User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 27

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

Article intros

Howdy Snowy. Was this edit allowable? Mais oui! reverted it, calling it a goodfaith edit, but then he seemed to suggest the opposite at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a good faith edit to me, but I also think you need to check policy. Looking at your talk page you are taking "I was told this, then I was told that" line which may very well be true. But what you should do is find the appropriate style sheet or policy guide and reference that. Its not my job to do that for you! Then if you are reversed you can reference guidelines rather than your experience ----Snowded TALK 05:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I could place that guideline in my edit-summary, gotcha. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Under WP:DATE, it's preffered that birthplaces & deathplaces be deleted from an article's intro when they're already in the infobox. Would I be violating my probation, if I carried this out? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This has got to stop. Even when doing a task that could be competently completed by a ZX81, he still manages to f up. It just beggars belief that this pathetic saga keeps going on and on without an end in sight.--Mais oui! (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Snowy. I'm going to avoid Scottish-related articles for a week, starting today. Mais oui! seems determined to give me grief, so it's best to take this route. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
OK can we please calm down. GoodDay: Firstly I said very clearly if you want to do a gnoming task then you need to quote policy and clear it. As far as I can see you ask me the question above but then make a edit this does not help. Find a couple of projects, post them here with the relevant policy and I will consult other editors to get their buy in BEFORE you start work. Secondly If another editor attacks you then give me a change to respond first don't react by accusing them of harassment.
I understand & expect that my edits will be heavily scutinized in these areas. I value this & find it helpful. However, Mais oui! antagonistic approach to me, isn't helpful. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen the suggestion from Rashers below? Good will there, suggest you pick up on it ----Snowded TALK 20:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll take up RT's suggestion, but will continue to avoid Scottish-related articles for a week. In the meantime, I would suggest that you, Steven or Dan, have a talk with Mais oui! GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't react if you are criticised like that, just leave it for me and for God's sake give me time to assess and respond. I have a business to run as well so it may be 12+ hours in come cases ----Snowded TALK 20:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Mais oui, I understand the frustration but it seems from the edit that he got the month-day sequence wrong using a North American norm. You don't object per se to the change just his formatting? So to check, now he knows that, are you OK with that edit on other articles? ----Snowded TALK 20:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

GoodDay has clearly decided not to heed all the wise counsel

Hardly a surprise, but the GoodDay daftness just knows no bounds. See his Talk. By the way, how long do we have to put up with a disruptive User who never adds anything substantive to the encyclopaedia? He seems to be a truly unique case. All the other disruptive users I have come across do at least have a silver lining, in that (at least occasionally) they create a useful new article, or substantively improve an existing one. In all his years here I have never seen anything even close to substantive work from GoodDay. And yet he feels the compulsion (I choose that word intentionally) to dick about with articles recently created by me. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the link - I can't see anything obvious ----Snowded TALK 10:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
OK I found it. As far as I can see his edit followed MOS:DASH and is the sort of gnoming activity he wants to do. What is the objection? (GOODDAY - STAY OUT OF THIS) ----Snowded TALK 12:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A tighter rein please

I am not sure how other editors view your "collaboration" with GoodDay on the NLP article. However I do think if you are genuine about mentoring, you should get him to back off. If you can convince Keung to back off with the cult slurs, you would might also convince other editors that you have sensible editing in mind. The article talk page could do without that sort of antagonism. LTMem (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm mentoring GoodDay on the B&I articles following his community ban. I'm not taking any special responsibility for what he chooses to do on the NLP one. Otherwise you would be best advised to stop advocating nonsensical conspiracy theories. AS to antagonism, I suggest you take the raft of logs out of your own eye before mentioning the motes in others.----Snowded TALK 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dave Snowden

Didn't know you had your own article. I've done a few minors on it - hope you don't mind. I can't sort out the date format (UK style) in the infobox. Maybe you could do it? Reg's The Roman Candle (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and it gets hit with vandalism from time to time if I upset some editors! Changes look good although I prefer 'authored" to written but that is personal. I monitor it but don't get involved unless its vandalism or plain wrong----Snowded TALK 13:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Co-authored it is then. I changed it back, and I worked out the date format. Pity about the vandalism you mention. I looked at the Prince William article to see how the date was done, and low and behold, that article has been vandalised as well, so I'll fix it now. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Saturday 2 February:

Just for your amusement Cheers!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 07:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Love it - and I will be there ----Snowded TALK 08:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

GoodDay, again

I bring to your attention a breach of conditions by your protégé for the lifting of his topic ban. I brought this to GoodDay's attention under the thread you had started (User talk:GoodDay#careful), but was referred to you. That it was a breach of # 4 - that he may make “No comments on talk page that express opinion without supporting references or argument” - is self-evident. Here are his comments: here (and here here and here and here and here). They are on talkpages. They express an opinion. Those opinions are not supported by references or argument. Q.E.D. GoodDay accepts no fault on his part. Consequently, he will inevitably repeat this behaviour. I ask therefore that his topic ban be re-instated as a preventative measure, unless and until he accepts this is against the conditions for lifting his ban and that it must not be repeated. Daicaregos (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

