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 (~~~~).

You are not editing in good faith at swiftboating

You are reverting at swiftboating without having investigate the cited source or discussing specifics of whether it supports the erroneous text and characterization which is in the article. Evidently, you think that all you have to do to be obstructionist is to fail to reach agreement and not conform to any other wikipedia standards. If you are just going to blindly support Xenophrenic and take turns reverting with him without doing your own checking, then you are acting as little more than his sockpuppet. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn to gain consensus before edit warring. Both I and Xenophrenic have made the same point in different ways, but you don't like the answer. I don't blindly support anyone, neither do we have to compromise the truth just because you don't like it. Your comments above fail to assume good faith in the face of the evidence. As far as I can see you are taking a position which seeks to compromise the simple fact that swiftboating involves the telling of a lie to achieve political effect, and that there was no evidence to support the accusations against Kerry's war record. --Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget that a consensus isn't needed when the sentence in question doesn't meet wikipedia standards, instead you should correct the sentence to properly reflect the citation. The proposed statement, which you are willing to justify goes way beyond the source, and is stated as fact, while the source is pure opinion essay. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong and so do two other editors the last time I checked. --Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, one said they agreed with you, but the position he supported was mine, that such a statement shouldn't be in the article. So it is 2 to 2 as if that is relevant. You need a citation to support the statement, because the Manjoo book doesn't, or perhaps you should help me pressure that Xeno... guy to provide it, since you seem to be totally relying upon his assertions rather than making your own judgements.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "I agree with Snowded" did you not understand? If you want some material then look at page 14 of Manjoo "The veterans lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims, yet they managed anyway, to plant a competing narrative, a kind of alternate version of reality..." and there are others. The Inspector General of the US Navy confirmed the military record and that could be added as citation. You appear to be a single purpose IP account with a political agenda, something confirmed by an earlier statement you made about swiftboating being a positive act. Well I am sorry, trying to spin a falsehood is so far getting you no where. Please go away and stop wasting my time. --Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is "lack of compelling evidence" the same as "unsubstantiated". Manjoo was just expressing his opinion, there is no evidence in the book that he attempted to look for substantiation at all, and he didn't need to in an extended opinion essay. Confirming a military record, is not "unsubstantiated" either. Face it, if "lack of compelling evidence" were as strong and formally conclusive seeming as "unsubstantiated", then Xeno... would not have rejected my proposed compromise using that langugage. Using Manjoo's book on change in the media culture and something off hand he stated about one of his examples is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Do you care about wikipedia at all?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I care enough about wikipedia to protect it from single purpose POV pushing IP accounts who seem incapable of reading or understanding other people's comments or the evidence. --Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, isn't it embarrassing to have nothing but blind denialism at your disposal to defend your friend Xeno...'s use of that source? These small victories your clique has slipping their snarky POV into articles must be very satisfying. Asserting that other sources are available, hardly justifies using one that doesn't support the proposition. Xeno... was relying upon people assuming he was properly characterizing the source. Perhaps all his edits should be reviewed given the way he has misused this source. He obviously thinks he can slip things by with the help of unquestioning and trusting clique support.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check back you will find I inserted the source. Now try and get over the fact that your little attempt at political editing has not gained support and move on - ideally somewhere a long way away from my talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reset indent, So you are the one that mischaracterized that source, which doesn't support the statement? It is as much an opinion essay as the Op-ed you mentioned on the talk page. Three of us think the merits of the SBVT claims should not be at issue on this page. If you want to get opinion in anyway, explicitly attribute it to the opinion holder, and if you aren't going to actually quote it, at least properly characterize or summarize it.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you intend to continue edit warring at Swiftboating. If you do request semi-protect, will you be honest about your mischaracterization and mis-representation of the Manjoo's opinion, and the fact that you are going against the consensus that the merits of the SWBT claims should be on that page and not this one?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I request it, then the reason will be a POV pushing IP who is in a minority of one and is engaged in a slow edit war. --Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudiced against IPs I see. Some IPs have enough wikipedia experience to know that you would not be any more likely to edit in good faith even if I logged in. What would be the point?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And some IPs undoubtedly will see things differently. You're not a spokesperson for a lobby group, Lighten up. RashersTierney (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to be a spokesman for a clique, I just stick to merits.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this section is contrary to the WP principle assume good faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided ample evidence that I assumed good faith. I've discussed the merits of the issues, and there wouldn't have been any point in doing that if I wasn't assuming good faith. Those who revert without discussing or insist on edits that they can't support with the evidence are not demonstrating good faith. After many failures to demonstrate good faith, the assumption of good faith is shown to be in vain.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We few at BI

