User talk:Snowded

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

• Archive to 29 May 08
• Archive to 21 July 08
• Archive to 30 Nov 08
• Archive to 03 Mar 09
• Archive to 18 Oct 09
• User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 16
• User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 23 latest

• notes and working

Long time no see

Hello Snowded. It's been quite a while since you've been around wikipedia. I knew you were going to take a break but thought you would have been back a little sooner. I hope everything is alright with you. Carson101 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back soon. I lost a very close colleague to cancer and then fell ill myself (nothing too serious) but I am now back on my feet. The problem is (i) I am on a nine week trip that involves Australia, Singapore and the Americas and (ii) I am way behind on the book, two articles and a client project. When those are cleared I will be back. If there is anything urgent ping me and I will respond. THanks for asking --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear of your close colleague. Cancer is a horrible and unfortunately too common a disease. I am glad that you have recovered from your own illness and look forward to seeing you back. Carson101 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Some things never change, I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got to feel sorry for him. I had a three hour layover in LAX last night and almost emailed him to meet up :-) --Snowded ^TALK 23:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess: Irvine22. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is NLP. Thank you. v/r - TP 20:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NLP (please see my note there) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

CS Lewis

Greetings Snowded, you have always had the reputation of being the voice of reasons amongst all those Irish/British articles, can you please help resolve the dispute on the CS Lewis article,take a look at this also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snowded/GoodNight. I am finished with wikipedia now, it is much too time consuming for me, all the best, hopefuly you and others will stamp out all this ott nationalist pov nonsense in the relative articles.Sheodred (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)nationalist nonsense.

Please note Snowded, that this editor just finished an extended block for evading his block over edit warring at the C.S. Lewis article. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it as a content issue and take it from there. To be honest GoodDay, you are just know how to avoid formal edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 02:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred, is likely a sock of an indef blocked editor. How could he have known about your sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Duh - s/he only had to look at your talk page, where the sandbox is thoughfully signposted. Daicaregos (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

...as well as here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

VintageKits always springs to mind as the sock-master involved due to the matter involved, wouldn't be the first sock this year they'd have blocked for the same issue on other articles, anyone remember Ruiari Og's? Other than stating the obviousness that this request is canvassing, doesn't User:Snowded/GoodNight quite possibly equate to a personal attack page or a page that can be used for ad hominem purposes in other arguements to detract from any quite possibly rational and reasonable arguements from GoodDay in the future? In fact i'd say that unless that page has official sanction, then GoodDay has quite a good cause for complaint. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

He is very welcome to complain. Personally I think its a lot more honest to collate evidence in public, rather than in private. I think he likes the attention to be honest, he's even contributed to it  :-) --Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have one more thing to clarify, I have not engaged in sockpuppetry of any kind, what I did was not "canvassing" I expressed nothing as to how I think the article should be changed on Snowded's talk page,I merely highlighted an issue, you just don't like the fact I highlighted it to a well-meaning and accomplished editor who can look past all your prejudices, the other editors besides you Mabuska and GoodDay will know that I am not the editor you accuse me of bein from looking at the meaningful contributions I made before, so I suggest, you think before you type and make deliberate false accusations, I suggest you both get a life. Sheodred out. Sheodred (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS would say otherwise. Also you got blocked for edit-warring with several editors, and then going by the fact an admin lengthened your block for IP-socking to continue the edit-war, that its not a false accusation. Just for the record i wasn't involved in the edit-war, it's pointless.

@ Snowded - True enough i guess, though whilst it may be a sandpit, the instance i added the dubious tag to was because i think it is a dubious instance as it doesn't appear to be provocation and i didn't want to be rude and just delete it from your sandpit.

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And if it ever gets posted to ANI (hopefully never) then that will be the time. I'm just keeping things there so that if there is a need I have the evidence and can go through it to create a case. Not all material would be used. Others are welcome to post there --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I only posted 'twice' on your sandbox & 'once' on your sandbox talkpage. On your sandbox, I erroneously corrected one of the charges & later reverted. A few days ago, I deleted a post mistakenly - thinking I was at the Ireland Collaboration Project page. My post at your sandbox talkpage, was deleted by you. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For your information that was not Sheodred who was accused of evading his block, that was me and I have no idea who he is, this is a university IP address, BlackKite's and GoodDay's actions should be brought to attention to other mods for wrongly assuming that Sheodred evading his block (I noticed he retired, I wonder why....), so it should have been brought to SPI. Interesting to note that it was the user Goodday who brought this to BlackKite's attention since the both of them from what I have read have a history of collaborating together (VintageKits anyone). BlackKite reverted Sheodred's well-intentioned edits (in my opinion) and called it vandalism also (POV).143.239.70.83 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred returns, via IP. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be that Sheodred was indeed evading a block. Surely the only way to confirm that has already been suggested. An SPI. Carson101 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