They are all the same type of comment and were made before I made a comment on his talk page about the borderline nature of them no contributing to the article. I think we need gentle correction here not draconian sanctions and please raise stuff here not on his talk page. It just inflames things. ----Snowded TALK 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I was aware that GoodDay had made his posts before your message on his talk page. You will note that I did not refer to the post you highlighted, but to those you hadn't covered. I did this because GoodDay appeared to show no acceptance that his actions had been contrary to the terms of lifting his ban, that he should not have posted such a message and that he should not post similar messages in future. This remains the case. I am at a loss to understand how you could consider them borderline, and you have offered no explanation. Please explain which of these statements is incorrect: 1 they are on talk pages; 2 they express an opinion; 3 those opinions are not supported by references or argument. Or have I misunderstood the terms in some other way. Daicaregos (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
They were not provocative in the way that he used to deliberately stir things up. So I think them borderline. Its my judgement but I could be wrong. You can ask the main "supervisor" if you want for a second opinion. ----Snowded TALK 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Rugby in Wales

On a Six-Nations-free weekend I have just finished re-reading your essay published last September, Dave. It has given me enormous pleasure to recollect the history you depict so lucidly. Your concluding paragraphs are all the more intriguing today than when they were composed.
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a 1st March deadline for the next one, but at least it will make more comfortable writing post Paris!----Snowded TALK 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Borderline cases

Howdy Snowded. I reverted edits I made at A) Black British - to avoid possible breach of Condition #1. B) Scrabble - If a British article: to avoid possible breach of Condition #2 & C) comments at Talk:List of countries with their first National Hockey League player - if construed as a British article: to avoid possible breach of Condition #3. Would you check these over to see if I've complied to the aforementions conditions, properly? GoodDay (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to check before tonight----Snowded TALK 08:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Understood. GoodDay (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The Black British edit was good, I've put it back. The Scrabble edit is fine too.. no harm in, no harm not. --HighKing (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I left a brief comment at WP:WALES, today. A comment that doesn't require a 'source'. Not sure if this breaches Condition #4, but if it does? I'll scratch it. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

its not brilliant. It asserts a position. What you should do is explain the precinct you cite and given some simple reasons why it should be followed. ----Snowded TALK 22:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That's the problem. How do I source that the proposed change I support, actually helps me better understand those names. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I scratched out the comment-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You were right to do so, but now you've unscratched it. Why? It's still unsupported by any argument. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Snowy just pointed out that I didn't have to scratch out a comment everytime it's challenged. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not the lack of sourcing that's the problem, it's the absence of any reasoned argument to back up the opinion: "No comments on talk page that express opinion without supporting references or argument". Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting confused, here. A supporting reference & a source are the same thing. How does one get a supporting reference to proove one doesn't understand Welsh? GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle's has it right. The whole idea GoodDay is not that you scratch something out the minute it is challenge, but you learn to do it properly. In this CAS the problem I s not the absence of a reference, but the absences of an argument. If you are unsure ask. Here first and I will help you word it. Be aware I am without my MacBook until Friday so I am working from the iPad with limited time ----Snowded TALK 05:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite. You don't always need a source to be able to construct an argument. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
(resp to both) My agrument is I don't understand Welsh & thus find the proposed addition of an English version helpful. GoodDay (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You need to really work at understanding this. As it stands its a random comment without argument of explanation. That is one of the things that irritates the hell out of other editors and was a part of your topic ban. You need to explain why you think your precedent applies and why it matters. ----Snowded TALK 12:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Howabout - "I'm an english-only reader & therefore I support the addition of an english-version of Welsh names, so to better understand the Welsh name of article's subject". GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
(e/c)So, you should say that in your comment. It's still only a personal opinion, rather than an argument, but I suppose it's better than nothing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I can only offer my own experience, however. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Try thinking about what would help most readers - not just you - and explain why. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If most readers are english-only such as me? then the addition of an english-version of a Welsh name, would indeed be helpful. What better way to educate an english-only readers, then having an english-version next to the welsh-version. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not discussing it with you here, just saying that that is the sort of argument you need to make, rather than just leaving expressions of your own personal opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I just placed my argument at WP:WALES, as to why I believe an english-version is helpful. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

You just removed 35k bytes from Clockwork Universe

Wouldn't it have been better to have taken your points one at a time? Just a thought...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really, Wikipedia is not a place for your personal thoughts and reflections. It was an essay, but it looks like you are going to have to learn the hard way about editing here which is a pity ----Snowded TALK 06:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

England

I've a third option for that article's intro. But, I'll refrain from (re-)introducing it :) GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's wise ----Snowded TALK 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

"Centre-left" Green Party

Hi,

You made an edit recently regarding whether the Green Party of England and Wales are "centre-left". I've just started a discussion about whether they are or not due to the numerous recent edits adding and removing this from the article. I'm letting you know about the discussion in case you want to get involved.

—me_and 10:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Thank you

Most helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure, I just happened to be passing but now have it on watch ----Snowded TALK 17:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is now in NPOV noticeboard

It can seen here. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless you should revert until it is resolved. You are heading for another ANI discussion with your attitude and that would be a pity ----Snowded TALK 09:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
First I'm going to assume that wasn't a veiled mafia-esque threat, but more to the point there weren't 3RR and its you're burden to prove inclusion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Wise up, you know 3rr is not an entitlement and you know about WP:BRD. Its not a threat its a prediction. Self-revert the category and participate in a discussion, the PoV tag references that You inserted it, you cannot then place the burden to reverse on another editor based on your interpretation of the criteria. I had hoped your last run in on these issues had taught you something. Evidently not ----Snowded TALK 09:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
For your sake (and for the discussion) I'll temporarily revert it until an opinion can be given but I still don't see it as a violation. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you ----Snowded TALK 09:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding inclusion of a subsection of Metaphilosophy in the article on Philosophy

