
Good night. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully yes. Slightly concerned about Ardmacha, never like single purpose recently created accounts ..... --Snowded TALK 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya's may want to replace that 'footnote symbol' with something else, as it looks like a Catholic cross. The Protestant majority in Northern Ireland may get sore. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell RA its his idea! --Snowded TALK 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

North-South divide (Wales)

I've been looking at this in more detail and I'd be interested in your views.--Pondle (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Thanks

Thanks for the comments on my talk page, it appears they were elsewere. --Domer48'fenian' 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I remain irritated the the admin is not prepared to discuss their actions, but just deflects. However at the moment they are occupied with Vintagekits and there is a danger (if you look at the recent edits there) of an attempt to sweep up the good with the bad which would be disturbing so I think its best to lay low on this one for a week or so, regardless of the unfairness of it. We also have Irvine22 back and in action again playing games with the 1RR rule. A disruptive editor can make a series of edits that they cannot be corrected due to the all embracing nature of iRR. Net result I have had to leave the nonsense about anti-semitism in place this morning although I was able to clear up some of his other nonsense. --Snowded TALK 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Hiya Snowie!

Just to remind you that it is considered good form to notify users you intend to discuss at ANI. You dropped my username in the thread on Troubles sanctions and made a characterization of my editorial conduct that I would obviously dispute. But you didn't notify me that you had done so. It's okay. I forgive you. But in future, please be sure to do the courteous thing. Thanks for your attention and have a great day! Irvine22 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your exercise of courtesy for your fellow editors in your future editing habits. I am of course mortified by my failure and will seek an appropriate penance. --Snowded TALK 23:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A venial sin of omission, my son. Don't beat yourself up over it. Irvine22 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I was planning something time consuming and painful, like checking disruptive editors over a range of articles  :-) --Snowded TALK 23:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
More fun than a brace of Hail Marys, if every bit as pointless.Irvine22 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When is a 'Troubles-related' article not 'Troubles' related. Seems like a particular solution to a particular issue some years back can now be resurrected and applied to any 'Irish related' article for draconian limitations to be sanctioned forever. I've brought it up at Elonka's Talk Page. This unintended mission creep is plain nuts! RashersTierney (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At least you could probably make an argument for its inclusion, but Elonka also tagged a footballer from NI as troubles related, it just gets better. BigDunc 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It just gives space to disruptive editors as they can can make multiple "improving" edits secure in the knowledge that they can only be reverted once. I think there needs to be a related offense that would cover the sort of edits we have seen from Irvine22. --Snowded TALK 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean NPOV, sourced and informative? Irvine22 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Pull the other one Irvine, its got bells on it
This whole Ireland-related 'exceptionalism' only encourages disruptive editing. Specialist 'neutral investigators' enforcing 'special restrictions' only makes certain 'specialist disruptors'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, at the Scotland article, I have no preference on how the article is written, but I saw that you were engaging in some reverting with the edit summary of "See multiple prior discussions".[8] I took a quick look at the talkarchives, but as you know, they're pretty extensive on that article. Could you please point me to a specific discussion where consensus was clearly established on the "national anthem" issue? Thanks, --Elonka 05:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that the Scotland article is somehow Troubles-related? Irvine22 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Elonka did you see Ben MacDui's archive summary, at Talk:Scotland/Archive_Summary#National_Anthem? That should help. Those edits to the Scotland article were deliberately disruptive (given his apparent origin in the west of Scotland, he could not have used those edit summaries with any good intent). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, no good intent other than to substitute accurate information about the national anthem for the completely innaccurate and misleading "none" currently in the articleIrvine22 (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You were trying to wind- people up... you know that as well as I. The second part of your edit-summaries give that away. As tempting as that may be, it's disruption' we don't usually be tolerate that kind of thing for very long here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Deacon: Thanks for the link to the archive summary, that's helpful. I also found this source on the web which seems to corroborate,[9] though I'll admit that I have no idea as to whether that's considered a reliable source or not.
Snowded: Even if your edits were backed by consensus though, please be aware that 1RR could apply to Scotland just as it could to other more overtly Troubles-related articles. So in the future, it's best to stick to 1RR (one revert per article per day) in this topic area, except when dealing with anonymous IPs, or of course for reverting blatant vandalism. If an edit is genuinely against consensus, I'm confident that other editors will be able to step in and help with cleanup. Thanks, --Elonka 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Elonka, I went to 2RR against a clearly disruptive editor acting against consensus with provocative edit summaries. That editor has a history of such disruption and multiple bans. I then left it to other editors. I think that was reasonable. In this case the editor was not making a troubles related edit, although they have at History of the United Kingdom. However if I know your are monitoring this I will happily keep to that rule. Deacon, thanks for the reference. --Snowded TALK 09:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
And England-related articles? This whole policing of articles thing is becoming insane! RashersTierney (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
And let's not even get started on The Isle of Man! @Elonka - I'm sure you are acting in the utmost good faith, but you obviously don't know what you're doing here. I think you should check in with a U.K. admin on this when they're up in the morning. Irvine22 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
She's doing just fine actually. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Deacon here, if it wasn't for the behavior of editors such as you Irvine these sort of difficulties would not be occurring. --Snowded TALK 09:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Snowded, this comment was not particularly helpful.[10] In the future, please try to keep comments at an article talkpage focused strictly on the content of the article, and not on other editors? This will help keep discussions on track. Thanks, --Elonka 05:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but when an editor consistently over a long period of time makes provocative remarks on talk pages and in edit summaries its not unusual to advise other editors not to respond. With this editor there is zero evidence of any attempt to reform and continued and continuous provocation. In the language of wikipedia that is a Troll. I've seen that behaviour rewarded not by escalating blocks but by blocks of similar length when the editor simply sits back for the week or 48 hour period and then comes back with no change whatsoever in behaviour, wiki lawyering etc. etc. In this case I should probably have placed the advise on the talk page of the editor who was responding to the provocation, maybe I should have just let it lie but given the remarks I don't see it as a breech of WP:CIVIL. Several of us have to spend hours tracking this editor (and their IPs) in his/her various POV campaigns. I doubt more than a small percentage of their edits have ever survived for long, nearly all of them represent multiple examples of POV pushing. His/her intrusion on the talk page was an attempt to disrupt discussions and provoke other editors. --Snowded TALK 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Snowded on this, this editor is a Troll, just look at their contributions it is in no way a breach of WP:CIVIL to call it as it is, if you want I can provide diffs and I'm sure Snowded could too of Troll like behavior. BigDunc 10:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a BNP bob

