Jump to content

User talk:Snowded

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.110.111.164 (talk) at 01:17, 11 July 2010 (→‎Max Boisot: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (~~~~).

1RR

Can you point me to the 1RR restriction for British Isles? Thanks. Dreadstar ☥ 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check on the talk page would have found it, but go here for one reminder --Snowded TALK 06:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was looking for the original prohibition to see what the exact wording of the restriction was. I see it's been rescinded though, so I'm mulling over reinstating it and enforcing it. Dreadstar ☥ 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do - anything I can do to help, let me know --Snowded TALK 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe it's a good idea to reinstate. --HighKing (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to keep an eye on the article and if it gets out of hand, I'll reinstate it - and please let me know if I miss any out-of-hand behavior and I'll take a look. Dreadstar ☥ 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do - thanks --Snowded TALK 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

As you seem to be about at the moment...

I'd like to revert your change [1] at British Isles - IMO, the article should read 'Republic of Ireland' under the guidelines of WP:IRE-IRL, which states that "In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. " In the context of 'British Isles', I'd argue that there is sufficient scope for confusion (heck, we have a whole article on the terminology) that the second clause applies and Republic of Ireland should be used. --Pretty Green (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - have made the change, though in part by accident (I was considering it and pressed return by mistake, hence the uncompleted edit summary). Feel free to revert if you want --Pretty Green (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - the name of the state is Ireland and this this context there is no risk of confusion --Snowded TALK 06:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree. Especially since it is the first place in the article to discuss states. Sure, we could argue ad infinitum about what constitutes "sufficient scope for confusion", but I haven't seen an argument that convinces me that when discussing "UK and Ireland", there is sufficient confusion to disambiguate. --HighKing (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

I asked for a request for clarification with respect to the ArbCom motion relating to this matter. --RA (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Pope Leo XIII

The image was sourced, and discussion at the Heraldry WIkiProject stated the illustrations were heraldically accurate. Also, several editors have support for the illustrations. What more is needed? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you find adding sourced information disruptive editing? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn to reach agreement on the talk page rather than aggressively making statements as to your position and using misleading edit summaries. --Snowded TALK 06:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We tried to. There was a long conversation held on several pages about the accuracy of my illustrations. The main concern was that there needed to be sourcing to ensure the emblazons were correct and that the shape of the shield was appropriate. So, I linked to an image which showed the same charges and then linked to a source which showed the shape of the shield was irrelevant, and there also was a few editors at the Heraldry WikiProject that explained the same. History2007 has refused to accept this, as well as his two other friends. Apparently, because my supporters have since fallen wayside in the long argument, I am not allowed to count their vote, and the Heraldry WikiProject was ignored because even though the image concerned is heraldic in nature, the articles in which the images appear are not primarily heraldic and therefore the WikiProject was out of line to even give an opinion. Which is rather annoying since the opposing editors agreed to take it to the Heraldry WikiProject and even posted it there themselves.
The issue these editors have isn't about the images, it is about my name being in the file names. It was what they first brought up, and posted their concern to the conflict of interest and various talk pages. It got them no where. In fact, they posted to something like seven or eight pages, and it has never gone their way. They always have one more issue to discuss or another page which would be more appropriate to discuss it on, which means the last discussion must, of course, be thrown out. It is whomever has more support. When I get more support, it is that I lack sources. When I have sources, it is whomever has more support now, ignoring the previous count and requiring everyone to cast again. It seems to never end. Though I am sure once they find one page that sides with them then that will be the final and absolute solution to this all. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many remedies available to you other than edit warring. You can request the involvement of other editors, if you feel really strongly you can raise a case at ANI. Patience pays in Wikipedia, edit warring does not. All that will result in is more blocks and experienced editors inclining against investigating your case in any detail. If you get a formal position agreed at the Heraldry project and you patiently argue the case on the pages concerned without edit warring then you will be in a much stronger position. Patience and engagement are needed. I suggest you back off for a bit, reflect and then build a case. I make no comment here on whether you are right or wrong, I am just responding to the behaviour - as did the admin (and he is a good admin) who blocked you. --Snowded TALK 07:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I tried posting at the incidents notice board, had one question to it but then it was archived. Do I merely try again? Should I cover all the facts in detail on the first post? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would start in the various heraldry groups and see if you can get agreement there, then move forward --Snowded TALK 08:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of editors have commented at Leo XIII, so could you look through the discussion and perhaps guide the conversation since the admin who posted the arbitration has yet to comment and the conversation is quickly getting out of hand? History2007 has been responding to each and every comment, creating more arguments rather than letting the larger process take effect and allow editors to comment freely. He has also been reinterpreting comments of editors, upsetting one who mentioned she felt her comments were being misstated and manipulated to serve History2007's agenda. The conversation is now going the way of requiring the Vatican to post on their website a statement of approval for which images Wikipedia should use in the encyclopedia’s articles. This is ridiculous, to demand a sovereign nation to do such a thing to meet one editor's standards, which are not even the standards set my Wikipedia.