An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Meta-epistemology

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Meta-epistemology, as the article was at AfD in April 2007 and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. I only did this to comply with policy and have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of the deletion nomination. If you still wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hello again, I noticed in your contribution history that you don't spend a great deal of time starting or contributing to Articles for deletion discussions. That's probably a good thing, but you do need to know that there are some procedures that need to be followed when opening such discussions. There is a 3-step process at WP:AFD, but I readily admit it can be confusing to someone who doesn't open many AfD discussions. Since your contribution history indicates you have Twinkle enabled on your account, the easiest way to ensure AfD nominations are properly completed is to use Twinkle to create them. That way, all you need to do is type up your rationale and the script takes care of the formatting and technical aspects for you (you should always follow the steps at WP:BEFORE whether you use Twinkle or open AfDs manually).

I have correctly re-nominated Meta-epistemology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta-epistemology (2nd nomination), properly formatted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metametaphysics, and added both to the 21 March AfD log. If you have any questions please let me know. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate you doing that. Its a process I am familiar with but I now know what to do! ----Snowded TALK 16:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

United Kingdom

Would I be allowed to 'vote' in Rob's poll? GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but avoid the sort of comments you have made in the past - OK? ----Snowded TALK 05:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There won't be any comments, just my name appearing in the poll itself. GoodDay (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That is precisely the sort of behaviour you should avoid. You need to explain any comments you make, and not simply "!vote". This has already been explained to you many, many times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it alright to explain to Rob, why I voted the way I did? His questionaire was incomplete. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
But comments like this don't explain why you think the way you do. Just saying that you're for something or against something, without giving a good reason, is precisely the sort of behaviour that gets you into trouble. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
My reason was, the Kingdom of Great Britain & the Kingdom of Ireland wer single entities, when the merged into the UK in 1801. But, it's irrelevant now. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, has to be a reason, that is argued within Wikipedia rules. Most people are standing off that vote as well which you might want to think about - and I should have said that to you before so apologies----Snowded TALK 12:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I scratched them all out, including the comments. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, but you need to work on ways to contibute on UK articles. Why not experiment below and I will crit as I think Ghmyrtle will. The idea of all this is for you to learn how, not to stop ----Snowded TALK 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I backed out 'cause when I feel a little pressure (like from Ghmyrtle), my instinct is to step-back. In the past, I tended to go into battle mode. It'll take time, but eventually I'll iron out my talkpage conduct. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW, that's not a critic of Ghmyrtle. He's been very patient with me. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Edits to philosophy/cogsci-related articles

Your attention and reverts of destructive edits are welcome. I have done some minor reverts, too (upon e.g. removal of Conceptual metaphor from Category:Cognitive science, removal of references to philosophy from Cognition). 㓟 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

John George Bowes

Howdy Snowy. Am I permitted to change Republic of Ireland to Ireland at this fellow's article? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

1812 - yes I would support that. Just be careful how you deal with any discussion, feel free to check here first ----Snowded TALK 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not working - will never work

Care to comment on this Snowded?

GoodDay - why? you know the sensitivities on country, why did you not raise this on the talk page? ----Snowded TALK 18:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the uproar here. I assumed that Countries of the United Kingdom was a more suitable & accurate article to wiki-link to. It's an article that 'both' of you helped create. If I had changed to [Countries of the United Kingdom|constituent countries] or simply [Constituent country|constituent countries]? then I'd understand the anger. Besides, Ghymrtle doesn't seem to mind that I altered his wik-link. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Its not an uproar its a question as to why you didn't raise it on the talk page first? ----Snowded TALK 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think it was needed to be raised. The preceding edits weren't raised at the talkpage, either. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The first three words there are the problem. You should know this is a sensitive issue, its one that you should have cleared first. ----Snowded TALK 04:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Ya mean because the article is about England & Wales? GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Because it uses 'country' in an article about the UK ----Snowded TALK 04:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't change it to 'constituent countries', however. But now that I've checked over the article's history more closely, I see that it was actually Daicaregos' edit that I changed (a major blunder on my part). I'll let his edit stand & won't challenge it at the corresponding talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
OK but I have a more general concern. Your strategy seems to be to do something then if it is challenged withdraw or revert. What the community is looking for is modification of the initial behaviour ----Snowded TALK 04:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The article itself, isn't a problem for me. I just don't want to get into a fight with Daicareogs, over Welsh related topics. His opening of this discussion under the heading "Not working - will never work", suggests hostility towards me. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point ----Snowded TALK 04:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best I avoid his wrath. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Still missing the point and that response if anything makes it worse. I suggest you don't respond again until you have really thought about it. The goal of mentoring is rehabilitation , not to have to supply a permanent correctional facility. ----Snowded TALK 04:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sign, and simply crossing it out makes it worse again. Just think GoodDay, don't react again until you have ----Snowded TALK 05:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken your advice & opened up a discussion at England-Wales border. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Still not getting it - I am not concerned with the individual article, but with if you have any understanding of what you are doing wrong and the ability to change. I repeat "he goal of mentoring is rehabilitation , not to have to supply a permanent correctional facility." ----Snowded TALK 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
What should I do? GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Stop reacting. Look at all the various comments I have made, think about how you would do it differently next time rather than just withdraw the minute you are criticised. The issue we are trying to resolve is if you should be allowed to edit these articles, at the moment you are on probation. So I (and others who want to believe) are looking for signs that you mode of editing and commentating is changing. At the moment its the same just less persistent. Ask Stephen as well he may have a different take ----Snowded TALK 06:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm being over-programmed. Perhaps the probation should be suspended (for awhile), the topic-ban reinstated. I'll check with Steven. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Requested input from Steven. Would welcome input from Daicaregos, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do you want my input? Daicaregos (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Snowded has said. Mentorship is meant to be a pathway to reform, not a permanent option. If mentorship fails and the behaviour continues, the solution is generally not to relax and reapply restrictions, it is generally more severe action like topic and/or site bans. GoodDay, what can you show me that indicates that you have made efforts to change your ways since the mentorship begun, and that the issues that existed at the start of your mentorship now don't exist or are rare occurrences? Snowded, have you seen any improvement recently, and do you think that this incident is likely to occur again now that this flare up has happened? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Per examples at here, I've been using sources in my discussions. I've been quite less temper-mental in my dealings with editors at British & Irish articles. I credit Snowy for these changes. At England-Wales border, I haven't reverted a revert. GoodDay (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Stephen

