User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 18

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

Yorkshirian

I see there are a lot of people over on AN/I seeking to ban Yorkshirian. I have left a comment opposing his ban. Personally, I think your suggestion is the best one as Wikipedia cannot afford to lose editors on history-related articles. Who is going to step into his breach if he's banned? I notice that nobody seems to mind the havoc Irvine is creating. And the train wreck rolls on......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Flash

Can you please take a look at his latest and let me know your opinion. It looks too much like an edit war between two editors when other editors don't offer an opinion. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Your edit on 'Outline of United Kingdom page'

Can you please remove your edit on the 'Outline of United Kingdom page'? Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How in the name of Baby Jaysus and the Holy Ghost is that racist? O Fenian (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you withdraw it Penny, I've seen people blocked for far less. --Snowded TALK 18:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Now I've seen everything! Penny, I suggest you heed Snowded's advice and withdraw your absurd accusation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can show me where I have said anything untrue I will. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain how "both a nation state and a state made up of nations" is racist --Snowded TALK 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm curious as to how that comment could possibly be construed as racist. Pray enlighten us, Penny.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT CAME UP _ Because The only nation in Britain is the British. They have the same right to exist and not constantly have their nationhood belittled and denied that any other nation has. They after all fought in wars, got blinded, died etc. for their nation. Try editing the Russia or U.S.A. page to say they're not a nation before doing it to The U.K. You and Jeanne Boleyn have said I'm wrong - I don't see it. So you ought to be able to cut and paste/ show where I'm wrong. I found your remark: "We've done all this " overbearing too. However if you don't see why someone of my generation find your claim so offfensive I might re-edit and explain my position in a different way. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK Government web site says there are four nations/countries in the UK Penny. You will find the supporting material here and on all the country page talk pages. In fact Britain (to use your words) is not a nation, the United Kingdom is. The fact that it is made up of four nations does not damage it in any way, also the long standing wording which I restored does not say that the UK is not a nation - read it again. As to your generation, there are no generations on wikipedia, all editors are equal, and all are bound by the same rules. The one thing which is clear is that the word "racist" has no place here. I suggest (again) that you withdraw it. --Snowded TALK 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You and Jeanne boleyn, though very quick to come back at me before, have not done what I asked - show me where I was wrong. I never said YOU were racist, as is clear, I said the edit was racist. The position you've taken in your edit of the article on the U.K. is racist. I think you're asking to be treated differently from anyone else. If you can point me to a rule on the wikipedia where one cannot point out that certain things in the world i.e. discrimination against the British or Israel, saying they don't really exist as a nation, aren't racist then I'll say that's a daft rule but delete my comment above.

Nothing in your post above changes anything. I don't need to be told about The U.K.'s nationhood. Referring to a Gov.t web-site means nothing. They're a the least reliable source for anything. the link you gave, to a wikipedia page about countries, contains some notes about nationhood which are just wishful-thinking claims, some biased, made by various people. Most of the notes say that England etc. are countries not nations anyway. I object to your comments making out I'm ageist. If you're claiming the word 'racist' can never be used to refer to anything in an article then please point me at that rule. You said: "(restore - this has been discussed more times than I care to think)" That indicates that others disagree with your and Jeanne boleyn's position. In the interests of peace and avoiding hassle I'll change my request above to: "Can you please remove your edit on the 'Outline of United Kingdom page'? - as I find, as many of others would, the position you espouse on the nationhood of the British racist." Which is what I was saying anyway. Again if even saying that is against the wikipedia rules - but I haven't seen it is anywhere - I'll withdraw it. And edit the section heading.Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get "ageist" from? I said that age had nothing to do with editorial status? Its been discussed before and resolved, by a consensus of editors I also not you are not really withdrawing racist. A word to the wise you, you are a fairly new editor. You might want to spend some time on the help pages and checking out guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NPA otherwise sooner or later you are going to run into a block. As to the request, no I won't change it. The next has been there for some time, if you want to change it make a case on the talk page and see if you can get other editors to agree with you. --Snowded TALK 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are continuing with your attitude that I am here to be subservient to you but that you are a allowed to order me about. I've already told you I read the page you asked me to- please check it yourself. It says: "This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor." Which I did. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well so far you have called me agist (for saying that age has nothing to do with the status of an editor) and suggested I have a made a racist edit by restoring long standard wording. If you carry on doing things like that then sooner or later you will end up blocked. --Snowded TALK 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's incredible. I was planning to say, next time I got on-line, that as I don't like hurting people's feelings I would withdraw the comments you object to by re-editing this section appropriately. And I come back to this page and find all this above. Adults ought to be able to cope with discussing facts.

