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 Carson101 (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 12 December 2011 (→Sorry David....). 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 (~~~~).

GAA

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: 21 November 2011

HI snowed

It's been a while, I hope all is well and you're keeping control of the BNP page. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that the UKIP page is currently on ANI, and that it might be a waste of time making any edits or reverts for now since it was vandalised by a user and the edits are so numerous that they're still in place. Check the history and see the user Xijky and you'll see what I mean. Take care Alexandre8 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful of WP:Boomerang on that ANI report. I reversed one reversal. As far as I can see we have a strong (name dropping) UKIP advocate trying to sanitize the page. Xijky needs to pay more attention to sources (the Mail does not count) and use the talk page. But I don;t think you have an ANI case. I could be wrong though, will wait and see --Snowded TALK 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's just changed the whole article and put in about a million new pieces of allegations of racism, including words like n*igger* and nog nog in the article. And it's mostly in the introduction. What's with boomerang I don't know it. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. ok shooting myself in the foot I understand. I really dislike taking things to the ANI. But so many pov edits have been made by people recently that someone needs to revert and block the page for a week at least. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People do change whole articles. The "nigger" stuff would need a better reference but it has been reported and his/her talk page comments are reasonable. its a content dispute at the moment not ANI (but that is my opinion). WP:RPP is where you go for page protection. I don't think its likely you will get it. There has been no mis behaviour that I can see --Snowded TALK 20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THe ANI board reponsded amicably and gave him a final warning. You can see for yourself here [1]. The problem was that he was pushing his pov about racism and fascism, and it was all in the intro. Noteworthiness and relevence were disgarded ect. I'm off out for the evening. See you later Alexandre8 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All they did was pop a 3rr warning there. Its not a final warning by any means and its something you could have done yourself. Also you really should not remove well sourced material --Snowded TALK 20:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I and another user did do it, he deleted them. The "sourced" material is controversial and needs to be discussed, and placed in the correct section of the article if it's to be included. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material is well sourced and relevant. You would be in a better place if you repositioned it rather than deleting it. --Snowded TALK 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm gonna do is reprint the material that is wished to be included in the article on the talk page, and we can discuss where to put what where. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GoodDay files

As requested by the community the material is off line Anything can be emailed to me for inclusion, or if you use Evernote and I can share the link Latest addition here so that one is covered Material available on demand to all participating editors --Snowded TALK 23:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those FM bio infoboxes were inconsistant. Some included the British monarch, others didn't. But, I suppose that's my fault too. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was (i) your provocative edit summary (ii) making changes you knew would be an issue without asking first. Overall you have done a lot of good work recently by the way, just resist temptation --Snowded TALK 23:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't looking to stir trouble on those FM bio infoboxes. They were inconsistant & AFAIK, it was decided to delete Elizabeth II from all of them. PS: My edit summaries were accurate. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments

I do not wish to continue to talk to you any further. Please see Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Also note that attempting outing is also against wikipedia policy. If you don't agree with someone's view then deal with the issues don't try to embarrass them by threatening to out them. I will neither confirm nor deny my personal details. You choose to use your real name but you need to respect the choice of others to keep their personal information private. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-denial denial if ever I heard one. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too honest to just deny it, but doesn't want to admit it. Its going to have to go to ANI I think as it is meat as well as sock puppetry --Snowded TALK 10:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay's resumed vandalisation spree of First Minister infoboxes

Please see:

Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary is curious "Please stop it GoodDay, that is covered elsewhere". I don't think I'm the one who added David Lloyd George's British citizenship. John21Allen is your culprit. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking it you are right so apologies for that. I should avoid assuming past patterns and just judge current actions --Snowded TALK 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm growing concerned about this editor, particulary concerning his recent comment here, as to his future plans concerning my edits. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you messed up on Governor Generals and did your normal trick of mass changes, rather than checking one first. I refer to his comment on your talk page. Then you went onto First Minister. Its your call GoodDay but community frustration is building up and you are in part surviving because you are provoking people to the point where they make mistakes first. --Snowded TALK 13:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what's is behind these editors' temperments, if not political pride. Mais oui!'s Scottish pride, appears to be clouding his judgement. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually quite offensive. Mais oui! has views, I'm sure, but a casual examination of any slice of 500 of their contrib history shows a large number of article space edits that are knowledgeable and constructive. His edit count shows a huge preponderance of article space edits, whereas yours GoodDay - well, we all know the facts there. I suggest that like many editors around here, he is basically fed up with your antics. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, you are not helping your case by hurling uncalled-for, snide accusations regarding editors' alleged motives. When I revert you for using British when consensus (and logic) says Irish, am I doing this because I happen to have ancestors from Ireland or because I am striving for encyclopedic accuracy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Snowy. Where's the policy you mention, concerning Prime Minister of Country infoboxes & First Minister of Constituent country infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the changes you come up with a good reason for them or STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME WITH YOUR INTERMINABLE PETTINESS --Snowded TALK 14:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where's this policy you mentioned at the discussion at First Minister of Scotland. I merely wish to see it & look into getting it changed. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, please take my advice and stop getting on other peoples' wicks. I'm busy at the moment with an article which I feel is important to the project, yet I am stopping just to help you save your own backside because I do happen to like you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, Jeanne. Right now, I'm bewildred by the hostility I'm facing here. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must take a good, hard look at the reasons you are facing what you describe as hostility (although I would call it exasperation). And don't cop out with the usual dismissive nationalist pride or devolutionists wanting to have their own way. That dog just won't bark, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded stated the existance of a policy & I asked him (here) of its location, then he yells at me. I'm not trying to stir sh-t. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Jeanne, I don't appreciate the attitude by the rest of you. Therefore, I'm dropping the FM article issue. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do something without thinking too much about, throw in some snide comments about editors motivation then finally having driven people to a stage of exasperation (well said Jeanne) you then walk away from the issue! --Snowded TALK 17:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, all par for the course, along with the feigned ignorance about what could possibly be upsetting other editors. We've seen it so many times. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC has now been raised on GoodDay --Snowded TALK 04:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the link James. Interestingly Jeanne's summary is gaining support and hopefully will lead to something this time --Snowded TALK 07:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have hope in GoodDay's ability to eventually change his editing pattern, if he will only take off his blinkers and look dispassionately at his behaviour and not stay on the same old roundabout of casting aspersions on other editors' motives and insisting that he's the only person with a NPOV. I personally think a mentor would be useful in his case plus a topic ban on all UK-related articles. He appears to be on a personal crusade in that arena with the aim of removing any reference to nationality other than British. I recall two years ago when he did turn over a new leaf and made some good contributions on the US presidents' pages. The ball remains firmly in his court; hopefully he will wont foul it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I want to stay out of this as much as possible. You might want to talk with Cailil about firming up your proposal. S/he has a good sense of what is possible and there does seem to be an emerging consensus around a rehabilitation programme using a mentor --Snowded TALK 07:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoring simply won't work - [2]. I think we've got beyond that stage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he won't accept that he needs to stay away from all UK-related pages, then a mentor is most likely a waste of time. The next step is a topic ban. I would suggest that the ban covers all biographical, political, geographical articles that relate to events or people born after the Act of Union. GoodDay has made some constructive edits in the past on English monarch articles such as Henry V and Henry VI. I must point out in his favour that last week he made a very positive edit on an UK-related article I had just created.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne, I agree. Why don't you firm up your proposal --Snowded TALK 08:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I firm it up? Honestly, this is the first time I have dealt with an Rfc; I'm treading in unfamiliar waters here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused 'again. Yas want me to accept a mentor, but only if the mentor advises a topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, surely you realise that a mentor would advise you to avoid areas of potential conflict such as British/Irish/UK-related articles. Failing to abide by your mentor's advice would leave no alternative but to impose a rather Draconian topic ban. I say Draconian because if it were up to me I would have it cover everything that took place after the Act of Union.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the case, then I recommend ya'll seek a topic ban of me. GoodDay (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me to decide as I'm not an administrator. However, I would think a three-months ban would be in order seeing as you adamantly refuse to stay away from editing in places that consequently bring you and others into conflict; this could lead to a lot of editors getting caught in the crossfire and receiving sanctions along with you. I know it sounds harsh but I would like to see you participate here at a more positive level. GoodDay, I have faith in your ability to become a good editor if you will just take the time to study the history of the British Isles a bit more profoundly and then perhaps you'll realise why your editing in that quarter was not productive. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely believe that Snowded, Daicaregos, Mais oui! (just to name a few editors) have real ownership issues, concerning those articles. When one looks at their Userpages, one can't help but be concerned about their ability to approach those articles neutrally. GoodDay (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this illustrates the problem you have (well one of them). All of those editors follow the rules, use evidence and do not do mass edits or issue provocative edit summaries. You keep seeing this as a conflict, rather than an issue with your behaviour --Snowded TALK 09:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the article that 'started' the Rfc/U: First Minister of Scotland. How was my edit controversial? I didn't delete the monarch, but correctly changed it from the office-holder to the office itself. My edit has since been restored by another & he's not getting treated the way I am. GoodDay (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, lets look at that one. You knew there would be opposition, you made the changes regardless, you should have started on the talk page. You have a pattern of doing this so people react. --Snowded TALK 10:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd opened up a discusson on that talkpage, what do you think the responses would've been? GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history poor. Do you not see the point here? Its a pattern of editing by you over an extended period of time --Snowded TALK 10:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see the point I'm making? There's a tendency for editors 'from' the British Isles, to be overly protective & agressive around those articles. That atmosphere has existed even 'before' my arrival. Why I'm in trouble is simple - I'm not discouraged or intimidated by these things. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't because the evidence does not back it up. Most of the time agreement is reached, you provoke dissent, as has been said before you are a conflict junkie. Even now when Jeanne is trying to help you, you can't take the issue seriously. You are not in trouble because you are some form of hero, you are in trouble because you create problems most of the time rather than trying to solve them --Snowded TALK 10:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already accepted the idea of a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mensch