I am concerned that learning has not been evidenced at the level I hoped. The comments on ANI were classic GoodDay; making statements that added nothing to the debate but would just provoke if anything. Attention seeking at best. On the UK articles its been more mixed but in general the pattern has been try something out then simply withdraw if challenged with talk page comments in response which indicate he hasn't understood why there were objections. The Labour Party stuff is very irritating to be honest as he keeps asserting a position I am not advocating but I'm involved in that so can't comment other than to say the obsession with removing any language other than English (also a part of the Canadian Hockey articles) remains. You would have to form your own judgement on that one though. Sometimes he asks here first, which is good but then on something he knows will be controversial (changing country), with an editor where there is a history of conflict (Dai), he makes the change without checking first.

So its frustrating, but there are some signs of progress. I'm inclined to give it a bit longer but basically make it clear that simply crossing things out if you get them wrong is not good enough, unless you can explain what you were trying to do and (critically) how you would do it differently next time. I think he also has to stop the sort of comments he left at ANI - maybe only allowed to comment on issues relating to changes in articles? ----Snowded TALK 14:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

On the part of Labour Party (UK), my objection wasn't based on a pro-English or anti-Welsh stance. Anyways, the reason I tend to back out of these articles or discussions (example:England-Wales border) that I'm challenged on, is because I'm 'scared' that I'll be reported to ANI (by Daicaregos, for example) & end up with a 6-month block or a permanent ban. I never would've made that alteration to country, if I'd known it was Dai's edit. As mentioned before, I accept that additional scrutiny comes with probation, but you'd have to be in my shoes, to understand my reluctance to push harder for my position in arguments. I don't pull back because I'm angry & frustrated -- I pull back because I'm afraid of getting blocked or banned. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that just illustrates the problem. No one said you were taking a pro-English or anti-Welsh stance, I said that your mission to remove everything other than English remained problematic. You seem not to pay attention to what people are saying, but make assumptions far to quickly. Backing out indicates no learning, strong arguments in contrast are fine and I'll defend you if you do that. Whatever the current probation needs a review so lets let Stephen take a look and comment ----Snowded TALK 15:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I support non-English (in this case Welsh) being used in the infobox at Welsh Labour, just like I'd support non-English (Scottish gaelic, for example) being used in the infobox of Scottish Labour Party. Anyways, we'll let Steven review the probation. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
sigh ----Snowded TALK 15:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
This takes a 'huge' chunck out of my pride to post this, but -- I'm afraid of Daicaregos and what he 'might' do to me (ANI reports, etc ect). This fear is why I choose not to get into any discussion or edit-conflict with him. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Snowded. Please see this. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta-ontology

I see you removed my reference to meta-ontology on the page Ontological commitment citing Inwagen. You oppose mention of meta-ontology whenever it appears. You have expressed on occasion a trend toward using meta- that you don't like. What is the problem? Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence because it added nothing to the article
I don;t oppose mention of meta-ontology whenever it appears, please stop these petty misrepresentations
----Snowded TALK 19:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Vandalism warning for Tea Party movement

I'm not going to template you. For the word "anti-immigration," the burden of proving consensus rests on people trying to keep material in the article. You have Ubikwit, Snowded and Xenophrenic. We have Darkstar, Arthur Rubin and me. There are also WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE concerns which I have already explained. Further attempts to put that word back into the article, when speaking in Wikipedia's voice in the first section of the article, will be reported to admins as vandalism, as a BLP violation, and as a fringe theory. This is your final warning. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Final warning? I see no vandalism here, but a disagreement and a misunderstanding on your part of our policies and guidelines. I've reverted P&W and hopefully made the compromise edit that I think is required. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Phoenix and Winslow's understanding of BLP is incorrect. It cannot be stretched so far as to cover an entire political party or movement. It only covers individuals. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I took a day off so just picking this up. Phoenix & Winslow, please feel free to report me any time for the above "appalling crimes". I'll interested to see the result ----Snowded TALK 14:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Re your alleged "compromises": They aren't compromises. They're weaselly derivations of "anti-immigration," which is another way of saying "racist." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you would supply a reference to support that statement? Doubtless some people who are anti-immigration are racists but the words are not synonyms (words that mean the same thing). Mind you were told that at another notice board but once you have an idea in your head you seem to find it difficult to listen ----Snowded TALK 04:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at J04n's talk page.
Message added 11:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