What is all this high-handed stuff about "blocked"? It would be moral if instead you did what I asked and showed me where I have broken the rules by criticising your edit instead of these strange threats. You can't expect me to discuss anything further with you given the above paragraph from you (21:02, 23 March 2010) - users can read it and see why. I'm re-editing the comments you objected to because I don't want the hassle. Normally I wouldn't change a section heading on a page that belongs to someone else. I think your statements are the ones breaking the rules not mine. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't see that accusations of racism when someone restores a long standing version of a page is offensive, and that accusing someone of being ageist when they have specifically said that age is irrelevant on wikipedia, then I think you have a problem. Its your call how you behave in future. I've given you some advise and (based on experience) that advise is cautionary. Using the racist word has resulting in many an editor being blocked, using it with no justification almost always does if the behaviour is reported. That you choose to interpret any advise as "high-handed" or as indicating some desire for "subservience" does not bode well. --Snowded TALK 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't half write quick! It takes me ages. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Headmaster decided his whole academic sixth should learn to touch type back in 1972. Said we would be grateful for life and he was correct. --Snowded TALK 19:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

I thought I made it clear Next time, discuss on the talk page. —Dark 02:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

`There is a clear policy on this one and I referenced it, I must admit I thought that the policy in effect resolved the edit war issue as none of the editors involved were aware of it. I have posted the wider issue to the policy page concerned given that the edit waring continued --Snowded TALK 06:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

SIOE/UAF plus UK placenames

Did you mean to restore "ultra-left" with this edit? I'm assuming - not least from your edit summary - that you didn't. Oh, and on the birthplace thing, which I just noticed, I have to say that I tend to favour including as much of a chain - eg Greater Hampton, England, UK - as is sensible, especially in an infobox. It's more informative and also manages to avoid giving apparent preference to any one political unit. And as far as I'm aware, WP:UKPLACE is simply about article names, where of course it would not be sensible to have the full chain spelled out, and any extra detail is purely for disambiguation purposes. N-HH talk/edits 09:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call thanks I have corrected. On UKPLACE, there needs to be a common standard, otherwise we will have more game playing --Snowded TALK 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I would let you know there is a conversation here at Irvine22's talk page where you are mentioned. Just in case he was no longer on your watchlist. Jack forbes (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I keep an eye on it, monitoring trouble makers is part of life --Snowded TALK 09:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Only on wikipedia, Snowded. Only on wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I do some of it for real ... --Snowded TALK 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Must be fun! :) Jack forbes (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This may help: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Guide. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh hello Dai! Snowded, look at it this way; you should really be flattered that you loom so importantly in Irvine's life that he spends most of his waking hours, putting his real life on hold, just to devise ways of attracting your attention. Now you should appreciate such slavish, unstinting devotion from your number 1 groupie!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Slavish, unstinting devotion sounds kind of creepy. In real life you would have to get a protection order against him. Jack forbes (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Luckily for Snowded there is an ocean and continent between them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Except when I'm at the place in Hammersmith. (And I've already invited Snowie for a pint next time he's through L.A. I know a great wee Rangers bar in Santa Monica....) Irvine22 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved your comment

I hope you don't mind, I moved your comment to the comments section on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. Outback the koala (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

uk

Again? multiple locations same problem, whats going on? Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - not sure what this references --Snowded TALK 19:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:-)