Please see the break and see what a Catholicism contributor commented, and please direct the conversation if you could. It was also agreed by myself and another editor that a compromise where the SVG image, being scalable and plain, would be best suited for small depictions, while the ornate version would be better suited for larger depictions. Would this be acceptable before the argument broadens more? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The term Home Nations is clearly still in use wrt IFAB in association football e.g. [2] and England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales in rugby (e.g. [3]). WP:CHECK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.222.106 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be the odd residual use, but not in any official documents. Find an example there and I might believe you. --Snowded TALK 22:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aah I see from the talk page now; I've wandered into the Ireland naming dispute or wherever it is. tbh, I don't really care much for petty nationalism. Let's just get the usage right and accurate. So let's consider the BBC links I just showed you to be a product of the nasty Imperialist British establishment. Instead, let's look at the Irish Rugby Football Union's website using Google. Search for "home nations", site:irishrugby.ie -- only the seven pages of google hits so about 70 references. And now for "home unions" at the same site? this time only the four pages so only the forty references. Over a hundred references in total. Ah -- the IRFU is one of the home unions, and self-identifies as such, sorry. The IRFU isn't bothered by using an accurate politically neutral term, so why should you? The only possible reason is that you don't know much about rugby.
Not sure what the "nasty imperialist" comment has to do with anything and I suggest you calm down a bit. Home Unions is a common phrase agreed and never disputed. Home nations is used from time to time but its use is historical in the main and needs to be properly explained. It might also help if you signed your comments and stopped making silly assumptions. As a debenture holder in the Millennium Stadium, a long standing season ticket holder with the Blues I think I know a little about Rugby, and organised my current trip so I could attend the two tests in New Zealand. --Snowded TALK 20:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right then. I'm perfectly calm, btw. Surely then you are familiar with the politically neutral meaning of the term "home unnions"? It's quite simple, with regard to rugby the home unions are the RFU, WRU, IRFU and SRU and the respective national sides that they run. With regard to association football, it's the FA, SFA, IFA and FAW and the respective national sides that they run. What part of this exactly are you disputing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.219.103 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased you have calmed down after your somewhat intemperate comments above. As I have said several time I have no problems with the common use of Home Unions. I am also suspicious of SP IP accounts, have you edited the Wikipedia under another ID? --Snowded TALK 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be instructive to use Google Web advanced search. Restrict the search to the last year and look for "home nations" site:irishrugby.ie Then do the same for "home unions" site:irishrugby.ie What do you find? AJRG (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I am paying 10c a megabyte in a rip off hotel in Perth I think I will let other people do that. --Snowded TALK 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is clearly not necessary to introduce additional terms into the search which illustrates my point perfectly. Meanwhile, do you have any references for you assertion that these terms are "no longer in use" or is that your original research? And secondly, what exactly is your problem with the additional information that I have provided? 86.128.219.103 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the trouble to check, you'll find that "home nations" hasn't been used by the IRFU in the past year, whereas "home unions" has been used four times. AJRG (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I see this is also on the talk page which I had missed, not being a logged in user and having a watchlist and all that. And there people are putting your right again. The difference between home unions and home nations? Generally the former refers specifically to the four organising bodies, whereas the latter refers either to their respective national teams or generally to the sport of rugby in those countries. I don't think it has any real political meaning outside of sport. If anyone does use it it's probably with naivity as regards getting into an argument over semantics with the aforementioned petty nationalists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.219.103 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AJRG, I'm going to have to get you to give me a lesson in search techniques one of these days! As to our SP IP address, your above comment makes it very clear you are familiar with and have edited wikipedia before. A little bit of honesty as to those previous IDs might make you more credible. --Snowded TALK 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