J04n(talk page) 11:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

User:Star767 problems

I am having a lot of problems with User:Star767 wreaking havoc on psychology articles. I noticed on his talk page that yourself and Greg Bard had had similar problems with him. Greg Bard posted on my talk page (see User_talk:Penbat#User:Star767) and makes the interesting suggestion that he is a sockpuppet as he has an extraordinary knowledge of Wiki procedures for a new editor and he "proceeds with supreme confidence". I am thinking that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations might be the best way to proceed.--Penbat (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI only works if you can think of who the original editor might be! I suspect s/he has edited before so I have asked. Best to give a chance to declare. Otherwise he seems to have moved away from the articles I watched, but I will extend my range a bit ----Snowded TALK 09:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
On face value it seems obvious that he has edited a lot before. He only started on 7th February and even used Hotcat almost straight away. Apart from being largely destructive, he also does a huge volume of work so the consequences are vast. A lot of cited text on psychology has been butchered on spurious grounds. I would have thought SPI would likely succeed but if not ANI or AIV. I was about to put the case to SPI today.--Penbat (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Go for it, but in my experience they want to know who you suspect he is a sock puppet of! ANI might be better ----Snowded TALK 09:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I used ANI before for another issue but the outcome was unsatisfactory. ANI threads for some reason get archived if no posts for 7 days. I wrongly assumed that an admin was monitoring the situation when in fact it had been quietly forgotten about and i was left hanging in mid air.--Penbat (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I am an involved party so feel free to notify me ----Snowded TALK 09:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Star767 now blocked see User_talk:Star767#Blocked.--Penbat (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure, now we just wait for the next sock! ----Snowded TALK 10:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher

Edits like this one, which I accidentally overwrote through an edit conflict, really aren't helpful. I am trying to compromise from the sources and a blind revert like that inflames the situation and does not help the article. Please don't do this again. --John (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You need not to combine controversial edits with non-controversal ones. There were far too many changes in one and your edit summary implied that the conservative manifesto was a reliable source. So please, don't do that again ----Snowded TALK 16:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You need actual sources to make changes to the article. I used Marr, which you say you don't like. What sources are you using? --John (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Not to remove things you don't, you need sources to insert stuff and those need to be good sources. ----Snowded TALK 16:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I have Andrew Marr. The Good Article Review thought he was a good source. Who do you have? --John (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
John, he's fine OK to source some stuff but are making too much of it. I don't have to have any source, I am disputed the use of yours. You know this, its 101 wikipedia. You really do need to calm down, this can be resolved there is no need to get so aggressive and throw accusations around. ----Snowded TALK 17:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

threat to block me

you can block me but should that keep me from speaking the truth. devotees of the lord are never afraid of speaking the truth even if it means they are punished or blocked on wikipedia. may lord god krishna also give you some wisdom and also give you courage to speak truth. our religion doesn't teach us to speak lies to please someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.177.207 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have far more respect of Hinduism that to allow one deranged rant, unworthy of that religion to influence me. You are speaking lies to yourself and I feel sorry for you ----Snowded TALK 17:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RFAR amendment request

Hi Snowded. Please be advised I have filed an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_GoodDay that requires your attention. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In the past, we've had some rough times, Snowy. However, I've come to respect you alot in these last few years & I'm grateful for all your attempts to help me. I've crossed the line too many times, with a few editors & now It's time for me to face the Arbitrators' judgement. Many of the statements at the Clarification/Amendment hearing, are quite clear - 'GoodDay is our problem & we must be rid of him'. I will fully accept the judgement handed down. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hedgefall's edit war at Nelson Mandela

Hello there Snowded. Please forgive me if I am going through the improper channels or not adhering to Wikipedia etiquette, but I was hoping that you might be able to help with an edit warring problem over at Nelson Mandela. Myself and User:Khazar2 have recently been radically updating the page, discussing changes with others on the talk page, but User:Hedgefall is making repeated edits to the introduction without consulting any of us, resulting in what I would describe as a slow, protracted edit war. Their edits are clearly made in good faith, but they are nevertheless counter-productive considering that none of those of us active on the page are being consulted, and s/he is adding in many superfluous words at the same time as we are trying to cut the page back. I wanted to post a polite message to User:Hedgefall asking them to desist, and it was in doing so that I noticed that you had earlier warned them of this behaviour on other pages. I thought it best to consult you on this matter, as I have little experience in dealing with such behaviour Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well you might fall foul of WP:CANVASS but in this case as far as I can see he has made two edits and different ones. Nothing has been taken to talk by either party so I think your warning was premature. However I have put the page on watch ----Snowded TALK 04:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the advice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

puppetry

who is 6966? any formal process under way? Brocach (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure yet. I did an ANI report following the posts on GoodDays page. They blocked the IP but not the name ----Snowded TALK 21:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

An Arbitration amendment request in which you were named as a party has been closed and a motion passed, you can view the final amendment request and motion here. The Abirtration Committee has resolved to ban User:GoodDay from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Epistemology

Good evening Snowded,

What do you consider to be wrong with the use of "investigates"?

Regards,

James Disambiguation-Smith (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not a word used in Philosophy in that context - you should be having this discussion on the talk page of the article----Snowded TALK 03:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


Dear Dave,

If it were true that it is not "a word used in Philosophy in that context" I'm not sure that this would necessarily make its use here inappropriate, let alone incorrect.