"Can we agree not to make any changes before discussion. And before we have discussion, can we agree that the outcome will be not to make any changes?" ... eh. No. --RA ([[User talk:|talk]]) 12:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You can look at it that way, or you can reference the way in which changes have been achieved with good will in the past  ;-)--Snowded TALK 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This seems right to me Rannpháirtí anaithnid, especially given that you subscribe to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_British-Irish_Collaboration/Voluntary_Code_of_Conduct, which looks good to me and emphasises civility and consensus. I personally don't have a big problem with your edit as it seems accurate, but I think we should achieve pre-change consensus on something so controversial. It would be good to see a few rewrite options for removing the contradiction. Thanks for your help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a new wave of particular edits regarding the 'country' status of Northern Ireland and Wales from Rannparti which I personally do not agree with at all. It involves selective sourcing and a narrow view of 'country' that is not supported by Wikipedia, and has actually been going on for years - but mainly from the same culprits. The year before last I helped compile around 80 reliable sources that call NI a country, and I'll make it a straight hundred in its own list article if I feel I have to: simply to try and stop the disruption. Yes we can explain why some see the term as controversial, but we CANNOT lead with the controversy, especially in straght-quoting it as rote. Like Jza84 said recently, many people in teh UK simply grew up calling NI a 'country'. I did, as did he. To what degree the 'controversy' comes first is always the bugbear in these UK/Irish matters, but IMO, one look at the NI article and we can immediately see that WIkipedia is already far too heavily weighted towards explaining troubled history at the very clear expense of positive cultural content. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the points is that Northern Ireland, while not having the history of the other three, is becoming a constituent country in terms of delegated powers etc. Whatever, any changes need discussion not aggressive assertion of truth and edit waring --Snowded TALK 12:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Matt. On this occasion it was Jamesinderbyshire that raised the issue. On Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom it was a one-time-user User:Tank-en-mate that raised the issue.
Snowded, we really need to keep with sources here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whatever the future is for Northern Ireland we will write about it fairly, not according to our ambitions for it. --RA (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm expressing an opinion, surely I can do that on my own talk page! Personally I support a United Ireland, but that doesn't prevent me looking at events and practices and commenting on political developments. --Snowded TALK 12:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to "raise the issue" of country-status or otherwise of NI. I was pointing out obviousuly contradictory statements in the current article. My own view from a fairly careful and comprehensive reading of the available materials online, media and books, also to be clear, is that NI is currently still part of the UK but has some sort of nebulous "devolved" status that is neither province nor separate country. Therefore I don't favour the term "country" or "nation" for it, as it's somewhere in-between. However, that's neither here-nor-there on the contradiction point and yes, obviously I am in favour of trying to locate the best sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowded and James, just a quick note to say sorry for the short-temper this morning. Related matters elsewhere had me put in a bad mood. --RA (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but no worries, I wasn't offended - I like your editing approach actually, very forthright but well argued. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Know how it feels - no problem --Snowded TALK 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Irvine

Thanks for taking action, Snowded. Over the past couple of days i was thinking of going to AN/I or somewhere about him; evidently it all blew up after i went to work yesterday. I find it hard to believe the things i was reading just now, after getting your heads-up alert. I hope that this solves that particular issue. Cheers, LindsayHi 09:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems you've finally shaken off the Old Man of the Sea. Its a dead weight lifted from all of us. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Pleasure, with editors like Irvine its normally a matter of patience, but sooner or later they go OTT. Pity really, he's bright, knowledgeable and could be a really good editor. You can now enjoy Aberystwyth (of of my favorite University Towns, even that glowering Presbyterian seminary overlooking the beach) in peace until the next accusation of racism!--Snowded TALK 10:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Irvine is undeniably intelligent and knowledgeable; it's a pity he never used his intelligence constructively. IMO, Irvine was in dire need of attention and regarded Wikipedian editors as his audience.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What's frustrating to me, Irvine more then likely doesn't truly think anybody's racist. Irvine's only making such accusations, just to see what kinda reactions he'll get. Once I realized he was merely bleeping around with us, I banned him from my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
He played that card before and got another good editor banned until everyone realised it was a mistake. I think he decided to play the card again, but got carried away in responding to my questions. Either way he is blocked now, hopefully we won't get many socks --Snowded TALK 15:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
His reaction to his block, confirms my observation of him. As for socks? Irvine will be back, as he was having alot of fun. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
True, but his socks should be easy to spot and the indef means that they can be quickly closed down. --Snowded TALK 15:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, he'll be easily spotted. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What surprised me was how long he managed to get away with his behaviour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cynefin tag