I don't see any reason as to why we can't agree, to leave the articles as they currently are (i.e. don't add/don't delete British Isles). It's not the end of the world to come to such a mutual agreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay. Are you really suggesting that we don't care about accuracy at Wikipedia? Or do you subscribe to the attitude that any use, in any context, is OK? Really! --HighKing (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can atleast agree to a 1RR restriction on British Isles usage. MF & the fellow with the uniquly spelt moniker, have to be calmed down. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dunc

Irvine's trolling comments are not helping matters in regards to persuading Big Dunc to come out of his retirement. For a while I thought Irvine wanted to reform. (Sigh). Hope springs eternal in the idealist...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irving is a throughly nasty piece of work (well be may just be mischievous with no sense of moral responsibility) who only wants to cause trouble. He is back in his shell at the moment waiting for the heat to die down. --Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just went to see The Wolfman. Thoroughly enjoyed it! Irvine22 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine will end up getting Irvine blocked again. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wishin and hopin, planning and dreaming.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal

I'd modify the proposals to exclude my singling out. There's no reason to single me out in this way, and it's starting to get on my tits that this continues to happen. Snowded, I've asked you in the past to desist so I'm surprised that you have reverted to previous behaviour. What was wrong with the earlier proposal that stated *all* involved/notified editors continue the practice of posting proposed changes to the working group? I'd also add a section outlining the escalating sanctions, so that there's no doubt. I appreciate your involvement, greatly. Only for it, I'd have abandoned the SE and Task Force a while ago. But, please please please, stop painting me in the light of someone whose behaviour is problematic. If you've problems with something I've done, point it out. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create something which has a chance of succeeding. I have pointed out repeatedly against the "a plague on both your houses" people that you have followed process etc. However taking one side will not produce something acceptable. This is practical politics and I am not painting you as problematic (although I am acknowledging that you were in the past). --Snowded ^TALK 14:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issues

I am sorry I called you communist instead of socialist, my fault. User:Gabagool/sig 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The point Gabagool was that you should not be calling another editor anything but addressing content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in all fairness, Snowded has described his position before as a "Marxist Catholic" [even though such a thing is a total contradiction. For instance even ultraliberal Karol Wojtyła condemed the liberation heresy so-called "Jesuits" in South America]. Marx afterall did write the Communist Manifesto not the Socialist Manifesto. When I see the word "socialist" in British contexts, I tend to think more Fabian Society than Marx. However as a Joseph de Maistre-esque reactionary, perhaps the nuance is lost on me? - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate Yorkshirian I have said that I took a Catholic Marxist position back in the 70s along with a whole bunch of people (including several Bishops) in the Liberation Theology days. Both the current and previous Popes always confused Liberation Theology with Eastern European state socialism and as a result undid a lot of good in South American, and allowed a lot of evil in. That however is nothing to do with the above point. (but always nice to hear from you) --Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when did you become an ethnic nationalist? Irvine22 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshirian, did you know that in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, De Maistre is described as having been a secret neo-Templar as well as a Freemason? In point of fact the Jesuits had some strange links with Freemasonry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major mistakes of the Church was to remove the prescription on membership of the free masons, and as a one time postulant I don't believe the libel about the Js --Snowded ^TALK 07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say that Jeanne! If De Maistre was one of them, then I won't be able to read Fr Denis Fahey's enlightening anti-masonic works anymore. :p I had heard of De Maistre's earlier involvement in Masonry, but he seems to have been rank and file, perhaps he was a liberal before he turned into a reactionary? Juan Donoso Cortés and Edmund Burke were liberals before they saw the light too.