I am not sure it should be in the lead, but if it is it should refelct accuratly what the source say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes well! However agreed it should reflect source --Snowded TALK 15:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

1RR note

Note that it doesn't apply to reverting edits by IPs, so you could have reverted it yourself. 2 lines of K303 14:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm playing safe on these at the moment mind you --Snowded TALK 14:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in but is this in relation to a 'Troubles-related' article? If 1RR doesn't apply in the case of IPs, its just struck me that the rationale for its application at Irish Bulletin was misguided from the outset. The only problematic editor was an IP, later blocked as a sock. The effect at the time was to have all eds. wary of making any revert. RashersTierney (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please butt in! Its very confusing at the moment and the arbcom variation is worrying with some of the examples. The accusation of co-ordinated tag teaming indicates a lack of knowledge by the proposing admin (who is I think well intentioned) of the context of these articles. That is one illustration of several--Snowded TALK 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the admin is well intentioned, and was instrumental in pursuing the sock to an eventual block. However, there was also the initial interpretation by the admin. in that case that 1RR per week applied, later rectified. Talk:Irish Bulletin#Notification RashersTierney (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
...also this block 1RR in the Troubles articles is defined as 1 revert per article per week. And this is not an Arbitration Enforcement action, this is an enforcement of a restriction placed by community consensus. --Elonka 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) ---- RashersTierney (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On fixing tagged articles