So much for you following the rules of Wikipedia - do you not think that perhaps someone else should decide if your baby is notable? Just a thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? May I remind you that on your own talk page you said you had no objection to my removing the tag. Given that the evidence was clear I removed it. Given your lack of response to a valid argument I would have been entitled to remove it anyway, but I made a point of raising it on your talk page first. You should really do some research before tagging articles anyway--Snowded TALK 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I was just puzzled, because on my talk page you said it was against the rules for you to remove it - is it not then? Actually I did read through a lot of the (available online) citations and materials you claim as evidence for Cynefin (and your) notability - I wasn't terribly convinced I have to say. I will be returning to it but with an extensive and well-argued case. One more thing - do you have any connection at all with the two separate transient editors who created the articles? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I referenced Dave Snowden. I look forward to your finding a way to argue that the Academy of Management is not a reliable source by the way. You also seem to be on a crusade here which never makes sense, especially as you are involved in various disagreements with me on other pages. That casts doubt on your independence. As to your last question, not to my knowledge, I found the articles when someone pointed them out to me. Given that I have already told you this, your asking the question again is either insulting or an indicate that you do not read material provided. --Snowded TALK 18:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, my attention was drawn to them by you, in a reference in your report on Irvine22. I was just curious - and still am! Looking around WP, there seems to be a lot of collusion between groups of editors sharing the same biases and that concerns me - it isn't specifically motivated by the NI discussion and in fact we are not that far apart on that as far as I can tell. I'm sorry you see this as insulting, but your reaction in general so far to any perceived affront leads me to think that, yes, there are problems surrounding the articles about you, not least that you seem ably supported in retaining them by editors who share your views in other areas. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, on the question of you knowing or not knowing who created them, I had not asked you that before. You previously just said that you did not create them, which is different to having any connection with those transient editors who did. I was really just curious - it is a bit odd that two articles like this are both created by short-lived transients with a few pre-edits in the same areas who then disappear. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Its insulting to imply as you did that I had something to do with the article creation. If I had any connection I would have declared it. I see you are now playing the innuendo card around conspiracies. If you check your facts you will find that the work on the Dave Snowden article was done by an Administrator with whom I have had many disagreements. Several editors helped with dealing with vandalism by Irvine22. AS far as I can see no one has proposed deleting Cynefin and the those who argued against the the deletion of Dave Snowden were unknown to me. So your final sentence is I am afraid a misrepresentation of the facts. You are starting to remind me of Irvine22 I am afraid. --Snowded TALK 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Not insulting, I was just curious what your response was - glad you've now made it crystal clear. On the question of support for the article about you and Cynefin I find it striking that quite a number of editors with strong nationalist opinions rally to it, which is odd, given that they are about KM. But I suppose they felt outraged by Irvine22, which is understandable and I regard his interventions as just silly. Surely you can see though that the way your articles were created looks odd? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
More innuendo in the final sentence I see. And a massive misrepresentation; please tell me which editors who have editing the Cynefin article (or its talk page) have strong nationalist sympathies? Or any editors of nationalist sympathies who did anything on Dave Snowden but revert Irvine22's vandalism? I just looked and can't see any. --Snowded TALK 18:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've never touched the Dave Snowden article and I have known Snowded for a couple of years here and agree with much of what he has said over those years. Jamesinderbyshire, why are you so vehemently against the article? If you think it was odd the way it was created then take it to the relevant place that would deal with that and argue your case there instead of hounding Snowded here. You do remind me a lot of Irvine22. Sorry, Snowded. I am retired but couldn't help myself when I saw this. Jack forbes (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Jamesinderbyshire, I would be very interested indeed to know why you would ask this question of another user. Jack forbes (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
'casue he can't address the content issues and is running a conspiracy theory re other editors engaged on the two articles --Snowded TALK 04:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
If he believes his own conspiracy theory then perhaps he should put up or shut up. We are all supposed to assume good faith on wikipedia, but on this occasion I won't bother. It's quite obvious he's taken it upon himself to harass you because he has disagreements with you on other topics. If he wants to report me for not assuming good faith he's very welcome to do so. Jack forbes (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One time IP who doesn't sign his posts

You accused me of 'vandalism' regarding my changing of the 'Searchlight' page. This is not vandalism, I merely improved the information. Gerry Gable is well known for being a former member (and former Parliamentary candidate) of the Communist Party of Great Britain, who only left due to differences over Israel. He remains a pro-Israeli Communist. Nick Lowles is a former contributor to Socialist Organiser and a current contributor to Solidarity, both Trotskyist publications. Therefore, your refusal to permit my changes amounts to selective editing, thereby even further diminishing the faded reputation of Wikipedia.

You sought to label Searchlight and appear to be a onetime IP continuing a theme which has been attempted several times before. Sorry, its vandalism. --Snowded TALK 20:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection requested for Dave Snowden article

Request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate - appreciated --Snowded TALK 20:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, I'm sorry to see that the article about you was being vandalized. I note that the vandalizing account (Hans zu Stauner) has so far not been blocked. It's likely an Irvine22 sockpuppet, so persuading an administrator to block it should be simple. UserVOBO (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I marked it up as a sockpuppet, but its par for the course for Irvine22. Its an irritant but everyone has rallied round (including people with who I have had disagreements on articles). Good advert for the Wikipedia as a community. --Snowded TALK 03:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I may not be a very experianced Wikipedian...