Huh? I mean I can understand some sensitivity over the motto issue since I suspect there is a constitutional case for "Ich dien" of all things which I think we can all agree is somewhat unfortunate as mottos go. However that does not mean that I can legitimately be accused of vandalism for removing an uncited claim that I have already raise on the talk page as well as carrying out a good faith search for citations.©Geni 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the talk page - I edited on the iPad and pressed the wrong button, but corrected it immediately. Otherwise I think you need to cool it a bit and read past records per the advice of other editors. Incidentally "Ich dine" is the motto of the Prince of Wales, who has no special constitutional status in Wales so that one is a non-starter--Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A request

Please stop attacking me on the England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales article talkpages. Note, I didn't start those discussion with "Snowded's pushing his devolutionist PoV". I don't attack you there, so please don't attack me. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You edit four articles in parallel with a provocative suggestion that the maps be UK only, then you change your position to just wanting the world map removed and claim it was a mistake? Pull the other one its got bells on it. You were bored and sought to find something to provoke conflict. Classic GoodDay --Snowded ^TALK 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant the World maps. I do make mistakes, Snowded. If you wanna keep breaching AGF, then that's your choice. But keep it 'off' the public talkpages. Right now, what you're doing there is bordering on harrassment. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You say very clearly on each article that you want UK only GoodDay, that is not a mistake, especially as you repeat the point in discussion. THen suddenly at the end you say you meant something else? Its either an attempt to stir up some conflict, or you are stupid. I'm going with the former option and yes, its a zero tolerance approach. I note I was not the first to mark it up in the sandbox so you might want to think on that. --Snowded ^TALK 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're looking for a battle with me on those public talkpages, but I'm not falling for it. Go ahead & continue attacking me. It's only hurting you - not me. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for you to stop stirring the pot with trivia GoodDay, and you know that is the feeling of a large body of editors. --Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A Wagnerian help request

I have stated what changes that I hope for and feel that they are moderate. Could you be kind and help with a balancing act so the cornered situation can be resolved in the Wagner discussion page .Thank you User:Major Torp (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodNight sandbox & WP:HARASSMENT

Howdy Snowded. I was willing to let your sandbox continue un-interupted, however Daicaregos' has gone OTT with his ABF. I've raised your sandbox existance at WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm requesting that you delete the sandbox & either start a Rfc/U (if you're concerned about me) or gather your evidence 'off' the Project. I'm sure we can both agree, the drama isn't needed. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to consider the advice given at the top of your own talkpage: "My talkpage ... If anybody is offended by what occurs at my talkpage? Do yourselves a favour & remove my talkpage from your watchlists. If you don't like the show, turn the channel." Daicaregos (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should I? It's advice to those who wish to harrass me & cause drama. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't intend the sandbox for harrassment, so no probs. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Snowded/GoodNight

User:Snowded/GoodNight, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowded/GoodNight and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Snowded/GoodNight during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, you asked for the policy that says we can't keep such pages except in preparation of an RfC/U or Arbcom case, and then only for a very short time. First I thought it was unwritten standard interpretation of WP:Harassment, but I finally managed to find it in a guideline. It's at WP:UP#POLEMIC. Hans Adler 10:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't see it. Recording notes of another editor's behaviour, using language which would be a legitimate part of an RfC is not polemic. Of course I may have missed your reference here but the definition under "polemic" does not cover the content and if you are seriously suggesting that it does then I commend you to WP:AGF. Now if GoodDay has moved from liking the attention to page provided to finding it problematic then that might change the position. But that is a community decision not a matter of policy. --Snowded ^TALK 11:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Snowded, hope all is well with you. Some editors do have a tendency of "often pouring flammable liquids into open fires". Still our hands are tied by civility, the project can not afford even an appearance of a personal attack. Therefore, given the circumstances, I tend to agree with causa sui's opinion expressed here. Would you consider to tag the page yourself for WP:CSD#U1 ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the second and third item. (The first item clearly doesn't apply.) The first sentence of the second item explicitly defines "material that can be viewed as attacking" as including "the recording of perceived flaws". The second sentence is tailored to precisely what you are doing, and makes it clear that this is allowed only if used for dispute resolution "in a timely manner". The third item generalises this principle further, stating: "Negative evidence [...], collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used [...]".