Hi, me again. I recently attempted to fix Knowledge Acquisition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_acquisition which has been tagged since last year. How do I get an editor to notice it and approve or not? Or is it done automatically when someone has the time? Thank you Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk)

It still needs a lot of work. With that title it can't be confined to Aristotle for example. Cognitive Science and Philosophy of Mind are tightly linked these days - look at Andy Clark or the Churchlands. Its on my list to look at if I ever get time, but I am working 18 hours a day at the moment so patrolling is about all I can do. You could place a notice at the Philosophy task force to ask for more people to be involved, happy to do that for you if you want--Snowded TALK 08:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Your comment

OK, I see your point. I haven't really been engaged very much recently with those articles, other than the odd fly-by comment intending to be helpful, but I'll be more conscious of that person's history now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

UK Prime Minister

The reason those articles that could be effected should be notified is to prevent "argument" like this being presented as a fait acompli, which would be a fucking disgrace. Too many decisions are made by a small number of editors without the manners, ethics, or morals (whatever you want to call it) to inform those affected of a discussion in progress, and thereby preventing them from taking part in the decision. It is the virtual equivalent of secret societies, or men huddled in corners, talking in whispers and deciding the rules that everyone else must abide by. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DC... what's the significance of linking to an old comment of mine? I don't get it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, had enough of them. See my comments on Ghymtle's talk page on some of the underlying issues here. At the moment the Scottish page does not really have a consensus for change, but if it looks likely then notification and possibly a centralised discussion is the way forward. --Snowded TALK 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Welsh coat of arms

Hi Snowded, in answer to your question, I restored the coat of arms to Wales in this edit. I'd been providing examples of the arms being used for Wales ad nauseam on the talk page prior to that. I know I was generally ignored but that's not the same as there being "agreement not to use a coat of arms as it was not clear which was the right one", with respect. There are, for whatever reason, more competing national symbols for Wales than with other countries, but I think I've put the argument forward cogently enough for this being the Welsh coat of arms. If necessary, I could resume discussion on the talk page arguing why this should be included over other possible contenders, and why this would not be giving it undue importance. The more I do this the more it looks like my personal hobby horse, which is unhelpful. But then no-one considers the arguments I make! Pob hwyl, Ham 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And most of us think you haven't put forward a valid argument. If you want to change a consensus then you have to take it to the talk page. I think people consider your arguments, but they may disagree with them. --Snowded TALK 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If they disagree they should voice their disagreement; I am not a mind-reader. I will mount more evidence with my camera in Cardiff soon. I trust that my efforts to put forward a valid argument will be met with more engagement this time. Ham 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Welsh/British/English

I see that you have weighed in one the debate. Please confirm that the perceptions you wish to promote (and which seem to be shared by Daicaregos) are as follows:

i) The English are British and should be referred to as such. ii) If they want to be referred to as English, that's their hard luck. iii) The Welsh are Welsh and should be referred to as such unless they're Tory or "royalist", in which case they're British.

Not very encyclpaedic, but very Wiki. Two snags, however. What about English footballers? And where does this leave English (? British) republicans such as Lord Hattersley and Tony Benn? Ausseagull (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer simply, No. Nothing I have said implies the above, or anything that Dai has said for that matter. --Snowded TALK 08:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, why can't William Hague be referred to as "English"? He's as English as Neil Kinnock is Welsh (and as British as Neil Kinnock is British). Ausseagull (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem from my perspective, what matters is how he self-idenitifies or how he is referenced. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And how do you know "how he self-identifies"? I imagine if you wrote to him he'd reply, "I'm both British and English", just as Gepffrey Howe and Neil Kinnock (both of whom I've met) would say, "I'm both British and Welsh". Ausseagull (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuidado

Snowed, please take care on the BNP article, you have broken the 1RR condition, I fail to see why the edit that you made is judged by you to be so important to be worth risking getting yourself blocked, I can only suggest if the topic is so emotive to you that you consider voluntarily ceasing to edit it at all, which would of course be preferable to a block. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. I have actually been modifying the text with another editor, so far no reverts and we have something which looks OK. As to that nonsense about the topic being so emotive its arrant nonsense. I strongly suggest on this topic that you read Matthew 7:5 and spend some time in reflection once you have done so. --Snowded TALK 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you dispute with me that you have broken the 1RR restriction? Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes --Snowded TALK 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 1. Revision as of 15:16, 19 November 2009 [11] edit summary of..(Still excessive for lede. I have cut it back (material in the main body), accepted Caucasian not white but made it clear the legal action was for racial descrimination)
  • 2. Revision as of 15:47, 19 November 2009 [12] edit summary of.. (the BNP's use of indigenous is highly contentious and that was still too wordy. I think this is reasonable)

These are both reverts, any alteration of another editors good faith edit is a revert, I can only suggest you read up on what a revert actually is, when an article is under a 1RR editing restriction, the talkpage is the place to discuss changes, not the edit summary box, please take care not to break the editing restriction again, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Each of those edits changes the text moving towards a consensus. Its not edit waring and it has produced something sustainable. They are not reversions, I suggest you read them, reflect and don't react. --Snowded TALK 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said the talkpage is for discussion not the edit summary box, the article is under a one revert condition, you are wrong if you think you have produced anything sustainable or anything with any consensus, it was simply you and stephen reverting each other, I had no chance to join in any discussion as it was not being done on the talkpage it was being done in the edit summary box, to let you know, if your bothered, I disagree with both your positions. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No, each edit changed what went before it was not a reversion. The alternative (which I considered) was simply a revert and take to talk within the iRR restriction However if you read the admin's recommendations she suggests attempting to build on edits rather than reversion. I could be wrong, but if so it was a good faith attempt to work within the rules - hence the request for clarification. --Snowded TALK 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Its a damn disgrace the 1RR has been imposed on that article in the first place just because you suggest its Troubles related when it has nothing at all to do with the troubles. The sooner it is delisted as a troubles related article the better. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what all the squealing is about, we are talking about an article that clearly was being edited by many of the editors related to the troubles , there are clear issues with the bnp and the irish, so what is the problem? Forget about it, accept it for a few weeks and see how it goes.. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not accept it. Just because a bunch of people who edit troubles related articles are involved with a different article does not justify labelling something as troubles related. Just because an article states a policy on Ireland does not make it troubles related. Even if both of those things do apply the edit war should actually be about the content on Ireland in the article. This has nothing to do with Ireland, its about if the BNP is a whites only racist party. Ireland does not even get debated on the talk page its such a non issue. So no i will not just "forget about it". You can not decide something is a troubles related article and within minutes Elonka comes along and rubber stamps it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I prefer the warning than the report and appreciate that you made the effort. --Snowded TALK 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I can agree that opposed is a bit not enough but I also think ostracized is a bit excessive, to be ostracized is to be put out, but the bnp has never been in, opposed is more truthful in a way, rejected is ok..they have offered their policy and the main parties have rejected them... I am ok with it for now, but opposed is a good honest expression of the reality, whereas ostrazised is not really truthful, if you say in regars to any issue it is correct, the tories oppose all the bnps policy...etc..they do not really ostracize the bnp, what does it really mean...reject completely? Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Open to other ideas, but opposed is what they do to each other, the reaction to BNP is different. Totally rejected might be an alternative --Snowded TALK 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Troubles"

Snowded,

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm spamming you with something I've posted onto other users talk pages. I had an idea during the trouble with Vintagekits that I would like to get some feedback on. I posted it on Rockpocket's talk page but would be grateful if you would comment on it as well. It's only a rough idea so don't take it too literally.

Rock, I had a thought while reading through VK's troubles on ANI. A lot of attention gets paid to the fairly small number of editors with problems keeping their cool on British-Irish articles (or are out to push particular views). Little attention gets paid to editors that can keep their cool and can work together. My though was on how to at once raise the profile of cooler heads and to put a squeeze on behavior we would like to see an end of. What I thought of was a kind of voluntary code or set of principles that cool headed editors could (naturally) adhere to and which could form a pocket of opinion around which others could be drawn into.