As for the Jesuits, I think that order is just prone to infiltration. I'm more of a Dominican sympathiser than a Mollist myself. The "Enlightenment" Liberal types on the Continent back in the day were major hypocrites though, they used the Jesuit universities and then turned around and claimed the Church was keeping the world in a "Dark Age" (like Adam Weishaupt). - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC

Well the leader of the Catholic Marxist group in the UK was Fr Herbert McCabe OP ....--Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the leader of the Catholic Marxist group in the UK was Fr Herbert McCabe OP ....--Snowded ^TALK 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is interesting is that all of the major leaders of the French Revoltion were Freemasons, and the Grand Master was none other than Marie Antoinette's arch-enemy, the Duc d'Orléans. Napoleon was allegedly a Freemason as well. Nearly all the males on my mother's side of the family were Freemasons, which is why I've always been intersted in both Freemasonry and the Knights Templar. The Rosecrucians are allegedly the Templars under a different name. Both Dee and Bacon were supposedly Rosecrucians/Templars. De Maistre went to Germany to sow dissension among the Masons, probably because by the end of the 18th century they were plotting the overthrow of the monarchies of Europe. It's easy to see the connection when you realise that Benjamin Franklin and the US founding fathers were Freemasons, and who helped the colonists? The French, of course, led by the Marquis de Lafayette! Note the Masonic symbol on the American dollar?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is legitimate, to throw some light on the fact that you are strongly politically motivated in favor of the far-left, and at the same time in practice are a self-declared "administrator" on articles regarding the far-right. Usually a bad combination, which you clearly are no exception of. Its like if George W. Bush were to write the Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin. User:Gabagool/sig 17:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any far left sympathies on my part, or that I am a self-declared administrator or that I have made any edit that does not follow wikipedia rules. If you have any evidence of my acting improperly on the article do so. Otherwise you should heed the warning, you comments were in breech of wikipedia rules. --Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the fact that I'm not exactly the first person to have raised this issues should be evidence enough. User:Gabagool/sig 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people are unhappy when they don't get their way and lash out in any way they can think. Sorry accusations don't make for evidence as any basic study of history should teach you. Try and come up with some facts or have the decency to withdraw. --Snowded ^TALK 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after all, the only thing that matters is if you get to cry yourself to get your way. User:Gabagool/sig 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

7th July Bombings

Hi there, Snowded, hope you won't mind the message. I do not want to get in a reversion war but am really not happy with this part of the second sentence of the aforementioned article: "who were motivated by Britain's involvement in the Iraq War." Do you really think it is a fair reflection of news articles such as this, for instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206708.stm It seems to me that the Iraq War was but one of a menu of grievances, if you look at the bombers' own words. The over-arching idea was of there existing a war between 'Islam' and the 'West' (both terms as defined by them). I would label this ideology 'Islamism' but if that is problematic, we can discuss it (Qutbism? Wahabiism?). If you honestly think the Iraq War was the sole motivation for these attacks, and it isn't just a rhetorical point, that is fine, but it is something of a stretch to say that disputed interpretation of events is worthy of canonisation in a encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationOverlord (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can say Islamic Ideology as that does not reflect properly on Islam. I don't think the Iraq was the sole motivation either, but it was better than the replacement. We really need to go to the trial reports or similar and get a third party source. --Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BNP's Economic Views

http://bnp.org.uk/policies/economy/ Reading that page I think this shows that the BNP have a centrist, perhaps even a centre-left standpoint as far as the economy is concerned. Stephen MUFC (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a third party source I'm afraid and your drawing a conclusion from it is OR so two errors one compounding another. Also why my talk page - use the article's.--Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a third party source but if you read the policies they're clearly not far-right on the economic scale, e.g. nationalisation of monopolies??? And I used your talk page since you were the only objector at that time. I'll gladly copy this into that article's talk page. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism in Ireland