As for whether it ISN'T used in philosophy (whether with a big or small "p") in that context - I'm, again, not quite so sure.

Have you ever perchance heard of a bloke called (if my memory serves me right) "Ludwig Wittgenstein"? (He wrote a book called (again if my memory serves me right) "Philosophical Investigations" - widely, although I dare say not universally, regarded as the most important and influential work in philosophical logic / philosophy of language / epistemology to have been published in the past one hundred, if not two hundred or more, years).

I will continue this discussion on the article's talk page when I have a bit more time.

Incidentally, many thanks for fixing the link to the Nicene Creed article (problems with my eyesight make it difficult for me to distinguish certain characters)

Best regards,

Dave (yes, yet another Dave I'm afraid).

James Disambiguation-Smith (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I studied Wittgenstein and its in part because of that title which has a specific meaning that I think its the wrong word. Questioning is more philosophical, investigations sounds more like a detective ----Snowded TALK 05:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP's latest incarnation

We now have a newly-registered editor reverting at Easter Rising and agreeing with himself on the talk page. Easter Rising hasn't been semi-protected, and agreeing with yourself once is hardly a hanging offence, but I think we need to keep an eye on the situation. I don't know what the criteria are for a sockpuppet investigation, or how bad you have to let things get before you ask for one. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do, trying to work out who it is - style is familiar ----Snowded TALK 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I wish I could guess who you're thinking of - the style isn't familiar to me at all. The most obvious identifying mark to me is the brackets around his signature, but I don't remember seeing anybody do that before. Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The military obsession seems familiar - but its a long time ago. Ah well, lets see what happens its a pretty obvious sock if we need to make a report ----Snowded TALK 18:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

BNP foreign policy

I see you disagree with the foreign policy section I added in the BNP article, even if you disagree, why did you delete the whole section? Why is there no section on foreign policy at all? Is the foreign policy of the BNP irrelevant? Can you point out secondary sources that suggest the BNP now has a hawkish, interventionist, pro-War on Terror foreign policy?

As for Zionism, please see this recent tweet by Nick: https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/296257605796507648 The current state of the BNP article suggests the BNP is the same with regards to foreign policy and Israel as the Republican Party (United States), which is certainly not true. --Jay942942 (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. You were using primary sources and being very selective in what you chose. Ditto on Zionism, find a third party source ----Snowded TALK 12:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This one wasn't primary: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/01/the-bnp-accuse-ukip-of-being-zionists_n_2991744.html. Also, what's wrong with primary sources in this case, given their positions on this issue aren't widely reported? The rest of the article is full of them (e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20071014195705/http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=80, by someone not nearly as senior as Nick Griffin), so it's coming off as a bit of a double standard.

How was I being selective? I even added "despite their support for Israel". You claim my summary was inaccurate, but you haven't elaborated. Their site definitely suggests they are non-interventionists: http://www.bnp.org.uk/category/social-tags/iraq-war , http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/establishment-fears-bnp%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Csupport-our-troop-bring-our-boys-home%E2%80%9D-campaign and http://www.bnp.org.uk/category/social-tags/afghanistan

If you have an alternative view of what their position is, particularly on foreign intervention, I suggest you add it to the article. It's better than nothing. I am by no means a neo-con trying to avoid association with the BNP, nor a BNP member trying to make the party look acceptable and mainstream. I agree with some aspects of the BNP foreign policy, despite abhorring the party itself. I don't think it's a good idea to refrain from including important information in an article simply because it means the BNP agree with you on a political issue. --Jay942942 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You cherry picked material. Your use of references above also looks like original research and/or synthesis. Either way take it to the talk page of the article. That is the place for content discussion. ----Snowded TALK 21:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you please explain your alternative view of the BNP's foreign policy? Reply on the talk page of the article, thanks. --Jay942942 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
My view is irrelevant so I will not discuss it. As I have said on the talk page you need something other than primary sources. Now please keep the discussion to the article talk page, this is not the place. ----Snowded TALK 11:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not blocked, intending to stay on Wikipedia long, no

I'm NOT blocked on my account User:R-41. My account activity has collapsed in scope both here on the anon account and on the R-41 name account. I do not intend to stay long. I don't like it here.

I have made plenty of respected contributions, almost the entirety of the Fascism article's history section was written and researched by me, with helpful edits by others that improved it. Because I had a complete burn-out I've been treated like an outlaw and pure scum, in spite of all these contributions involving scholarly sources. The attitude conveyed to me is "piss off", I will gladly piss off since I'm not wanted here, but I couldn't help but notice the stupidity of the repeated instances of the whole "it's socialist!" responded by "no it's not socialist!" that I've noticed here when I glance at Wikipedia from time to time. It doesn't explain anything - what would be better is describing what fascism actually stood for rather than a laundry list of what it does not stand for. I imagine none of this will even faintly distract from the main point that you are thinking about, that I am an outlaw, that I have no business being here. In a short matter of time I will be gone again. I am just pointing out the futility of this back-and-forth game over the word "socialism" in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.67.28 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that rant I think your decision to withdraw makes sense and I suggest you stick to it ----Snowded TALK 13:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Irish War of Indepenence

I protected the article as per your edit request to prevent the edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will end it----Snowded TALK 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Dialog

Snowded, I am here to try to open some review of our interactions on WP. I'll present my view of the situation and propose my solution. I hope you will do likewise.