A top-of-the-head writing of such a code is in my second sandbox. The idea is that cool headed editors could sign their names to something like this and follow it as a code of conduct. Signatories could display a button or userbox on their user page to indicate their support for the principles. With enough signatories, momentum could be shifted onto behavior we want to encourage and an "abnormalising" effect given to behavior we want to discourage.

Or maybe I'm being naive.

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It has potential as an idea. Are you open to a few suggestions for additions? I am thinking of BRD agreement, non-provocative edit summaries etc and possible a mediation process involving people from both sides when things get fraught. Actually I am beginning to think there is a case for a a few of us to stand back from editing and move into that role.--Snowded TALK 05:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What's there is only a few thoughts, feel free to edit it in place. It's only in my userspace because I did not want to move it to project space without input from others.
BRD is superior to 1RR too (0RR is the ideal IMHO) and input from editors from all sides is what we should aim for at all times, I think. I'd be wary about "a few standing back from editing" though. It sounds like a sort of council, which I don't think is either desirable or would go down to well with the "ultras" (as they were called on Matt's page). We should be able to rely on and trust each other though and be call each other in when things get hot without a sense of forum shopping, ballot stuffing or meat puppetry. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

I se that he is described as British. Will you be changing that to Welsh? Ausseagull (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has always been Welsh, if someone has changed it then I will restore the position. --Snowded TALK 13:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
If born after 1707, they should all be 'British'. But, will anybody heed my advice? of course not. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
When the advice is mistaken, probably not --Snowded TALK 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
He he he. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, you are in one of your "spoon" moods --Snowded TALK 20:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Me devious? maybe I am, maybe I'm not. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Not remotely devious, you just enjoy taking out that little olde spoon and stirring things up. --Snowded TALK 20:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not anymore, I'm reformed. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Now if I had a penny for every time you have said that ...  :-) --Snowded TALK 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

BNP

You seem to not like any good faith attempts to improve the article, I removed the section in a vain attempt to improve it, I went to the library to read books and make change and you didn't like it, I was the one who removed the section, under a bit of protest, you object to the new section so I fail to see what your issue is, the section that I self reverted to was in the led for a long time I have simply self reverted to re add it, you want only things you like in the article, it is upsetting when I take my time to improve the article and you simply reject it, what a waste of time. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point to the diffs where the material was in the lede. In my view the inserts are (i) disproportionate to the lede and (ii) in one case break POV rules. You really need to stop making silly accusations (see your first and final paragraphs). --Snowded TALK 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Here I am removing the content less that two days ago, to make way for a small rewrite and a new addition, the one you removed today making the removal of this content obsolete. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That diff has got nothing to do with this morning's edits. I really think you need to sit back and review what has happened and read the comments rather than just reacting. --Snowded TALK 16:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

Could I ask your rationale for reverting here with an edit summary "agreement has not been reached on the talk page to change this - please make the case there", when Valenciano was merely restoring the stable text which existed before Domer48 had edited without seeking agreement on the talk page? If you do not believe that changes should be made without agreement having been reached on the talk page, then you should have been supportive of Valenciano's edit. Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see there is a dispute as to which version was the stable text. Given that the debate is in play agreement should be reached on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no dispute about what the stable text was. The text was stable until Domer changed it on 3 November, without seeking agreement. You'll see that from the edit history. If you believe that agreement should be reached on the talk page before the text should be changed, you wouldn't and shouldn't have reverted Valenciano. Reverting in support of those who don't seek agreement is contrary to your stated reason, surely.Mooretwin (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll look at it again Mooretwin but not for several hours as I am in transit in Hong Kong airport at the moment. My general view is that when a discussion is taking place on the talk page people should not change it - and the 3rd November is a long time ago. Given that this one has divided on traditional lines (said with sadness), excuse my wanting to check before taking your word for it --Snowded TALK 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for undertaking to look at it. The 3 November edit prompted the "edit-warring" and the discussion, which has been ongoing ever since. What do you mean by "traditional lines"? Mooretwin (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look at this yet, Snowded? Mooretwin (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
OK I looked, you are correct that Domer made the change on that date. but also there was a change within the last week to have the two dates. So I think its a messy one. Best to resolve on the talk page now - possibly take to mediation. --Snowded TALK 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Troubles banner