Snowded, I would have thought that with all the whoha there's recently been on the British Isles front you might have refrained from removing the term from the above article without first discussing it at the article talk page. At the very least you could have posted the issue at your favoured forum of the special interest page. As with many of these cases it's not black and white, so discussion is surely in order - is it not? Anyone could be forgiven for considering your action to be provocative, given the current delicate state of affairs. Mister Flash (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is clear - follow citation support, in this case the reference did not even mention Ireland, just the UK and specifically the UK of GB & NI. To be honest I'm not even sure if the article is noteworthy although its a recent creation. If it becomes contentious I will take it to the working group but I really don't see this one as such. The citation is very very explicit. --Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely certain that this was a mistake on the church’s part, mistaking the United Kingdom of today with the UK of 1837. Anyway I have cleared the issue up on the page.Angrybeerman (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and I'm happy with a verifiable source. Trouble is the one you gave is an internal document, hence the request for a pdf copy or full quote (I haven't tagged the item). --Snowded ^TALK 11:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Hello Snowded. I happened upon Dave Snowden today and notice it A) is in a pretty shoddy state and B) is probably of borderline notability (I could see an argument either way). Anyway, given it is currently present and survived an AfD, I was thinking I may as well make it respectable. I'm happy to do that, but just wanted to check in with you first, especially as editing such articles seems have have become another front in many wiki-wars - obviously that isn't my intention. If you would just rather it just be left alone or would prefer it be AfD'd, I'm happy to do either also. Let me know (and feel free to remove this too, if you would rather keep it low-profile). Rockpocket 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be eternally grateful if you would Rock, most of the stuff (Academy of Management awards) that would make it more notable are not there. It either needs to get up to the level of something like Peter Schwartz or deleted so it can't be used in edit wars. --Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll get on it, though it may take me a few days. Sense-making isn't something I'm overly familiar with (I'm sure many would say that much is obvious!), so if I misinterpret, or get anything wrong, just drop me a message or an email. Rockpocket 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that the Peter Schwartz article clearly declares what he is in the opening sentence: "author and futurist". The Snowden article needs that kind of initial clarity. There is far too much diffuse pseudo-academic jargon in the Snowden article as it stands. Irvine22 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North-South divide (Wales)

Hi Snowded, it's been a long time since we discussed this, but there seemed to be a general consensus for a change of title. Unless anyone objects I'm going to make a bold move to Geography and identity in Wales and start making some radical changes along the lines we talked about many months ago.--Pondle (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it and if you need help shout --Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Snowden

Hiya Snowie! I see you reverted my edit to the Dave Snowden article. I think there needs to be a much clearer declarative statement of what precisely he is and does in the opening sentence of the article. It's not at all clear as it stands. Which descriptor did you object to: "British" or "complexicist"? Perhaps both?