I do try to contribute usefully to WP. I research my contributions and source them. I am open to revision, and happy to consider sources I have slighted or missed altogether. My aim is to arrive at a fair summary of a topic with sufficient links and sources to help a reader find what else is there on WP, and to find some sources that have useful discussions that (hopefully) are available on line through Google or Amazon's look-inside feature. That goal is a bit different from trying to determine the definitive text in a field, as these are often unavailable on-line and inaccessible to WP readers. They can even be ignored by Google search, as Google search doesn't look for search items in books they don't have 'Snippet view' or 'Partial preview' for. It's just my opinion, but a reference to a source where you have to have paid access or buy the book to judge whether WP properly represents it, such references are of little value within the context of WP use and credibility of its content.

I am not under the impression that my contributions are the last word or beyond criticism.

How does this work out in practice? I have found that WP editors vary greatly in their approach. Some are interested in pitching in to create useful additions to WP. Some are not interested in adding to WP, but want to be sure that what is added is accurate. Some are more interested in WP as another form of on-line entertainment.

Where do I think we fit into this picture? Not to say that my opinion is accurate: it's just how I see things.

I'd say that you fall into the category of a gatekeeper, trying to keep WP accurate. Maybe I have missed something, but it is rare for you to actually try to write an article or sub-section. In your role as gatekeeper, how do you go about assessment of a contribution?

Here is where we may have very different conceptions. My experience with you is that a proposed contribution, sources and all, is immediately reverted by you with some fairly non-specific in-line comment, usually along the lines of "original research" or "needs third-party sources". Now, as the author of the piece, I naturally think the sources are adequate, and I think also that the text is intended to supply the ideas the sources support. So these comments could be useful if they were followed up on the Talk page with specific examples like 'the text xxx is not supported by the citations'. With that in mind I could reassess the example, look for better support, or change the wording to more accurately convey the meaning.

Perhaps you see your role as gatekeeper as a 'limited engagement', and have no intention of involvement in some back-and-forth where you say 'This needs fixing' and I say 'How's this?' and you say 'Here's what still doesn't work.' Where a WP policy is mentioned, perhaps you don't care to spend time to indicate exactly to what text xxx it applies and why it applies.

Maybe its time to hear your side of this? Brews ohare (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Response

I'm not sure I accept the categorisation but no, until I retire, I am not focused on content creation. I monitor a broad range of articles and also work on wording to try and resolve conflict in some cases. In respect of your edits I think I have already tried to explain it but to summarise:

  • Far too much of your material is based on primary sources - these can only be used for factual statements, not to determine if something is included or not. WP:RS is very clear on that
  • You seem to pick up a reference, find more material on that and add it in, then add more. This is scope creep and original research
  • You seem to want to duplicate material once you have found it on multiple articles even when it is only tangential to that article or could be handled better by a reference
  • I have left a lot of your material and (in limited cases where it has been possible) amended text. However a lot of your additions should simply, in my opinion not be there so its difficult to ask me to amendment them
  • Personally I think most of my edit summaries and contributions on the talk page are very clear. Multiple detailed quotes with references might be appropriate if the reasons for rejection were not clear. If they could be done by amending your additions directly then I would do that by preference.
  • Your style of writing is more like an essay than an entry in wikipedia (and I am not the only one to think so)
  • All your RfIs to date have failed to gain you support, that should be telling you something.
  • If you want to propose an area for addition on the talk page I am happy to discuss it before you go to the effort of drafting and referencing.
  • You need to lay off on the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith

Hope that is helpful ----Snowded TALK 16:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Snowded: I appreciate your willingness to engage here. You mention that my writing strikes you as more like an essay, and suggest that quotes "might" be appropriate under some circumstances. Maybe we could look at that a bit further.

As background, this style of mine originated here on WP as a result of two repeated experiences. First, as a reader, I have found fairly often that statements in WP articles are incorrect statements of what cited sources actually say. I can only speculate what the reason for this is. So, to reassure a reader that the source is properly treated, I am inclined to quote verbatim to support an assertion that might otherwise stand alone with just a footnote.

Second, I have found on many occasions that editors do not believe bald assertions, however footnoted, and it avoids unpleasantness if, before somebody sticks their neck out, and becomes committed to a wrong idea they then feel stuck defending, a quotation will give them pause and avoid a rush to confrontation. It would be good if editors assumed other editors were sincere in their efforts, but it is very common for WP editors to assume their fellow editors are incompetent arrogant SOB's.

That is background that may seem self-serving. However, despite appearances, I do not want to write 'essays'. I do not want to string quotations between my own judgments of material, but only as support for the statements made.

I hope you can understand my objectives here, even if you don't think they are always what results. Brews ohare (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying I have a busy week or travel and an over due deadline on three articles for Sage's encyclopaedia of action research (net result rules for writing in encyclopaedias are front and centre of my mindset. Just to be clear, I have never doubted that you want to improve Wikipedia. I deal with some people on some articles who are there to promote pseudoscience and politics but that is not happening here.
I take your point on your own experience, but you would need to change the overall rules to support that. Including the quotes in the reference (something you do which I really like) is an alternative to having them in the text. ----Snowded TALK 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess when you speak of "changing the rules" you refer to my remarks about 'definitive texts' and their availability? It is hard to imagine a WP based largely upon material unavailable on-line and unverifiable without institutional subscriptions or libraries. Possibly an editor with such access can get around this problem by using verbatim quotes. I don't expect that is a problem between the two of us, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No I mean if you want to change the rules about secondary sources and the style guides on quotations then you go and do it on the appropriate forum rather than trying to do it on one article. As I say but the material in the reference and no one will object that is good practice----Snowded TALK 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Per your point "If you want to propose an area for addition on the talk page I am happy to discuss it before you go to the effort of drafting and referencing", let's try this out with adding something about ordinary language philosophy in the ontology article.

