Jump to content

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 24

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


Jakew

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=6

Looks like we're not the only people who think he's being tendentious. Vietminh (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Heading for a topic ban ... --Snowded TALK 21:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I commented with my experience with him, I was not aware that he was an activist outside of Wikipedia, that simultaneously explains everything and creates a serious problem. Its good to get this all out in the open though, I was disappointed to see that Quadell and Jayjg were on there defending him. Quadell miraculously appeared out of the RfC to support Jakew, and I've seen Jayjg do the same on other pages. He must be coordinating with like minded people off-site. Vietminh (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there conflict of interest evidence or of meat puppetry? --Snowded TALK 22:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of interest yes, meat puppetry maybe, I think what I have seen alone is too little to make an accusation of meat puppetry. All I know is he seems to have a bunch of editors that follow him around and initiate discussions after he says outside editors need to comment. Its suspicious, but that in itself isn't proof. I just wanted it to be known that the same people who are defending him there are the same people who show up at the right time to support him. If other people have seen this I assume they will make light of it as well and evidence could be brought forth if more exists. Vietminh (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well if there are diffs that show a following pattern it can be taken as evidence of meat puppetry. Raising a case can at least deter editors --Snowded TALK 22:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack

Please remove this personal attack from Talk:Northern Ireland. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not an attack, you do have a 100% consistent record of editing from a Unionist perspective. You appear proud of it. I thought the point I made was valid, trying to explain to a new be editor that he needs to use third party sources. --Snowded TALK 23:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
In Snowded's defence it's not worded as a personal attack. Although I find it strange that someone who in the past has made a point of removing content that questioned another's motives would in turn make such a statement. —WFC— 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The point being made is the need to use sources and Mooretwin's knee-jerk response deleting a republican newspaper was an illustration. To anyone familiar with this range of articles it was not controversial --Snowded TALK 05:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It is an attack. You are accusing me of "editing from a Unionist [sic] perspective" - something that is against WP policy and not true. The irony of your attack is incredible - you - without a third-party source - inserted a gratuitous reference to a low-circulation Irish republican propaganda newspaper - when I removed it, you accuse me of POV editing. You couldn't make it up. You appear to mistake editing in favour of NPOV (which means tackling nationalist bias) as editing from a unionist POV. Remove the offensive comment please. If you do not do so within 24 hours I will remove it myself. Thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)����
Sorry Mooretwin, as far as I can see you have never made any secret of your particular perspective and I used your deletion of an Irish Republican newspaper as an example of the need for sources. Notice I removed "propaganda" from your description. The simply fact is that on any of these articles without a reliable third party source we will get politically or culturally motivated edit warring and please don't pretend you have not had [extensive involvement] in that. If you want to delete the comment, and bring more attention to it feel free. As far as I am concerned the point has been made. --Snowded TALK 09:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting sucked into an edit war is not the same as POV editing. Please stop these accusations NOW and get a bit of self-awareness. If I have "never made a secret" of bias as you claim, I'll be delighted to see numerous diffs of such boasts that I have allegedly made. What I don't make a secret of is opposition to bias and support of NPOV. That means removing nationalist bias and confronting the nationalist editing group (if there was much unionist bias about I'd be removing it too, as I have done on the few occasions that I have encountered it). Mooretwin (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The odd one yes Mooretwin, but that record of blocks indicates a basic pattern. As to your removing bias however it appears I really look forward to witnessing that, when it happens. --Snowded TALK 09:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It indicates a pattern of being prepared, in pursuit of NPOV, to confront the nationalist editing group. You need to get reflect on your own bias if you equate opposing nationalist POV with supporting unionist POV. Look at my editing history for numerous examples of removing bias.
If you don't remove your personal attacks you will be revealed as a hypocrite who is quick to rebuke others but does not practise what he preaches. Mooretwin (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah the terrible nationalist conspiracy theory is now brought into play. Sorry Mooretwin I've got the scars of working with you and a few others over the years and I'm not naive enough to buy that. I am sure "hypocrite" is not the worst epithet you can or will throw. The fact that within minutes of posting here you changed the name of the Irish state against convention, but made no mention of something you know is controversial in the edit summary is indicative of your style and approach. --Snowded TALK 10:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The irony grows. I edit in support of IMOS, you breach IMOS and then complain about my edit. There was no controversy in my edit which supports IMOS as clearly as is possible. You seriously need to reflect on your own bias, as you appear blind to it. (And if you were been unable to discern a concerted campaign - now thankfully diminished - by a group of nationalist editors (they don't need to be named), then that also reflects poorly on your ability to be objective.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Mooretwin, my understanding is that the criteria links to any danger of confusion. But I could be wrong, raise it on the talk page. Otherwise your opinion of my bias, ability to reflect and self-awareness, while of minor interest is unlikely to make any impact. Its all to do with respect really --Snowded TALK 10:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It is no surprise to me that my comments will have little impact on you. In fact, that pompous response just reinforces my impression of you, as described above. Mooretwin (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tolkein once said that "the praise of the praiseworthy is praise indeed", in this case .... --Snowded TALK 10:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Breach of IMOS