The Mensch's Barnstar
I just spend way too much time reading about the NLP wiki-drama, and you obviously deserve this. Wasbeer 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! --Snowded TALK 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry

I corrected the Lononderry page to put the city's official name before its nickname. Why did you accuse me of vandalism for this? That's quite a serious accusation, and I don't think it was justified. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring previous discussions and agreement and failing to follow an arbcom ruling after notification. You have also been edit warring, not using the talk page etc. etc. Also I think you need to read previous discussion on Common Name and also what is an official name. You best bet is to self-revert fast before you receive a block. --Snowded TALK 10:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you are ignoring facts. The city is called Londonderry. Alternative names can be mentioned later in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you think you are right on this, and everyone else who took a different position using evidence is wrong. That aside you have to use the talk page, you have to folio rules and you have not only broken 3rr, but also an ArmCom restriction to 1rr. So if you don't self revert you are going to be blocked. Actually you maybe even if you do --Snowded TALK 10:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

sandbox for NLP revision

What did you mean by sandbox and how do you create one? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You create a page (for example I could do user:snowded/NLP working area) and work there then send people the links --Snowded TALK 14:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry David....

Remember this [3]? It told me everything I need to know about the motives of those who contributed to it over a 3 month period. Leaky Caldron 15:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. If you check lots of editors controbiuted to that as GoodDay has been long term disruptive. You do yourself no favoours by associating with that behaviour. Otherwise you really need to put up or shut up. If you have a case make it at ANI or elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it told me about the motives of those who contributed to it. I'm aware it wasn't entirely your own work, which actually made it worse as an attack page. I do not support GD's behaviour when he's disruptive and I'm certainly not looking for favours. ANI doesn't come into this. RFC/U is a request for the community to contribute and I'm fully entitled to do so - without fear or favour. Leaky Caldron 16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of editors, including several who could not remotely be labeled as nationalists, have been frustrated over the last two/three years - the page was set up for them to gather evidence. If you check back you will find GoodDay himself contributed and was happy with it. What is wrong, for you to make a series of accusations which you are not prepared to back up by taking them to the community. Hence the putup or shit up comment. Unspecified accusations against the motivations of other editors, which you are not prepared to subject to community review are personal attacks. --Snowded TALK 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I have made a personal attack the way forward for those concerned by it is clear. Maybe they will commence another WP:UP#POLEMIC. By the way, how long do you intend to keep the latest GoodDay laundry list? As for shit up. I'll assume that you are using iPhone again. ;) Leaky Caldron 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky caldron, you should specify the motives of those editors who have commented at the RFC. As the editors are from a wide spectrum of political beliefs it would be interesting to hear what you think they all have in common. Carson101 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded&oldid=465486895"