I am not sure how the plain language can be interpreted not to cover the present case, but in any case it is customarily interpreted as covering similar cases. If you doubt it, you could just ask a random arbitrator, for example. Of course borderline cases such as this (I am calling it borderline because pro forma it's not directed at a specific user, and the user who appears negatively in most diffs actually contributed constructively) are normally tolerated so long as nobody complains. Hans Adler 11:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to set up something offline - although I notice that a few editors want to keep the page in the open. Whatever its late at night in Hobart and I have just had to deal with yet another Troll elsewhere so I am going to bed. I'll look at it again in the morning and if the balance of opinion stays the same I will delete it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

NLP

If you check, you will find that other editors have been reverting to the stable version. The edits you have restored contain considerable OR and have not been discussed on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you involved on a commercial basic with this issue? If you are why don't you take a step back and let uninvolved users edit there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no commercial interest and that accusation has been discussed before and resolved if you bother to check. I do have expertise in the area, so I have been very careful to ensure I use third party material. The page also has many NLP practitioners and advocates editing it if you check. In the meantime you are involving yourself in supporting an edit warrior inserting OR and not engaging on the talk page. I suggest you try and be a little more objective and don't allow your ongoing campaign against my involvement in WIkipedia to cloud your judgement. --Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded's Conflict of Interest (COI)

You state on Wikipedia that cognitive-edge.com is your website, and claim that it doesn't compete with neuro-linguistic programming,, a hotly contested page on Wikipedia you regularly edit daily.

Yet you reveal on your website a very direct conflict of interest. According to Wikipedia, Editors who disguise conflicts of interest create a perception that they and their company are trying to distort Wikipedia. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged and can lead administrative intervention to block your account as a result.

Your business derives revenue virtually the same way as neuro-linguistic programming businesses. You provide seminars and accreditation in your methodology for use in organizations. Neuro-linguistic programming companies derive their revenue that way, by providing seminars and accreditation based on a methodology.

Also your Cognitive-Edge and neuro-linguistic programming are principally concerned with the mind. "[Cognitive Edge] approach draws primarily on insights from the cognitive sciences," or the scientific study of mind and its processes. Neuro-linguistic programming, on the other hand, is an approach to psychotherapy.

The perception of similarity you openly acknowledge is problematic for you. You state that Cognitive Edge methodology is "frequently" conflated with neuro-linguistic programming. Such conflation is very expensive because your seminars/accreditation sell for over a thousand euros per attendee. Popular neuro-linguistic programming seminars and accreditation also sell for over a thousand euros per attendee. When people believe neuro-linguistic programming is the same (or better than?) Cognitive Edge, you lose.

In one example described on your website, you met with IT professionals to discuss methodologies. You became upset because they preferred a neuro-linguistic programming seminar instead of yours. You ridicule them by calling neuro-linguistic programming seminars they attended "indoctrinations" and "torture."

Your conflict of interest is obvious. Your statements to the contrary were totally misleading, and violated the spirit of cooperation in this community. Wikipeida points out that this can lead to blocks and other issues. See: Wikipedia is in the real world</ref> --Encyclotadd (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are about as confused on this as on other matters. Your accusation has been raised before and was not supported by the community. Like many people I regard NLP as a pseudo-science and in many ways a cult. I am fully entitled to make those comments off wiki. If you can find any edit of mine where I did not follow proper process in my edits on the NLP you might have a case. Happy hunting. You might also want to declare your interest, and if you have any help in compiling the above. It smacks of some of the meat puppetry sites --Snowded ^TALK 08:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the "You might also want to declare your interest". It is clear that NLP is E's only interest on wiki, yet I have seen no statement as to E's real-world interest. S has been honest as to his, and E's failure to be similarly honest is not creditable William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that Encycloatdd himself, might be in CoI? GoodDay (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded's statement about Cognitive Edge's frequent conflation with NLP reveals his direct financial interest in stating negative things about one and positive things about the other. On Wkipedia he said outright he has no financial interest. Those statements were boldfaced lies. The real question isn't whether admins of Wikipedia should block Snowded but whether academic institutions would want to look at this as well. (I wonder what other Cognitive Edge practitioners are on Wikipedia and involved in this conversation. There are places on the Cognitive Edge website where practitioners are encourage to edit Wikipedia articles of interest to the Methodology. Beyond unscrupulous guys.)--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty negative on creationism as well you know and cults/fads in general. To be against something off wiki does not imply a COI. I also said "confusion" not "conflation" and the confusion does not persist beyond any discussion. Cognitive Edge has no engagement whatsoever in the sort of personal development that NLP focuses on. Our work is entirely on systems and systemic intervention and our main focus is Decision Support and Research software. You have yet to produce a single case where I have edited the NLP page other than in strict adherence to wikipedia rules. Until you can do that please go and bother someone else. SPA's appear on the NLP article in a serial manner, you would profit from broadening the range of articles you edit. It might teach you something about WIkipedia. You've escaped one block as a newby, but your various comments indicate you have learnt little from that. Go and edit some articles in which you have less personally at stake and it might help you. You might want to check WP:NPA, accusing another editor of lying while you are on parole is not a good idea. --Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)