Please self revert your recent edits at Northern Ireland, which are in clear breach of WP:IMOS. See the second bullet point at WP:IRE-IRL. (Ironic that you should make these edits while accusing me of bias.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Where there is no risk of confusion the proper name of the country should be used, but make your case on the talk page. its not a big issue either way --Snowded TALK 10:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The guideline couldn't be clearer. It doesn't require discussion. Show yourself to be reasonable and self-revert, please. Mooretwin (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Raise it on the talk page Mooretwin, and I'll abide by a majority decision --Snowded TALK 10:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
How could you do otherwise but abide by a majority decision? The irredentists are in the majority, after all. Mooretwin (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I love this irredentist label and its link to redemption if you look at the Italian roots. However I don't think the facts really back you up. All of that aside, amusing as these exchanges can be, in the immortal words of the Times, this correspondence must now cease. You can raise issues on the talk page and as stated above you have my permission to bring attention to yourself by deleting my comments on you if you really feel the need. --Snowded TALK 10:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

List of national anthems

I know you and others are not trying to say Wales is a UN member, but the way the current list is structured, a new section must be made or a section must be renamed so it just doesn't say "UN members." I have no problems seeing Wales on the list, but as someone who deals with a lot of articles/lists like this; consistency on who is on this list is questionable. Gallery of coat of arms is on UN members, national flags is almost like our list (but listed from countries and countries w/ no recognition) and we are the only one who has the Bengazhi Libyan Government put on the same level as, lets say, Kosovo. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I take a consistent line on all of these. So if something is a list of countries, then it includes Wales, if it's a list of soverign states then it doesn't. Here e article is heading national anthems so any country with a national anthem, which can be verified, is in the list. Relative size of the entity is an irrelevance - some non-sovereign countries are bigger than UN states for example. Adding notes or creating sub- categories are all options but that should be discussed on the talk page --Snowded TALK 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
To remove another person's comments without permission is blockable. Restore them immediately. —WFC— 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Commenting on editors motivations and not addressing content issues is against wikipedia rules. I deleted them as they were likely to provoke a reaction and they were very unhelpful. Please calm down and address the simple question of one list or several and avoid commenting on other editors. This is not a major issue and some of us are trying to resolve it. --Snowded TALK 00:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I intended to response at your Suggestion sube-section of that article's title, therefore I've restored the sub-section. Just letting ya know, I don't wish to get involved in the 'refactoring' disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - we seem to have a little throwing of rattles out of prams there at the moment --Snowded TALK 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I figured out what the main issue is. Wales is a sub-division of the UK, so that is what the one user is getting at is why Wales should be put on the same level as, lets say, Canada, even though Canada is a country and Wales is a subdivision. However, FIFA does treat Wales as a sporting country and there is no denying that "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" is introduced as the National Anthem of Wales. The British Government, to a degree, recognize "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" as the Welsh National Anthem in the terms of citizenship ceremonies and Royal Visits. Myself personally, I should learn "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" as a descendant of the Welsh. But I personally think that, unless we really define this list and understand the scope, I am not sure how we can please everyone. I still think Wales should be on the list, but has to be done the right way. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We also have sources that clearly establish that Wales (and Scotland etc.) are countries. This has been through mediation and is properly sourced. Its not a matter of levels - there are some nation states smaller in all ways than Scotland for example. Its about what is or is not a national anthem per the sources. Fully agree it has to be done the right way. --Snowded TALK 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