Some Suggested text for a RfC on the banner. --Natet/c 13:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

It seems even simple logic is too hard for some people to understand, I think a WP:RFC will be the only way to end the charade. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or just let it peter out. I am surprised at a couple of editors who have not seen through the provocative initiation --Snowded TALK 18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes nationalism can be a nasty thing ;) --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, here we go again. Now, it's the Northern Europe before United Kingdom argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Snowded. I've decided to support the suggested change to the Scotland intro. You've got to call 'em how you see 'em. And you have to admit, it does sound good. Daicaregos (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It does sound good, but it weakens the general NPOV position on "country" for Wales and Scotland. I'm not sure I have the energy for it to be honest --Snowded TALK 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I know how you feel about not having the energy for it. As Dai says, it does look good, but I do understand why you say it could open up a can of worms. I think it is a bit of a backlash from the proposal to add GSTQ and other POV suggestions. I don't think it would have been brought up if not for that. Jack forbes (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You have the essence of it when you say its a reaction. All that does is feed a growing view elsewhere that the union/nationalist debates are bad for WIkipedia - we will get more 1RR restrictions and more impositions at this rate. If provoked (and GSTQ was a deliberate provocation by an editor with a history of such actions) then the response should be to stay calm and NOT retaliate. --Snowded TALK 11:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I had quite enough of the last debate (putting it nicely) over the country issue, so although I have placed my !vote my part in the discussions will be extremely limited. No, scratch that, I won't involve myself at all. I don't actually feel strongly enough about the suggested change to get embroiled in it. Jack forbes (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think if its put through then people will regret it later. Also the emotional language from Mais Oui will not go down well with some of the admins who are starting to monitor all these pages. --Snowded TALK 11:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that emotions should be kept out of it. It is interesting though that the current suggestion was made by an editor with no axe to grind, pro or ant-nationalist. Jack forbes (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ROI.

I left a note on the talk page. And don't leave template warnings on my talk page, i don't appreciate them especially after I already made it very clearly I have ceased reverting.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

After three reverts on an article which is probably troubles restricted you should not be surprised if you get a warning. Also using "troll" in your edit summary was pretty pathetic --Snowded TALK 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to disguise the fact I dislike Anglophobic nationalist trolls(And they say old people don't have a sense of humour?). And I classify “Trolling” when someone blatantly ignored the fact I had already been warned and that I had already left a message on the ROI talk page.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you withdraw that piece of insulting nonsense. There was no warning on your talk page when I placed the 3RR notice there, and I did it immediately after you had reverted for a third time. --Snowded TALK 22:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just humouring you, jeez, I'm Jewish. The IP was a vandal/sock and that's how I should have dealt with him, my bad.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Try using a :-) next time then, it would help. --Snowded TALK 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
True Jewish comedians aren’t like Jack Dee (But then everyone knows his persona is fake) (: --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:-) --Snowded TALK 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You'll notice that the Republic of Ireland page has been edited by POV pushers giving in accurate facts such as that ROI is the longform name in the infobox. Can you please revert these changes? Thanks. 83.44.177.42 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone else got to it before I woke up --Snowded TALK 00:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You've just woken up? Where on earth are you now Snowded? Wouldn't you like a job closer to home, more a 9 to 5 type job? There's a job going at my local bakers shop, the moneys not the same but the hours are better. I went down there and put a good word in for you. No, don't thank me, it's the least I could do. Jack forbes (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Singapore, but flying back overnight Friday to make the Millennium Stadium for Saturday's match (you can see me behind the goal posts four rows back middle tier). I'll think about the Baker's job however! --Snowded TALK 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll look out for you then. Did you catch the Scotland win over Australia? I thought my heart was going to burst at one stage. Not good for the health. Jack forbes (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I was in California for that, getting the BBC commentary via a Skype link with my son. The BBC policy on overseas access is a frustration. However you may have done us no favours in terms of Australian motivation! It would be good to have a celtic clean sweep with the English the only losers. --Snowded TALK 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'll be backing Wales during the game, even though I once lived in Australia. Being a celt I wouldn't do anything else. Jack forbes (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Jack, Snowded, excuse me for butting in, but aren't the Cornish Celts? Snowded, you have a most enviable lifestyle. Singapore, California; most guys have to join the US Navy to be able to visit so many different locations. I admit, I have been to California. I didn't have much choice, seeing as I was born and raised there, but Singapore, never.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Cornish are celts, Kernow is very similar to Welsh and Breton. I woudn't envy the life style too much. One hotel is like another and aircraft lounges are the same the world over. Often that is all you see. This was a three week RTW trip, east and west coast USA then Singapore and those time switches are punishing. --Snowded TALK 07:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Airports are exciting as is air travel, providing one isn't travelling with kids. I actually prefer trains, as one can see the countryside pass by the window.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IRR