...but this makes no sense to me.. 'unnecessary addition and using the list is really OR so citation does not stand'. Could you please explain, thanks, MrTranscript (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If you were to add a comment to the effect that they were still called colonies, then you would need a reference to say that. Instead you have a list of colonies, so the step to saying that they are still called colonies is WP:OR. It took me some months to get my mind around it (and RedHat is ferocious on the subject). Also in this case, the fact that it only lists the UK as the "Colonial Power" means that you are drawing conclusions from the text which even if valid is not allowed. Otherwise I simply don't think the phrase adds much to the article. --Snowded TALK 19:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And nor do I, but I think it could be important, if someone was looking for remaining colonies of the British Empire then they may by pass the British Overseas Terrirtories page believing it to be of no value to their research. MrTranscript (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Then argue your case on the talk page and see what other editors think --Snowded TALK 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination against user pennypennypennypennypenny by user snowded

Your high handed behaviour appears to be breaking of the rules to me. I've already pointed out that the 'accusations' are no different from the ones already there, that's why I included them. Your actions are biased. you are also breaking the rules. You made no effort to discuss your changes just reverted my contributions. You have no grounds under the wikipedia rules for removing these contributions by me and I'm going to re-instate them. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are not prepared to work from reliable sources, but only your own rather ill informed opinions then you will find that you get into problems. Making personal attacks on several editors will not help, I'm relaxed about it others may take it more seriously --Snowded TALK 17:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't made any personal attacks. You appear to be targetting me for abuse - otherwise why claim I've made personal attacks when I haven't? You are trying to cause trouble on the wikipedia. If you do not stop I will request assistance from the proper quarters for a formal complaints procedure against you. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I formatted your comment for you by the way. You are making the same mistake on article talk pages. As far as I can see you have not been subject to any abuse, you have just found that you cannot get support for your POV edits from several other members of this community myself included. Maybe you should complain to the "proper quarters" and see what support you get, one of the four coins might then finally drop. --Snowded TALK 17:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yet again you behave the same. Where is the proof of your claim that I attacked several editors? snowded: "Making personal attacks on several editors will not help". The record is there of your behaviour I am happy to let it speak for me. I will no longer interact with you for the obvious reason that I didn't register with this site to be hassled. If you continue to break the rules re me or others I will of course seek help from experienced users to follow the proper procedures for complaint. The fact that you, very rudely, find this so odd says all that users need to know about you. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh you're back. I've formatted your comment again - you might want to observe the use of colons. If you want an example of personal attacks then please reference your earlier accusations of racism on this talk page, or your little tirade here against Barryob. Otherwise your changes on Scottish and English articles were not as far as I can see supported by any other editor, other than the recently banned User:Irvine22. If you want to make a complaint please do so, as I said before the coin might finally drop --Snowded TALK 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You should stop reverting the article.

I am not adding any original research or any point of view. The article is already devoid of it and should be deleted. Please stop being childish and petty. GeneralChoomin 08:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are vandalizing the article with abuse, it needs radical change hence the tags and the talk page comment. Now please get a grip and behave responsibly --Snowded TALK 08:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You are using bots and sock puppets to commit reverts and promote a pamplete for a racist organization. The article needs to be deleted since it is literal crap. You should take your own advice and "get a grip".
(i) sign your comments (ii) don't make false accusations (iii) read the talk page (iv) read up on edit warring (v) get a grip --Snowded TALK 08:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

NatDemUK

Since you have more experience with this editor than me, could you chip in at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#NatDemUK please? Thanks. 2 lines of K303 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge Management

I noticed that you've posted a lot to the Knowledge Management article. As such, I'll assume that you know something about the area. So I'm going to ask a personal question: how would you recommend I learn more about it? (My background: B.S. Computer Science ('94), B.B.A. Accounting ('94), Mastes of Accountantcy ('95), M.P.A (in progress)) My wife would be happier if you didn't suggest a series of $100 text books. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you email me I will send you some articles and references, there are few if any books worth buying. Knowing which sectors and which countries you work in would help me select material --Snowded TALK 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

WP:CFD Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe

Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe is proposed for upmerge with Category:Rugby league governing bodies. You were involved in a related WP:CFD discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 9) and may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6#Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A reference is not your commentary.