SPA

I know, but it was a ref that I haven't seen elsewhere so I thought it worth adding. Fmph (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well sooner or later s/he will do something that will show a pattern. --Snowded TALK 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We all do things that we later regret ....Fmph (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
All too true --Snowded TALK 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted edi

Look snowed, if you really feel that the three comments all surrounding multi's slur at me help the argument talk page, by all means campaign to keep them there, but I'm really interested to know why you feel so strongly as to re-revert something I'm pretty sure you know is a bunch of tosh? Alexandre8 (talk)

I have deleted comments which are purely personal attacks on other pages when they are likely to inflame a response. This however is an old conversation and its not really a personal attack. Its also an exchange that needs to be on the record. All you are doing by deleting it so long after the event is drawing attention to the pretty "tosh" like statement from you that you claim not remember a block and to deny its validity because someone else was also blocked at the same time. --Snowded TALK 19:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't just deleted multi's personal comment, but everything surrounding it which really just spoils the page. I don't deny it, I just don't remember it. a 24 hour block is very likely to go unmissed because I don't log in every day. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You can't miss a block, please --Snowded TALK 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you're overestimated my careface about it lol. It was 24 hours sometime back in march and when it was brought to attention I honestly forgot it even existed so much i never even knew i had one. What's the difference anyway? Alexandre8 (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Its normal for a notice to be placed on your talk page, I can't be bothered to go and check that but I would be surprised if it were not the case. Otherwise when an experienced editor or two references something then it would have taken a couple of clicks to very the position. That wold have prevented you being called out telling a lie which is what happened. --Snowded TALK 06:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's only a lie when you know waht you're saying is wrong. I keep telling you I didn't know I had it, still what is the difference?Alexandre8 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Next time if an experienced editor says something about you, assume they have checked the facts and do so yourself. If you look at your contributions you can click on the block log. --Snowded TALK 13:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Right got you, thanks. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

please cite the policy you used to revert the word Nationalsozialismus, which was used in a book in 1834.

you have cited no policy, nor did you challenge the source. Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, page 36. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the discussion thread and bear in mind that scattering quotes without proper secondary sources is original research --Snowded TALK 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
it is not a quote, rather a word in a book printed in 1834. the section is titled etymology, which means 1st known use. the only claim i made was it was in a book, i provided the source, which you have not challenged. WP does not require a secondary source to verify a word is printed in a book. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You use is OR Darkstar1st you may only be quoting it but you are using it to make a point, and that requires secondary sources. Read up WP:OR--Snowded TALK 09:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
i have read OR. i am not quoting anyone, i am stating a fact, and have supplied a source which verified the fact the word appeared in a book. no point is being made, a fact is being added to the relevant section. either prove the fact is false, or the source is unreliable. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I will accept you have read it but I don't think you have understood it. Facts need to be part of a secondary source which draws out the conclusions so I am afraid I will not be taking up your challenge --Snowded TALK 09:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Facts need to be part of a secondary source which draws out the conclusions, not in the OR section, did you mean a different policy? the only challenge i issued was plz tell me which policy you meant to cite when you removed the passage. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Its OR Darkstar1st now please go and bother someone else I have work to do --Snowded TALK 09:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Plurals(?) for sports teams

Thanks for your contributions in the recent matter of McAusten. Now that the dust is settling on the issue of his behaviour, I'm interested in sorting out the original matter of whether to treat sports teams as singular or plural entities.

Do you know if this has already been formally addressed at Wikipedia in any depth? (I guess I'd expect that it would have been.) I found a little mention in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Grammar. It's interesting that a small group of Australians swung towards the singular usage (obviously not unanimously!) while UK and US usage seems to favour the plural. So, any ideas on where to look? HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He does appeared to have disappeared in a minor whirlwind of dust; the Djinn of dessert had no need to impose a hump as it was self created. As to your question I'm not aware of any discussion but I don't tend to frequent the style and template pages unless drawn into them by some dispute on main pages. You could raise it there or simply open up an RfC (got it right that time) and gain comments. All normal use in the UK and US is as you say to personalize the references. --Snowded TALK 09:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