Also, upon reflection you might conclude that describing good-faith edits as "vandalism" in edit summaries is not consistent with assumption of good faith. Irvine22 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine, you are a troll --Snowded ^TALK 20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you say, but what is Dave Snowden? Author? Academic? Businessman? Philosopher? The article seems strangely unclear on the question. Like the new pic, though. Irvine22 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that various people plan to tidy it up Irvine so your obvious thirst for knowledge will be satisfied at some stage --Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Snowden seems like an interesting guy. Really fills out a black polo-neck and all. Irvine22 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College at Lancaster? Of interest to current and former students. LevenBoy (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County College - were you there then? --Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but my son is now - in Fylde College. LevenBoy (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in my day that was the centre of the Monday Club, Bowland was Communist, Carmel IMG, Lonsdale Rugby Club and Gay Soc, Pendle Anarchist. All changed now, hope he is enjoying it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is, and it's costing us a fortune! Apart from the usual expense of university these days, Fylde would seem to have a very active social life. LevenBoy (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have one at Sussex and another hopefully starting at Bristol so I know what you mean. --Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do ya know so much about that David Snowden character? GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'satiable curtiosity but I have no plans to visit the great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever-trees . I do appreciate all the efforts however. --Snowded ^TALK 16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No riddles, please. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling. Don't mind him GD, he's just showin' off again ; - ) RashersTierney (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It never occurred to me that someone with GDs education would not have read all of those stories ....--Snowded ^TALK 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya ask a question & ya get treated like dirt. Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, you're not allowed to sulk. Look at it this way, you now have a chance to discover a great work of literature. I'll happily buy a copy for you if you email your address --Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, you're spooning. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offering to education, remotely without physical contact (well I'll buy you a drink next time I am in Halifax but that is the limit) --Snowded ^TALK 16:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never read Kipling either. It was not exactly required reading where I went to high school. BTW, who's Kipling, man, some kinda poet or sh..? (Said with laid-back very, very west Los Angeles smog-slurred accent)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was bed time reading when I was five, and David Davies read it wonderfully on Children's Hour. It really is a wonderful sequence of stories and works for all ages - strongly recommended --Snowded ^TALK 16:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mother always read me bedtime stories. Alas, she would have to give them all happy endings otherwise I'd cry; therefore the three little pigs all made it safely to the brick house and the big, bad wolf was constrained to go away hungry. On hindsight it wasn't good for her to have sugarcoated reality. Children need to know that in real life people typically do not live happily ever after, but rather plod on, wearily existing in whatever situation they have found themselves until the day they die. Fairy tales are nice escapist fantasies, but one needs have the kids learn the subliminal messages contained within the magic words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. Ya mean the little piggies didn't get away and go on to study civil engineering, veterinary medicine and psychology at Trinity college with a view to designing better dwellings and rehabilitating the poor misguided wolfie (who had in the mean-time pursued a successful musical career on the trombone)? What kind of revisionist version are you spinning here Jeanne? RashersTierney (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever read Politically correct Bedtime Stories? --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't (shudder). My favourite fairy tale The Snow Queen is ostensibly a lovely tale of high adventure in exotic locales and undying, faithful love; however the real message within is that men are basically faithless, easily seduced by glamourous women who make their girlfriends and wives appear ugly in their eyes. These rejected females will even pursue their cheating menfolk to the ends of the world to get them back. Another Andersen tale The Tinder Box gives the message that with heavies on your side, you can do and get away with anything. Even cute little nursery rhymes were once bawdy ditties sung inside taverns and inns.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy versus reality

Many folks stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear the truth, preferring to reject reality so that they can remain in their fantasy world. It is usually harmless, like the insistence that the tooth-fairy exists or that the earth is flat, but the endless circular arguments they devise can grow tiresome nonetheless. When it rises to the level of disruption, steps should be taken to put an end to the silliness. I'd be willing to do the paperwork, but which venue do you think would be most appropriate? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to find the US navy reference citation (the one on the military record page is broken) and add that in, tighen up the wording etc. Then I think its an ANI report with a request for help - its not only this page after all. When they started to cite their own propaganda I gave up all hope. Its almost as bad as the UK Far right articles (such as the BNP) where there is a constant struggle against this "even handed" argument, when one side is a primary source and the other a reliable secondary one--Snowded ^TALK 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy Inspector General declined to play the swifties games, writing a memo basically telling them Kerry's awards were valid and to go away and bother someone else. The full contents of the memo can probably be found online somewhere. This source, that I mentioned before, also notes Kerry's record was similarly smeared during his 1996 campaign, with the Navy again affirming that his medals were proper and legit. Complete debunking of many of the swifties claims can also be found by Googling factcheck+swift+boat. All of this, however, is mostly irrelevent to the Swiftboating article. If editors want to re-open the debate about the validity of the SBVT claims, they are welcome to do so at the appropriate articles - not this one. "Swiftboating" = smearing, according to all reliable sources and everyone else except those doing the smearing. I'll continue to watch the article. (Note: I actually preferred the word "unsubstantiated" instead of the much harsher "completely fact-free" wording, but certain editors demanded actual words from the source, so that is what they got. Reliable sources for the "unsubstantiated" do exist, however.) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of life