List of national capitals

Nice to see your contribution to Talk:List of national capitals. Welcome to the party. Don't you find it odd that not a single Scottish editor seems to care if Edinburgh is included on the article or not? Or if it is, is considered to be representing the capital of a nation, or some lesser entity. Daicaregos (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably still too busy mocking England's hilariously poor performance in the World Cup. O Fenian (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wearing my German strip for the occasion, its always good when they go out early it reduces the cost of buying the shirts of those they are playing. --Snowded TALK 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
England aren't a bad team, but the English media build them up so much that reality can never match the expectations. Consequently, everyone (well, English people) is disappointed and look around for someone to blame for their expectations not being met. Pretty sad really. Still, the good news is that they no longer confuse England with UK. You never see the Union Flag flown at football or rugby matches these days. I wish they would stop referring to 1966 though (Hold the front page "Football team win home game!" well, I'm impressed). It had become tedious by 1970. Now, it's just pathetic. Daicaregos (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it all just evidence that we should merge the teams for the World Cup - including perhaps Ireland? Wouldn't "British Isles" look good on the World Cup roster. Of course, a flag would be needed, which would make for many hundreds of hours of useful work on the part of Wikipedians debating if it could be used. As Sir Humphrey would have put it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't I'd have to apply for German citizenship ... --Snowded TALK 06:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Spain then? I'd have thought from history they have a more honorable claim to long-term animus with 'Greater' England? I'm not sure how many of your fellow-countrypersons share your reaction though Snowded. I had the honour of being in Wales during one of the England matches - I drove from Caernarfon to Llangollen whilst the match was on (not very interested in football) and I think I passed one van and a car in that whole journey. I doubt that there was something else on the tele. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What led you to conclude that they were 'supporting' England? Daicaregos (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True! Although I didn't hear cheering at England's uselesness when I passed through towns. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Portugal not Spain I think, small country with a large arrogant next door neighbour..... --Snowded TALK 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious Snowded - do you live most of the time in Warwickshire or thereabouts? How can you bear being in close proximity to such crushing arrogance? As for the footie, I presume you will all switch to Holland now? Although it does get confusing, as their resentment of all things German... ermmm... oh dear... the complexities of nationalist positions.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A sense of humour permits many things James, and I live in Wiltshire but travel about 250 days a yeae --Snowded TALK 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomin heck, that's a lot of days away - hope you like travelling! I adore Wiltshire and have spent many happy days there amongst the Neolithic and the marvellous countryside - the Marlborough Downs are a particular favourite. Are you into archaeology at all? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live next to Avebury so its difficult not to be into archaeology --Snowded TALK 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha - lucky you. Avebury or Trusloe? I was down there in the snow last winter - very pretty. Have you kept up with Mike Parker-Pearson et al's recent work at Stonehenge and environs? Marvellous stuff and still awaiting the book. Went to a lecture of his at Sheffield not long ago. I used to live west of Oxford so was down there regularly at one time. Not that it's the mighty mountains of Wales, but it has it's charms! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My last book on Stonehenge is about two years old I think (but I am in Australia at the moment and don't have access to my library). I've skimmed the death and burial book but if he is bringing out something on Stonehenge I will look out for it. Wiltshire in snowhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/58554451@N00/sets/72157623026349271/ here] --Snowded TALK 21:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the lecture, Mike said he was working on one with Mike Pitts - I knew Mike Pitts quite well at one time and you may have read his excellent Hengeworld. Sorry, couldn't see the flickr picture from your link. Hope you aren't too chilly in Oz. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link corrected - and yes I have (read Pitts). Oz is good temperature, I always try and head south for summer (i) for rugby) and (ii) for colder climes. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely photos, you are a good photographer. Takes me back mentally to Wilts. The two Mikes also did an excellent TV programme with C4 and Tony Robinson/Mick Aston, shown a few months ago, an hour and a half of blissfully intense megalithomania! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, enthusiastic amateur is the best description but planning to spend Saturday in Fremantle catching the colonial architecture there (plus the best breakfast on the west coast). Missed that programme, will see if I catch it on line. --Snowded TALK 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Secrets of Stonehenge, C4, November 2009. [4] Probably it will be on More4 or whatever again before too long - they generally rotate the specials on Saturday mornings periodically. I can't praise the programme enough - really quite exceptional, both for revelations and focus. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will search that out when I get back to the UK --Snowded TALK 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soverign countries