I'm confused. You added a post after my post-erasure & yet it shows your addition as a revert of my erasure (see talkpage's history). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, messy and apologies. I am on a deadline to get a load of crap out of the way and pack and get some sleep before an 0400 departure ....
Hopefully I made it right --Snowded TALK 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
No probs, world traveller. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

i shall eat a different hat and video my progress.

i will raise the challenge to 2 hats if you can tell me the earliest recorded occurrence of the term national socialist, or socialist have fun in central america, i was in costa rica 3 months last year, had a blast! Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I may take that up, but not today - and its Columbia by the way --Snowded TALK 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
great Jehoshaphat, please be very careful! a few tips if you dont already know.
1. leave your watch, rings and bling at home.
2. wear the most plain clothes you own, try not to look wealthy, or even almost wealthy.
3. only get into new cabs with new paint and the government tag on the door.
4. be indoors and locked up by night, or at the latest 10 pm.
5. plan on getting pick-pocked, sometimes they wont even try to hide it while they pick you, if this happens, keep your mouth shut. any convo with the federalies with end with you paying them $20, $50 if you are doing anything wrong. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm being picked up at the airport and escorted, also not going beyond Bogota but thanks for the concern! --Snowded TALK 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
smart man!
ps, the reason you cant answer my question is because you dont know, and neither does anyone editing wikipedia except me evidently. the reason you dont know is every time i try to post the date of the 1st recorded occurrence of either it gets redacted for some reason yet explained in discussion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Even if I knew, I wold not post it. You need someone who has looked at the sources and links them with commentary. --Snowded TALK 19:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

British Isles

Please be careful of reverting any further on British Isles - you're at the line of 3RR, and there is no exemption from that for "enacting talk page consensus" or the like. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a long history of IP vandalism on that page, and this was no exception. Even with vandalism I would normally stop at 3 and leave it to others to pick up which is what happened. If you are watching the article then a bit of semi-protection may be called for if it goes on --Snowded TALK 13:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Grammatically, either "is" or "are" can be used, depending on context. "The BI is an archipelago" - OK. "The BI is surrounded by the Atlantic" - not OK. It's a matter of style, and a content dispute (an irritating one) - it's certainly not "vandalism", in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Possibly Ghymrtle, but a newly created IP from an Irish location not using the talk page? Sorry, too many scars --Snowded TALK 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Possibly you're right, but we should AGF even there. One of the big, big, current problems with WP is too many established editors acting on the basis of what they think is correct on the basis of their past "scars" and "histories", rather than trying to take each edit on its merits - and so putting off all the newbies.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
All they had to do was take it to talk, instead we got three reverts and possibly a different IP used the first time. I agree we should be nice to newcomers, but that can and has been exploited too many times to be taken without some qualification --Snowded TALK 14:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes but genuine newbies often don't know that, won't be aware of the article history, and don't necessarily take kindly to being bossed around or being called "vandals". I'm sure neither of us did when we started, either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed for genuine newbes and I confess I am becoming less and less tolerant of one off IPS over time :-) --Snowded TALK 15:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

EDL

Can you comment on the list of proposed changes I've put on the talk page? Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It may not be for a few days. I 'm dealing with a mixture of the [loss of a good friend and too many projects on critical deadlines. I haven't looked at Wikipedia for a few days and it was only an email alert to your comment here that brought be back. --Snowded TALK 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving towards a stable solution at Talk:List of national anthems

I'd be grateful if you could comment on the accuracy of this comment. In my heart of hearts, I don't think that a consensus on the list's future is going to be reached without going to a wider RfC. But if we can first show that (despite at times heated arguments) we have come as close to agreement as we were ever likely to, we will at least be laying the groundwork for a relatively good-natured RfC, and hopefully a structure on which we can all agree and which will be likely to produce a stable outcome. I have posted an identical talk page message to the two other editors I mentioned in that diff. Regards, —WFC— 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: by "structure" I was referring to the structure of the RfC. —WFC— 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that.