I am hoping that the creation of Philosophy of life and its category will help greatly in organizing a lot of articles that are otherwise difficult to organize. I very much doubt that "philosophy of life" is not notable enough for WP.Greg Bard (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open, but it will need some third party references (hence the tags). You may run into the new age guys (just by way of warning) --Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will help limit the new agers if done right. I still don't think the lede paragraph would be harmed by the distinction. It should be four paragraphs long. Greg Bard (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find some time for it towards the end of the week but life is a bit frantic at the moment --Snowded ^TALK 23:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it also, but non-notability doesn't make any sense at all. Straight face test.Greg Bard (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with no third party citations is by definition not-notable, you have to establish the name from a source other than your own opinion --Snowded ^TALK 04:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nilges

Trust me when I say we don't want him back. I've never come across a more persistently insulting, abusive, arrogant user here--ever. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But he does do good work at the same time, researches well. I've known a lot of professors like that and its worth putting up with the bad stuff. However he is not going to get back until he changes - something I and others have told him on and off line--Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's too invested in his own prejudices, inflated self-image, and victim complex for that to ever happen. I suspect he'd sooner explode. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts?

Do the contributions on various pages by User:Nestorius Auranites remind you of anyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The german language game? Yes familiar, watching the editing pattern to see if its disruptive --Snowded ^TALK 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brain.wilson

I agree with you that this new account is clearly suspicious - note how he started editing Martin Heidegger as soon as BraunemSchmutz was blocked. A sockpuppet investigation would be a good idea. I'd do it myself, but I don't know the procedure. UserVOBO (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've set one up a couple of times - I have a paper to finish today, but will aim to get something up tonight. Its a slightly different pattern from the other socks however. --Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may mean only that he is pursuing a different strategy this time. UserVOBO (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, in this case he started as an editor on the talk page 17-19 Feb then went silent until the 28th other than a piece of vandalism on Elizabeth Cheney . So he had an ID in place before the sock outbreak. Now that maybe using a sock to support a position, then activating it for editing later. Its grounds enough for a sock report. However a sock report which is unproven can strengthen the hand of a disruptive editor. I'm inclined to wait until this evening and see what happens. If he is following the pages then he will know that a range block would stop him permanently so he may back off. --Snowded ^TALK 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, when you have no response to one's arguments, your approach is to simply accuse people of nefarious behavior. You might consider simply engaging in discussion, rather than working the refs. Why don't you engage in substantive discussion?

And, by the way, my edit of Elizabeth Cheney's page was not vandalism. What I wrote is verifiably true. If you would like to discuss it, I would be happy to.Brain.wilson (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I've not filed an SPI before and not sure how to go about gathering evidence, but without mentioning names, in your opinion, do you believe that there's any connection between our old vociferous editor and a recently returned one? Enough to file a report I mean. --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a longer pattern of editing really. Happy to do one if the evidence builds, pending that keep your nose clean! --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SE page is a success, as it's accomplishing things. It's because of its success, that MBM, MF, LvB are so angry (along with the fact, they're the minority there). GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, their whole strategy is to try and stop any changes --Snowded ^TALK 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If yas are still looking for an administrator(s) to monitor the SE page. Elonka and/or Sandstein would be the 2 to get. They're tough & everlasting. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remark

I've removed some material from the Lleyn entry, because the spelling is used on current OS maps (e.g. multimap), which are a powerful source, all would agree. The spelling is in widespread use amongst Anglos (check Google and Yahoo), and it has a long history. Notability is not temporary, and "Lleyn" is notable. It's a no brainer. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I made a compromise! --Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, but it would be sufficient to validate the alternative usage spelling, without introducing the relative phonetic merits of Welsh versus English. It is interpreted as chauvanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, being authentic to the language of the place itself is not to my mind chauvinism--Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hi, thanks for starting the SPI, I was just about to do the same. Them From Space 19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, hopefully a range block will follow --Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]