I literally have no idea what you are referring to. I don't know how you confused references to classical works, encyclopedias, and textbooks with my own personal commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your notes 68 and 69 on this dif --Snowded TALK 07:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rugby league governing bodies in Europe

Appreciate your participation in the WP:CFD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6#Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe. Although it looks as if you intended to vote, you know what these guys are like on procedure, I don't think they are likely to count your opinion unless you formally vote either keep or merge. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

MOS Guidelines.

Hi Snowded, I believe the MOS guidelines are nearly ready. Could you take a look at the most recent? What is the next step? Thanks for helping. --HighKing (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Everything OK? Would hate to see this peter out with some kind of finishing line in view. What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Will look tomorrow -only just got back from US--Snowded TALK 15:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any recent discussion - is the latest on the examples page? --Snowded TALK 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back - did you get a chance to see the Ash Cloud on the way back? Anyway, there hasn't been much recent discussion, but it looks to me from the previous discussion there that the proposed guidelines are fairly well agreed. But I'm not sure what the next step is. --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Assistance

Can you please help in the Talk Page:Thomas More debate? There are two users who insist in keeping a gross violation of Wikipedia policies concerning vandalism. Thanks.81.193.220.52 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I thread

“I think its pretty obvious from the comments above that this is a behavioral issue and its needs resolution now.”

Can you please do whatever’s necessary to resolve this as soon as possible? I consider some of the most recent comments there to be harassment, particularly Mathsci’s claim that I’m a holocaust denier, which is both false and unsupported by anything I’ve said here or elsewhere. This thread clearly isn’t going anywhere useful, and I’d like something to be done about Mathsci’s (and also Muntuwandi’s) behavior before it gets any worse. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I will try and look at it again later and see, so far I don't see much indication of an agreement to go to Arbcom --Snowded TALK 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting Arbcom, I was just saying I thought the thread ought to be closed. Sorry, for some reason I thought you were an admin. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thinking of it (the RFA) but not sure I want the grief. For the moment I am testing the water a bit by seeing what I can do on controversial articles without the status. --Snowded TALK 06:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger

There's clearly a need there for another investigation into Jonathansamuel's sockpuppets. I haven't filed a report before, but I'll try to learn the procedure. UserVOBO (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think here you can just reference the prior material - I can help if needed but not for some hours --Snowded TALK 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Fellow Traveler

The meaning of what is in German sometimes referred to by the words "fellow traveler" is the concept that in English is represented by the phrase "bandwagon effect" -- which, in German, is actually another way of saying "fellow traveler". There is no "conflict". I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough the first time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and my German is not up to that and on line translators said "unknown". If that is the translation then it should not say "Fellow Traveller" at all as it will simply confuse any native English speaker, its meaning is very different. One means to support a party without really committing the membership the other means getting swept up in things. Needs an authority for the translation as well --Snowded TALK 03:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Take your pick.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - then happy to replace fellow traveller with band wagon --Snowded TALK 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Either way works for me. That's probably better, as more succinct. We don't need to use his bio to provide literal translations as well as the meaning of the phrase. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

IP address

I'm on the brink of 3RR myself. Any ideas what other IPs he could have been using? Are you off anywhere nice? Welshleprechaun

He comes in every few months. Will see if I can make a case for a range blog. On my way back from Santa Fe, but then the Marseille tomorrow (with much prayer)!--Snowded TALK 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:660gd4qo

This user (whom you know) has begun making more reverts and even MOVES on entire swaths of articles related to Korean, and adding insult to injury, has started renaming them after the move in ungrammatical English (e.g. 2008 beef protest of South Korean [sic]) 203.249.80.190 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

RfC on WP:OR noticeboard

I tried my best to summarize the dispute on here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Use_of_data_not_discussed_in_report. Hopefully we'll get some feedback on what is considered WP:OR or not. ----Action potential discuss contribs 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It will probably get reverted anyway ;) I wanted the changes to be in the history. But I think it probably would have been better in the sandpit. I'll try to version and then revert when I'm finished and then I'll propose the new one on the talk page. ----Action potential discuss contribs 14:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds a good approach, will leave you to it for the moment --Snowded TALK 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

SE Page and Cowboy

I'm surprised at your edit at Cowboy. I rewrote that section because it was unreferenced, and I tried to find references that either backed up the "British Isles", etc, bit. There's none. I've looked. As it stands, the current version should simple be deleted as WP:OR, or else the version I added should remain as the referenced bit. --HighKing (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This really is gaming the system. If you can't hit it with WP:V, then try WP:OR and failing that, look for another policy that might come up trumps. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I made it consistent - geography or countries. If there is no support for the whole phrase that add a [citation needed] and if none comes delete the whole phrase --Snowded TALK 04:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
But that's exactly what I actually did, if you check the edit history. A citation tag was placed there, no citation were forthcoming, so I rewrote the section using references! --HighKing (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wagner Popular Music Edit