I'm sorry to hear of your recent bereavement Snowded. It'll be good for you to cut back here and you'll come back all the stronger. Carson101 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Carson, will leave policing extreme unionist edits to you and others for a few weeks! --Snowded TALK 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my sincere condolences, Snowded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hope to seeya back soon, Snowy. You're tough & you'll bounce back. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My condolences. Sorry to hear about your loss. Hope to hear talk page feedback from you soon. Pass a Method talk 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCombinding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Looking for an expert in Philosophy!

Hello!


My name is Gabriel, and I represent a startup company called Planeto (http://planeto.com).

We are currently developing a new type of community we call the Planeto Knowledge Network.


We all have knowledge and interests in various forms, of different topics and areas. We might even be experts at something. Our Knowledge Network is an attempt to gather and connect people who have a passion, and would love to share that passion by communicating their insights and knowledge with other people with similar interests.


I found you here at Wikipedia, and thought you would be a nice candidate to join the invite-only beta and manage a domain of knowledge regarding Philosophy, which you might be quite proficient of considering your B.A. degree in the subject!


Sounds interesting? Send me a mail to gabriel@planeto.com and I'll invite you to our closed beta!


Have a nice day :)

Zedekiel (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Long time no see

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

I'll be back soon. I lost a very close colleague to cancer and then fell ill myself (nothing too serious) but I am now back on my feet. The problem is (i) I am on a nine week trip that involves Australia, Singapore and the Americas and (ii) I am way behind on the book, two articles and a client project. When those are cleared I will be back. If there is anything urgent ping me and I will respond. THanks for asking --Snowded TALK 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear of your close colleague. Cancer is a horrible and unfortunately too common a disease. I am glad that you have recovered from your own illness and look forward to seeing you back. Carson101 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back. Some things never change, I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You've got to feel sorry for him. I had a three hour layover in LAX last night and almost emailed him to meet up :-) --Snowded TALK 23:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me guess: Irvine22. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice

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

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

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

CS Lewis

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

Please note Snowded, that this editor just finished an extended block for evading his block over edit warring at the C.S. Lewis article. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I will look at it as a content issue and take it from there. To be honest GoodDay, you are just know how to avoid formal edit warring. --Snowded TALK 02:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Sheodred, is likely a sock of an indef blocked editor. How could he have known about your sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Duh - s/he only had to look at your talk page, where the sandbox is thoughfully signposted. Daicaregos (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
...as well as here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
VintageKits always springs to mind as the sock-master involved due to the matter involved, wouldn't be the first sock this year they'd have blocked for the same issue on other articles, anyone remember Ruiari Og's? Other than stating the obviousness that this request is canvassing, doesn't User:Snowded/GoodNight quite possibly equate to a personal attack page or a page that can be used for ad hominem purposes in other arguements to detract from any quite possibly rational and reasonable arguements from GoodDay in the future? In fact i'd say that unless that page has official sanction, then GoodDay has quite a good cause for complaint. Mabuska (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
He is very welcome to complain. Personally I think its a lot more honest to collate evidence in public, rather than in private. I think he likes the attention to be honest, he's even contributed to it  :-) --Snowded TALK 11:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have one more thing to clarify, I have not engaged in sockpuppetry of any kind, what I did was not "canvassing" I expressed nothing as to how I think the article should be changed on Snowded's talk page,I merely highlighted an issue, you just don't like the fact I highlighted it to a well-meaning and accomplished editor who can look past all your prejudices, the other editors besides you Mabuska and GoodDay will know that I am not the editor you accuse me of bein from looking at the meaningful contributions I made before, so I suggest, you think before you type and make deliberate false accusations, I suggest you both get a life. Sheodred out. Sheodred (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS would say otherwise. Also you got blocked for edit-warring with several editors, and then going by the fact an admin lengthened your block for IP-socking to continue the edit-war, that its not a false accusation. Just for the record i wasn't involved in the edit-war, it's pointless.
@ Snowded - True enough i guess, though whilst it may be a sandpit, the instance i added the dubious tag to was because i think it is a dubious instance as it doesn't appear to be provocation and i didn't want to be rude and just delete it from your sandpit.
Mabuska (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
And if it ever gets posted to ANI (hopefully never) then that will be the time. I'm just keeping things there so that if there is a need I have the evidence and can go through it to create a case. Not all material would be used. Others are welcome to post there --Snowded TALK 12:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I only posted 'twice' on your sandbox & 'once' on your sandbox talkpage. On your sandbox, I erroneously corrected one of the charges & later reverted. A few days ago, I deleted a post mistakenly - thinking I was at the Ireland Collaboration Project page. My post at your sandbox talkpage, was deleted by you. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Sheodred returns, via IP. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It may be that Sheodred was indeed evading a block. Surely the only way to confirm that has already been suggested. An SPI. Carson101 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