That has caused a problem already, but maybe we could reach an accommodation? Your main objection appears to be some doubt whether this topic has any bearing upon ontology. Perhaps an example of what might fix this problem is James W Cornman (1992). "Chapter 11: Language and ontology". In Richard Rorty, ed (ed.). The Linguistic Turn: Essays in philosophical method with two retrospective essays (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 160 ff. ISBN 0226725693. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help) and Chapter 18 by the same author. These particular articles (in part) say that those philosophers who think there is a connection, are mistaken (in particular, Wittgenstein). So, in a backhanded way, evidence is provided that some (rather reputable) philosophers think there is a connection, and a bit of discussion is useful. Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Its original research, you need a secondary source that makes the link then you need to show its important enough to include. If Rorty is very specific then it might count but I am away from home so cannot check the book itself ----Snowded TALK 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems likely that sources can be found that link ontology to language. After all, that is the title of Cornman's chapter in a book called The Linguistic Turn: Essays in philosophical method. I'd be inclined to suggest that in fact just about all modern ontology is caught up in this thicket, and it is the basis for the 'deflationary' view of ontology. We'll see what can be found. Brews ohare (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you will find that whole swathes of Philosophers find it irrelevant, its a particular obsession of anglo-saxons so we need to be careful of WP:WEIGHT but lets see. I'm in Paris with a group at the moment (a indulgence for three days before earning money again) who are far more concerned with issues of Being and Instantiation than language. ----Snowded TALK 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Cornman refers to Quine and Russell, so his treatment of 'ontology' and 'language' is a bit dated. Parker-Ryan mentions Gilbert Ryle, J. L. Austin and P. F. Strawson. She says 'ordinary language philosophy' is more a methodology than a philosophy. We'll see how that goes. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
John Searle says 'meaning' is more fundamental than 'knowledge', elevating the role of the philosophy of language. He says Wittgenstein is fundamental, and says Chomsky has become important recently. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if I agreed with you its still primary sources --Snowded TALK 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Just background. Brews ohare (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ho would anything discussed above exceed the scope of what is already covered in this setion: Ontology#Ontology_and_language?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Brews wants to promote it ----Snowded TALK 08:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Papyrus: The difference is this: what is already in the section describes discussion of different usages or the phrase "what is" or "what are" by different speakers. However, the much larger picture is the discussion of how 'what is' out there is related to 'language' in general. Brews ohare (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe that would be encompassed within the broader scope of nominalism. Maybe you could addressed that notion in terms of language and epistemology instead of ontology.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kindly yet vigilant

Vanquisher of ignorance and fraud!

Thank you for your tireless efforts to save confused or inquiring souls from those who would siphon off hard-earned money, offering false hope with fraudulent practices such as "neuro-linguistic programming".
FeralOink (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Like it! Many thanks ----Snowded TALK 20:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Looks like its over - just picking up after a busy couple of days. Collect is an experienced operator and I would not take anything to ANI without a rock solid case. ----Snowded TALK 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

RfC

An RfC has been posted on this Talk page that you may be interested in given your recent contributions on Talk:Quantifier variance. Brews ohare (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Faith in the Bush White House

Thats a paper by a member of the Cabinet Office - copy here http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ceresources/articles/35_Faith_in_the_Bush_White_House.pdf --Snowded TALK 09:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) That paper disappeared. Rob G Weemhoff 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob G Weemhoff (talk • contribs)

I can find it on the web site. Will update the link later. Its under articles if you need it urgently. Thanks for the catch ----Snowded TALK 13:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Just checked - the link in the article works for me ----Snowded TALK 22:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

EDL

Hi Snowded. Thanks for the vandalism apology. If you read the source [1] you'll see 'role model' is from a NF supporter, no-one says 'martyr' and none of the EDL members offer anything approaching praise. Don't you agree? --Flexdream (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You could always change the role model quote to one from Yossi if you want. The objection is less to that than the main effects of your edit which appear to modify the facts reported in the Guardian to those more favourable to the EDL . The proper place for this discussion is the talk page of the article however. ----Snowded TALK 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You accuse me of modifying the facts. Can you please show me how you justify that accusation? You were the one who reverted to reintroduce terms unsupported by the source.--Flexdream (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You were, the role model aspect might be wrong but the rest of the wording is fine. So please don't use misleading edit summaries and please use the talk page of the article which is where this discussion belongs. ----Snowded TALK 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I see you've now silently also dropped mention of 'martyr'. So that's now two specific terms I removed, which you reinstated, and yet you accuse me of being the one who modified the facts? You've now accepted both those terms were unsupported as per my edit. So again, how did I modify the facts? I corrected them. How was my edit summary misleading? There's no need to use the article talk page when I'm asking why you make unsupported accusations against me.--Flexdream (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
It was misleading because you did not just remove the words that you could not find in the reference, but made other changes as well the intent of which appears to be to soften or reduce comments that would appear to be critical of the EDL. Even now you are only talking about those words not the other changes. Now please stop wasting my time, you should use the talk page of the article for content discussions and I have already explained the 'key words v wider changes. ----Snowded TALK 11:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_27&oldid=1168308232"