How do you justify undoing this? The links are from credible outside sources, and both Lyraka and the composer Andy DiGelsomina are cross referenced in Wiki topics with Wagner. Or were you unaware of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.155.84 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Its been reversed by a few editors - you need to take your case to the talk page --Snowded TALK 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

John Prescott

Hi Snowded, saw your contribution to the John Prescott debate. That IP has been round in various guises for months, so I kind of agree with the DNFTT comment. Have you not read the article or Talk page, though? He explicitly states he is Welsh and is obviously very proud of the fact. It is better sourced than most biogs of Welsh people. What were you thinking? I despair. Daicaregos (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reference I am happy, its an issue of claims, just needs the reference. I've never heard the claim, and if you grew up in North Wales (as I did) then Prestatyn was generally regarded as English! --Snowded TALK 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It used to be in Cheshire because of Offa's Dyke. AJRG (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

FWIW - ANI report on MBM and MF. --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Ayn Rand

Snowded, you say the material is valid, but doesn't belong there. So where does it belong?Corrector555 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Later in the article, and it should be combined with the West Point speech where she makes the same insane comments about Native Americans. Best to draft something on the talk page and agree where - I will chime in there --Snowded TALK 06:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Mind how you go now, Snowded. Remember, 'Here be dragons!' ;- ) RashersTierney (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No self respecting dragon would co-inhabit territory with a Randinista --Snowded TALK 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
...all the more reason... RashersTierney (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy DiGelsomina‎

A group of single purpose accounts are pushing Andy DiGelsomina and his project, Lyraka. Looks like a marketing exercise. AJRG (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right - have added a comment. --Snowded TALK 20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Max Boisot

I agreed with your comment that he should have an entry, and then discovered that Cat4567nip had just created one. RichardVeryard (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock it to'em

PD must respect his indef-block. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are sadly mistaken here GoodDay, I find it difficult to believe you have checked the content contributions in reaching that conclusion --Snowded TALK 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
His content contributions are irrelevant to me. He must respect his indef-block & only then, can he regain the community's trust. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia stands or falls by its content, the social club aspects should be a sideshow --Snowded TALK 05:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
PD knows what must be done. As it was before, the ball is in his court. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, I've been looking for Wikipedia policy re 'Fresh start'. Can you point me to the page? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
And he was willing to accept conditions. Sorry GoodDay, PD is an outstanding content editor and I and others are doing our best to get him back and involved. The Lawyer like response of many editors is I think wrong, and to the detriment of Wikipedia. Looks like we will not agree however.--Snowded TALK 14:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
We shall agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
But I will hold you to this, if he comes back with no socks in three months I will expect your support! --Snowded TALK 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Six months would be better. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Not sure I have ever seen it. There is WP:Offer mind you --Snowded TALK 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That pretty much covers what I was looking for. Seems the '6 months clean snout' is a fairly basic requirement. RashersTierney (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:CLEANSTART might be what you were looking for. AJRG (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats the one I'd read. Both of interest. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Sorry you had to delete my edits (6 June) in the various knowledge pages, Snowded. I intended no harm, I am just feeling my way into being a Wiki contributor and don't quite know what I am doing. I apologize for my ignorance of protocol. Please don't be offended when I say I noticed that the articles could be improved, some more than others. What stood out was how few citations there are to recent work that reflects where things have moved, omissions of some important and basic ideas, and the rather limited (to the extent of being misleading) coverage provided in some articles. I also have to correct you on your wisdom management comment. I have never claimed to do wisdom management in any of my publications, even in my book that came out this year. Furthermore, I am not the only person in the world doing work on wisdom in general and managerial and organizational wisdom (rather than wisdom management)in particular; it is where research has moved to now (partly motivated through dissatisfaction with (snake oil renditions of) KM and partly to do with serious lack of wisdom in business and government that has led the world to serious challenges to do with the GFC and climate change). It is in fact a flourishing field with a growing literature (not unlike KM 10 or 12 years ago)and some major names who have published on knowledge in the past are now writing and researching there. If you want I can email you the extensive bibliography from my wisdom book. Furthermore, there is nothing, in my view, that is contentious about wanting to put managerial and organizational wisdom on the table with KM, or knowledge economies, or knowledge policy, or knowledge societies, etc., and it could not be more relevant to the world (and Wikipedia). It had been my intention to continue to add to my initial edits over time: I am rather time poor and do not often have the space to rummage around on wiki pages, so drip feeding edits is my best alternative. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggerit (talk • contribs) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to see you have creating a user ID rather than using an IP address. The articles need considerable improvement without any question. There is also a poverty of secondary sources on which WIkipedia normally relies. I am aware of work on Judgement more than Wisdom, especially when wisdom (management or otherwise) is viewed from the DIKW perspective, or not strongly distinguished from that. Happy to look at the bibliography if you email it and curious as to the major names you reference and the nature of what they are doing. I sit on the editorial panels of three of the major KM journals and in my experience the field is regressing if anything. You can't reference your own work as progressive (which is what you did and the main reason for my reversal), you do have to use third party sources for such claims. Running the same edits over multiple pages is nearly always a mistake. Pick on a major page and see how other editors respond before propagating. That said propagating references to your own views and your own book will always get reversed if detected. I monitor the KM pages as a SME but I have not and will not carry out major edits as I am one of the players in the field and have to respect the need for neutrality. --Snowded TALK 08:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Snowded. For what it is worth, I also sense that KM is regressing -- and like you I review a lot of journal submissions. It certainly is not going ahead in leaps and bounds. I will email you the bibliography tomorrow when I get back to work (it is long but searchable) and I will also point you to some other recent work that I was not able to cover extensively in the book (time and the publishers patience ran out). There is also a collection of exciting new works by well known people due out late this year/early next year covering organisational wisdom, knowledge management, knowledge policy, knowledge economies and knowledge societies that I will give you a heads up on. I have changed my signature to my first name now (instead of my username). Cheers David (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible flagged protection on Martin Heidegger