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

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

A request

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

You edit four articles in parallel with a provocative suggestion that the maps be UK only, then you change your position to just wanting the world map removed and claim it was a mistake? Pull the other one its got bells on it. You were bored and sought to find something to provoke conflict. Classic GoodDay --Snowded TALK 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant the World maps. I do make mistakes, Snowded. If you wanna keep breaching AGF, then that's your choice. But keep it 'off' the public talkpages. Right now, what you're doing there is bordering on harrassment. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You say very clearly on each article that you want UK only GoodDay, that is not a mistake, especially as you repeat the point in discussion. THen suddenly at the end you say you meant something else? Its either an attempt to stir up some conflict, or you are stupid. I'm going with the former option and yes, its a zero tolerance approach. I note I was not the first to mark it up in the sandbox so you might want to think on that. --Snowded TALK 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You're looking for a battle with me on those public talkpages, but I'm not falling for it. Go ahead & continue attacking me. It's only hurting you - not me. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for you to stop stirring the pot with trivia GoodDay, and you know that is the feeling of a large body of editors. --Snowded TALK 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

GoodNight sandbox & WP:HARASSMENT

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

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

You may wish to consider the advice given at the top of your own talkpage: "My talkpage ... If anybody is offended by what occurs at my talkpage? Do yourselves a favour & remove my talkpage from your watchlists. If you don't like the show, turn the channel." Daicaregos (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Why should I? It's advice to those who wish to harrass me & cause drama. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

MfD nomination of User:Snowded/GoodNight

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

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

Well I can't see it. Recording notes of another editor's behaviour, using language which would be a legitimate part of an RfC is not polemic. Of course I may have missed your reference here but the definition under "polemic" does not cover the content and if you are seriously suggesting that it does then I commend you to WP:AGF. Now if GoodDay has moved from liking the attention to page provided to finding it problematic then that might change the position. But that is a community decision not a matter of policy. --Snowded TALK 11:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Snowded, hope all is well with you. Some editors do have a tendency of "often pouring flammable liquids into open fires". Still our hands are tied by civility, the project can not afford even an appearance of a personal attack. Therefore, given the circumstances, I tend to agree with causa sui's opinion expressed here. Would you consider to tag the page yourself for WP:CSD#U1 ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's in the second and third item. (The first item clearly doesn't apply.) The first sentence of the second item explicitly defines "material that can be viewed as attacking" as including "the recording of perceived flaws". The second sentence is tailored to precisely what you are doing, and makes it clear that this is allowed only if used for dispute resolution "in a timely manner". The third item generalises this principle further, stating: "Negative evidence [...], collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used [...]".
I am not sure how the plain language can be interpreted not to cover the present case, but in any case it is customarily interpreted as covering similar cases. If you doubt it, you could just ask a random arbitrator, for example. Of course borderline cases such as this (I am calling it borderline because pro forma it's not directed at a specific user, and the user who appears negatively in most diffs actually contributed constructively) are normally tolerated so long as nobody complains. Hans Adler 11:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to set up something offline - although I notice that a few editors want to keep the page in the open. Whatever its late at night in Hobart and I have just had to deal with yet another Troll elsewhere so I am going to bed. I'll look at it again in the morning and if the balance of opinion stays the same I will delete it. --Snowded TALK 12:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

NLP

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

Are you involved on a commercial basic with this issue? If you are why don't you take a step back and let uninvolved users edit there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no commercial interest and that accusation has been discussed before and resolved if you bother to check. I do have expertise in the area, so I have been very careful to ensure I use third party material. The page also has many NLP practitioners and advocates editing it if you check. In the meantime you are involving yourself in supporting an edit warrior inserting OR and not engaging on the talk page. I suggest you try and be a little more objective and don't allow your ongoing campaign against my involvement in WIkipedia to cloud your judgement. --Snowded TALK 21:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded's Conflict of Interest (COI)