Yep, it would be workable & there'd be (hopefully) less bickering between the add/remove E/S/W/NI folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then make a proposal don't stir the pot --Snowded TALK 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The direct approach, eh? It might just work. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Snowded, I'm just wondering - you're an accomplished editor with a good track record on a fairly diverse range of articles, and recently you've not been involved in BI discussions. However, as the issue flares up once more, you wade in again, but you didn't do so as HK was quitely deleting some usage, why? Do you enjoy getting involved in conflicts such as British Isles? It's a genuine question, and as I say, I'm curious. The problem is, your implicit support for HK is prolonging this never-ending dispute. And it's not only you. It seems that as soon as HK is put under any sort of pressure the woodwork is suddenly depopulated. LevenBoy (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. I've consistently edited on BI issues as and when I have time. I also think HK has been professional in agreeing to take part in proper process. We had a bad period with Flash and Midnight reverting any change for its own sake, but now they are out of the way I hope we can make progress. --Snowded TALK 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define progress. Come on Snowded, what is it you're after here? The use of British Isles in the vast majority of articles is of little or no consequence even if its use is technically wrong, so why all the effort? Yes, I could ask myself the same question and for me it is all about POV pushing and trying to prevent it. LevenBoy (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I am after is accurate articles and preventing POV pushing. I suggest you look at the log in your own eye before you criticise the mote in those of another editor. --Snowded TALK 18:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the same sort of professionalism that uses ip logons when abroad and sets up sock accounts? SpongerJack (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was looked at by some very experienced admins and judged not to be important. --Snowded TALK 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But is it professional?? SpongerJack (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will let wiser heads determine that if they can be bothered, my comment related to HKs participation in the special cases page and I will stand by that. And do we already know you SpongerJack? Very familiar for a very new editor methinks, I smell socks --Snowded TALK 12:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I learn fast. I hope you're not suggesting I'm a sockpuppet, err, whatever one of them might be. SpongerJack (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its probably a matter of working out who the sockmaster is, I'll keep an eye out on your edits to get a clue. If I am proved wrong I will apologise it, but I really doubt that I am. --Snowded TALK 12:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A 4-hour old account, with knowledge about the BI discussions? This much I know, socks tend to hurt the content argument of the sock-master. It also puts a stronger lense on newbies entering the BI discussions. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You trying for a 3RR to get me blocked? SpongerJack (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be blocked as a sock anyway. Reverting a sock is just part of sweeping up the floor at the end of the day --Snowded TALK 22:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. You know most of these usages are justified and that all these other dumboes are just gaming the system. SpongerJack (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, make things easy for yourself. Why not just ask, ney tell, HighKing to go and find something esle to do instead of deleting British Isles. Maybe he could go and wage war against the USA or something, I don't know, but get off his British Isles trip and in the long run it'll be better for you, better for me, and for certain withoout a doubt defintitely better for Wikipedia. Now you know this but you won't do anything about it. Shame on you. SpongerJack (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SpongerJack's blocked. Working on the cleanup. N419BH 23:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, you need to do me a favour, and if not me, someone, because that checkuer is a flatout liar! The only common component between my ip address and the one quoted: 86.29.126.11, is the 86. The one quoted may be MidnightblueMan, I've no way of telling, but I can guarantee you 100% that it is not me. I'm not so bothered about SpongerJack, but if they do reinstate that account I'll abide by the undertaking I've given. However, I am very concerned that a checkuser has either made an error, or given the vast difference in the ip addresses, is just lying. Could you please ask for a second checkuser to confirm what I already know. Whatever you might think about Spongerjack, MidnightBlue or the rest, this is a different issue and I am serious about it. Note that this is a "one-edit" account and won't be used again. I hope I can rely on you. Thanks. SpongerJack. InfinitySpooked (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more inclined to do something if you told me the name under which you previously edited --Snowded TALK 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I hope I can rely on you. Thanks. SpongerJack. InfinitySpooked (talk)" He did. Same one who's been commenting above. See SpongerJack's user talk page for the other Checkuser confirmed socks. N419BH 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but here's another one-off account since the last one has already been blocked! I re-iterate, the checkuser is mistaken or lying. What are you talking about - the other socks? There are none. I am NOT linked to Midnight. My old account is FootballPhil and I'm now over there to prove it to you. By the way, the sockpuppet report on User:FootballPhil is also incorrect, for heavens sake, check it in detail and you'll see amongst other things "I'm on a slightly different geographic net to the others", and I have no commonality with the alleged socks. CarbonNumbers (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the only recourse open to you is provide a full account of your various accounts, a clear undertaking never to sock or edit war again and then see if the community will agree to allow that. You can do it on one of your talk pages and I will pick it up from there if you tell me which. --Snowded TALK 01:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Boisot

We don't censor articles at their subjects' request. The claim there is both sourced (and traceable back to the man himself) and relevant to the context. Also, from WP:HOUND: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." If you continue to be obstructive, and continue to leave bogus passive-aggressive notes on my talk page I will have to report it as harassment. To that end, since you've been here long enough to know better:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded&oldid=372827726"