Hi, I see you've been active fighting the sockpuppetry on Martin Heidegger. Since we're about to have a trial-run of the "pending changes" feature, I'm wondering if you think it would benefit this article at all. I started a discussion on the article's talk page about this if you want to participate there. ThemFromSpace 09:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Query

Remind you of anyone? --John (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It did, but the creation date of the account caused me to pause when I was about to lodge an SPI Worth a checkuser--Snowded TALK 05:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I have requested an SPI concerning an editor with whom you are familiar.[1] If you have any evidence that could assist in this please provide it. TFD (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm briefly on the web in transit in Auckland airport - will have limited access this weekend, but will catch up Sunday night--Snowded TALK 18:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

I was wondering if you'd mind please explaining why you deleted the link that I added to the entry for Neurolinguistic programming. Both my addition and your deletion were on June 10th. The link I added was to a page created by one of the founders of NLP, David Gordon, a former collaborator of Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and others. The page that I linked to was this one: http://www.expandyourworld.net/chapter1.php That page is a good overview of modelling, a concept that is central to NLP. It was my first post here so any pointers to protocol would be useful. Gerrymorgan (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)]

In my judgement it was a promotional page, regardless of the status of the author. WIkipedia is about third party sources. I'll pop a welcome note on your page (if no one else has) and that will have links to editing guidance. --Snowded TALK 02:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

English people

Please see Talk:English people#Entropy 2 as it is a continuation of a conversation about content I thought we had agreed upon, a point (that there was agreement) that is being disputed by another editor. Anyway your thoughts on this would help clarify the point. -- PBS (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right - have reverted --Snowded TALK 06:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR

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

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)
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)
Please do - anything I can do to help, let me know --Snowded TALK 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I also believe it's a good idea to reinstate. --HighKing (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Will do - thanks --Snowded TALK 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

British Isles

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

I'd like to revert your change [2] 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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

And how do you find adding sourced information disruptive editing? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

FYI

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Please don't I'd have to apply for German citizenship ... --Snowded TALK 06:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
What led you to conclude that they were 'supporting' England? Daicaregos (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
True! Although I didn't hear cheering at England's uselesness when I passed through towns. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Portugal not Spain I think, small country with a large arrogant next door neighbour..... --Snowded TALK 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I live next to Avebury so its difficult not to be into archaeology --Snowded TALK 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Secrets of Stonehenge, C4, November 2009. [5] 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)
Thanks, will search that out when I get back to the UK --Snowded TALK 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Then make a proposal don't stir the pot --Snowded TALK 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The direct approach, eh? It might just work. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_18&oldid=1136140376"