You state on Wikipedia that cognitive-edge.com is your website,[1] and claim that it doesn't compete with neuro-linguistic programming,[2], a hotly contested page on Wikipedia you regularly edit daily.[3]

Yet you reveal on your website a very direct conflict of interest. According to Wikipedia, Editors who disguise conflicts of interest create a perception that they and their company are trying to distort Wikipedia.[4] Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged and can lead administrative intervention to block your account as a result.[5]

Your business derives revenue virtually the same way as neuro-linguistic programming businesses. You provide seminars and accreditation[6] in your methodology for use in organizations.[7] Neuro-linguistic programming companies derive their revenue that way, by providing seminars and accreditation based on a methodology.[8]

Also your Cognitive-Edge and neuro-linguistic programming are principally concerned with the mind. "[Cognitive Edge] approach draws primarily on insights from the cognitive sciences,"[9] or the scientific study of mind and its processes.[10] Neuro-linguistic programming, on the other hand, is an approach to psychotherapy.[11]

The perception of similarity you openly acknowledge is problematic for you. You state that Cognitive Edge methodology is "frequently" conflated with neuro-linguistic programming.[12] Such conflation is very expensive because your seminars/accreditation sell for over a thousand euros per attendee.[6] Popular neuro-linguistic programming seminars and accreditation also sell for over a thousand euros per attendee.[13] When people believe neuro-linguistic programming is the same (or better than?) Cognitive Edge, you lose.

In one example described on your website, you met with IT professionals to discuss methodologies. You became upset because they preferred a neuro-linguistic programming seminar instead of yours.[14] You ridicule them by calling neuro-linguistic programming seminars they attended "indoctrinations" and "torture."[15]

Your conflict of interest is obvious. Your statements to the contrary were totally misleading, and violated the spirit of cooperation in this community.[4][5] Wikipeida points out that this can lead to blocks and other issues. See: Wikipedia is in the real world</ref> --Encyclotadd (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are about as confused on this as on other matters. Your accusation has been raised before and was not supported by the community. Like many people I regard NLP as a pseudo-science and in many ways a cult. I am fully entitled to make those comments off wiki. If you can find any edit of mine where I did not follow proper process in my edits on the NLP you might have a case. Happy hunting. You might also want to declare your interest, and if you have any help in compiling the above. It smacks of some of the meat puppetry sites --Snowded TALK 08:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the "You might also want to declare your interest". It is clear that NLP is E's only interest on wiki, yet I have seen no statement as to E's real-world interest. S has been honest as to his, and E's failure to be similarly honest is not creditable William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible that Encycloatdd himself, might be in CoI? GoodDay (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

revert count

By my count, Yworo's warning came 3 minutes after Sheodred's 3rd revert, not his second one. Why do you think Sheodred only reverted twice? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong (its very early in the morning) but I only saw two on that cycle. My point was that the two of them are just sparking off each other and getting no where. --Snowded TALK 20:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Checked and amended. Personally if an admin I would be tempted to tell them both to stop editing the article for a few days and agree changes on the talk page. Escalating templates are never a good sign --Snowded TALK 20:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A cat too far?

Leaving aside whether the inclusion of Portal:Ireland is appropriate or not, can you see the point of Category:United Kingdom portals, created without discussion yesterday? Daicaregos (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Polling policies