Warning, you are reverting beyond the 1RR limit on the BNP article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No he is not, he has don 1 revert, in fact 1 edit today. I may believe his edit has gone too far (in the sense that he has not only removed material he believes to be duplication, but also entirely new material under the heading of removing duplication duplication).Slatersteven (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This and this are snowed's last two edits, they are both reverts, sorry if I misread the date. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I would ask Snowded to reinstate the material that is new and not duplication. I would also argue that as the so called repetition was about the likely hood of the membership accepting the new constitution and not about the reasons why the BNP backed down it is also new material (it is about a related but separate matter) and as such should also be re-instated.Slatersteven (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It is fairly clear that the BNP, having realised that they have no chance of winning a case are looking for excuses. Recording those once is more than enough. I will add the Chakrabartimquote back in as that did not duplicate material. You might want to combine the "excuse" stuff in a rewording. Not sure why this is on my talk page rather than the article itself or why Rob issued a warning when there was no hint of any failure to follow the 1RR restriction. --Snowded TALK 06:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
My reason for bringng it up here was that you appear to have undone two seperate edits of mine with 1 revert, even though the last edit could not be described as being repitition. I would like to know why you did this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That is a fair point - if you look you ill see I restored one --Snowded TALK 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

British Isles SE page, etc

Snowded, I expect you already know this, but it looks like the SE page is dead. BK doesn't appear bothered any more. Just to say, don't expect me to embrace the next pro-British censorship attempt on this topic. The one-sidedness on this topic isn't even trying to be subtle anymore... --HighKing (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw you made some changes based on the conversations but have not checked the detail. I will do that later and if its not working see if I can involve an admin or two --Snowded TALK 16:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Humble apologies for the rant above. Got a little het up... Any help greatly appreciated. --HighKing (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I changed two, not to the same wording as you but to one that I think is more sustainable. I will see what happens --Snowded TALK 21:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Kinda misses out on Hiberno English usage - especially for Shite --HighKing (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Possibly although British English serves to cover a range of sins. We have a saying in Wales "English is too good for the English". That said adding Hiberno-English for Shite would be a good idea. --Snowded TALK 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New article

Hi Snowded, following our discussion of the Cardiff cityscape you might like to take a look at this new article. The list is potentially useful and a lot of work has clearly gone into it, but some of the language doesn't look NPOV or encyclopedic to me (testimony to its heritage and ambition... increasingly prominent skyline etc.) and appears to be cited from a promo website.[13] I'm also concerned that different proposals for the same development site - the Glass Needle - are presented as if they are separate buildings, all currently under construction. I guess that Cardiff-based editors would be best-placed to improve this one.--Pondle (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific Examples

Can you take a look at your recent comment. You say you agree with GoodDay, but that's not what your text reads. If you get a chance, I've added more examples too, and I've added a commentary on BK's page which you might be interested in. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_15&oldid=1139336568"