Please point out exactly where in policy it says that a person starting a poll cannot set the rules of the poll. Also show me where policy states that a poll must allow oppose votes. WP:POLL seems to say that the poll should be well-defined and should not be changed once polling starts, which would allow my poll to continue as started. Yworo (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Point out where it does say it. Otherwise read the notice at the bottom of every page. Normally the terms of polls are agreed by editors on the page. I suggest you try and work with other editors rather than telling him how things should be. --Snowded TALK 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This is about process, not content, and you have nothing to support you position. Disruptive comments may be removed from talk pages, and making an oppose vote in a place where it was excluded in advance is disruptive. Nothing supports your reversal of this process. The notice on the bottom of the page says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Clearly, this this allows my removal just a much as anything else and is not an argument that supports your position at all. You are clutching at straws. Show me the policy that says I can't define the rules of a poll or that a poll must include the option for an oppose vote. You've make both claims and I assert that these claims are not based in policy. Show me the policy or desist with your disruption of other people's polls. Yworo (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As your name has been mentioned...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You made an inaccurate statement at ANI. I posted the poll first. You posted about the style guideline nearly an hour later. Yworo (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
my comment clearly references your deleting opposes and editing the article, not setting up the poll. Given that you seem to be digging yourself into a pit an ANI I will give you a chance to retract before I post a reply.--Snowded TALK 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. That thread is dead and may as well be closed. You are getting nearly incomprehensible though, so go for it. Yworo (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Not watching your talk page or C. S. Lewis any longer either. Ciao! Yworo (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You may not be watching the admins, but they are watching you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
IPad editing in a a rush at Sydney airport - predictive test screwed things up. Snowded TALK 09:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
All iPads and iPhones should have a one-button push that posts "Excuse my last message - the Apple Predeictive Text screwed it up". --HighKing (talk) 16:01, 21 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

That's a non-denial denial if ever I heard one. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
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)

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

Please see:

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

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)

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)
No probs. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I appreciate that, Jeanne. Right now, I'm bewildred by the hostility I'm facing here. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)
Mentoring simply won't work - [2]. I think we've got beyond that stage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
Jeanne, I agree. Why don't you firm up your proposal --Snowded TALK 08:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
I've already accepted the idea of a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ [Owns Cognitive-Edge.com "User Talk Snowded"]. Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. This user has a website, which can be found here http://www.cognitive-edge.com {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help); Check |url= value (help); External link in |quote= (help)
  2. ^ "NLP Discussion". Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. 21:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC). Retrieved 2011-11-13. Oh and I don't compete with NLP by the way {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Snowded Contribs". Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  4. ^ a b "Conflict of Interest". Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.
  5. ^ a b "Conflict of Interest". Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked.
  6. ^ a b "CE Registration". Cognitive-edge.com. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. Two day accreditation course 1205 euros {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  7. ^ "What We Do". Cognitive-Edge. Cognitive-edge.com. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. Cognitive Edge is focused on rejuvenating management practices to better equip organisations......comprised of open source methods, original research and the Cognitive Edge SenseMaker® Software Suite {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  8. ^ Jon Ronson (20 May 2006). "Don't worry, get therapy". The Guardian.
  9. ^ "Operating Principles". Cognitive-Edge. Cognitive-edge.com. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. Our approach draws primarily on insights from the cognitive sciences... {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  10. ^ "Cognitive Science". Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary scientific study of mind and its processes. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  11. ^ "Neuro-linguistic programming". Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to psychotherapy, {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  12. ^ "1 Peter 5:8". Cognitive-Edge. Cognitive-edge.com. Posted by Dave Snowden on July 13, 2008 8:27 PM. Retrieved 2011-11-13. One of my real concerns here is the frequent conflation of Cognitive Edge methods with NLP {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ Jon Ronson (20 May 2006). "Don't worry, get therapy". The Guardian.
  14. ^ "robotic systems require robots". Cognitive-Edge. Cognitive-edge.com. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. From there to a meeting with one of a growing number of IT professionals who believe that their role in life is to reduce complexity by making it simple. In practice they are talking about complicated systems, not complex ones and being simplistic, not simple. If its complex you dare not simplify, you need to manage the ecology of the system not engineer an ideal solution. Faced with one of those idealised engineering drawings in which disparate systems are integrated by a centralised control system and repository I asked a simple question: how are you going to get humans to work that system? It's predicated on ideal behaviour from all participants. His response was to argue for the benefits of all employees being run through a two day NLP indoctrination training session. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
  15. ^ "robotic systems require robots". Cognitive-Edge. Cognitive-edge.com. 2011-11-13. Retrieved 2011-11-13. His response was to argue for the benefits of all employees being run through a two day NLP indoctrination training session. I gather one Dutch utility has inflicted this particular torture on all its employees. It probably works as well, anyone intelligent would leave. OK a robotic system needs mirroring robots!, but that is sub-human and sub-optimal. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |first= missing |last= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_24&oldid=1139336638"