User talk:Snowded/Archive 3

Wales: destination of the intro pipe

I agree that the wording in the Wales first line should be left for a while (by us at least), as consensus was indeed hard won. But how do you feel about changing the link destination in the pipe to Countries of the United Kingdom now? Is anything in its way? The text in the now extended Subdivisions of the United Kingdom is still being debated, and it looks like the merge with that and Countries of the United Kingdom (when it happens) will be relatively low-key: and the two articles will co-exist. I am cross-linking Countries and Subdivision now (as it will need to happen sooner or later), so all the information will be accessible on the link path. The main thing is that we explain the country situation.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would get the merge agreed then the changes will be automatic and not excite comment. Good news on getting the Constituent Countries stuff out by the way. I sense a unionist or anti-nationalist (they seem to be different groups) backlash building however. --Snowded (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One 'pro' of doing it before the merge is that nobody can wonder why it isn't done already, or think that we are laying a path towards doing it (ie we can't quite get it in now). If it sticks it's also a support for the support - and nowhere else yet links to the article, as it's so new. It would be interesting to see who, if anyone, would want to revert from an article so similar in effect to the one already being used.

A 'con' I suppose is that it could be reverted - but maybe it's best to see any future dissent now? And also encourage those people to vote in the merge poll too. Supposing such dissent is there. Nobody has an excuse then! And we could argue the position now.

The poll is going OK for the supporters I feel, though there could be a backlash building, as you say. If there are a couple more 'redirects' suddenly added we may wish there was some new blood around. Finding it then though, could be viewed as 'seeking'. In my view, many wide-ranging participants are far better than a few involved ones. I think we should open the door to some more interested and potential voters now via using the link in Wales. They will vote how they vote, but we I feel we can be confident the majority will vote our way (if any actually do follow the links). If they don't support it, so be it.

I haven't really thought about 'canvassing' the poll yet, probably because I've had my fingers burnt before - the other camp can cry foul if you merely try and tell other relevant groups (who would clearly be interested) what is going on. Considering how few people usually vote in these often very important polls (very often just the people in the discussion), the canvassing rules are far too unclear IMO. It seems to me that all the UK countries are relevant, and the UK wikiproject at very least. I doubt anyone could get in too much trouble for canvassing in this manner (ie non-abusive canvassing) as it is so subjective (and is allowed, with provisos), but biased admins are the worst for kicking up a fuss in the poll. we actually have a number of admins involved, though. If any WP:CANVASSing is done (just a note and link to "discussion here" is best) it might be better if it wasn't me (ie the poll creator) now the poll has started, just in case a group of 'redirects' do suddenly turn up and it looks worse than it is. I've written the article too, and alhough its obviously mostly written itself, I might look a bit over-involved if I do too much, I don't know. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note on the Merge poll for people to specify which way any suggested 'redirect' should go - we might have been assuming one of them is outgoing when it could be incoming. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You could be bold, but I would caution against canvassing. As you say we have the light side and the dark side of the admin force involved so I would not give any excuses (aside from the fact its wrong anyway). I would leave it a couple more days but its not essential. If you want me to make the change let me know and I will if you feel you are too involved, but there again I am not considered a neutral party by some. Might be an idea to chat to ddstretch who is impartial and gives good advice. --Snowded (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be bold and try the pipe in Wales. I don't think I'm duscussing doing anything incorrect in canvassing (I'm a lawful man!) - per the guideline, WP:CANVASSing is clearly needed at times - it's taking it too far that is wrong. But it's subjective of course: what is too far here? It's no doubt best done before the poll takes off (I didn't think to do it), but it's started now which could make it more problematic perhaps. I'll see what DDstretch thinks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its lasted a few hours!

British Isles usage

Run for cover Snowded; I sense a coming storm. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect so, but at least I can claim a NPOV between this and the BI article! --Snowded (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy

Blanking contributions is normally taken to be vandalism. We can ALSO discuss them of course... I've started a thread, as per your request.

Docmartincohen (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

reversing a controversial entry when the general area is also under discussion on the talk page on the other hand is not. Thanks for taking it to the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:SesquipedalianVerbiage is a troll.

Don't waste your time with him - I'll inform an admin. He just deleted my comment from his talk page and is trolling on Wales. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Give him a chance, it might be innocent --Snowded (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that he made another edit to Wales - then when I saw he changed my "Wales is not a Principality of England" to "Wales is a Principality of England" I thought he must be a troll. I can see his latest edit to Wales was harmless (though not useful - the grammar was fine as it was). But why did he make the principality edit twice in two days? And why change my heading on his talk? I won't report him, but I certainly am wary. I see he's now changed the heading again to "is/isn't" - by my definition he's a troll! --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we all tend to forget that a lot of people in the world know of Wales through "the Prince of Wales" god help us and a single reversal is sort of OK if you don;t know the history. We were in a much better position with admins to deal with all the sock puppets by assuming good faith. --Snowded (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see his mistake on that - but him changing his heading to "Wales is.." was a moments trolling at very least. If it wasn't for that I'd have applied a bit more faith - he simply trolled on me with that though. And he hasn't changed it back properly now. He needs to learn to start arguing his case- before and after he messes up. Not sure what you mean about admins/socks/agf.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the more those of us on the side of light are seen to be reasonable in the face of provocation the easier it is to get an admin to deal with vandalism and initiate a check user. Best to avoid giving them an excuse for "a plague on both their houses" type responses. --Snowded (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales

Sorry if I came on a bit strong, and thanks for your understanding. I was surprised by the reaction. Verbal chat 09:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of prior pain! Good suggestion on the note and I have actioned it

Like the new moniker posting, Snowded. Cool stuff. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I owe SesquipedalianVerbiage for the idea however. --Snowded TALK 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message!

Thanks for the comment - nice to feel that we are all working together to improve things! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

London

Hi there. London does not have law making powers any more than than local councils passing by-laws. What it has is a huge budget and a system of governance with a mayor (and his team), and as Assembly. It would be wrong to compare the Scottish devolved powers with the London situation. London works under UK government departments, the Scottish government doesn't - it has its own government departments for the areas it has power. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Hi there. You really can't just make mass changes like this to a major article without discussion first. The opener has basically been the same for a long time now, give or take a few minor tweaks. You need to raise it first on the talk page if you have issues with content or wording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Several established editors have been making small incremental chages throughout the day - that is in the spirti of Wikipedia --Snowded TALK 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Conquest of Wales

Hi there. I have not read any mention of the Norman conquest of Wales being seen as an origin of the British Empire. Can you provide any, to show that this is not your own original research? All the books I have on the British Empire begin with the plantations of Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you appear to have "followed" me to the British Empire article after I reverted your edits on the UK page. This action may be viewed as an attempt to harass. Please be careful. If you really feel that the British Empire began with Wales, then state your case on the talk page and provide references for that claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith, when an editor engages with a subject I am interested in I tend to check their other edits. Its one way to find pages that interest me! Its only stalking if I follow you everyone and disrupt what you are doing. As it is I am pleased to have found the British Empire (the section on the Indian Mutiny for example needs work). I was building a series of edits to get the domestic experiment bit right but you kept reverting! Either way I have not provided references which I think are enough to establish a pre-empire experimental period on Ireland and Wales. I think its good enough to stand while details are sorted out on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Also please remember that you are not "allowed" three reverts in 24 hour period. You can be blocked for that or less. From WP:3RR: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Obviously, what constitutes disruptiveness depends on the admin looking at it.  :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon

Hello Snowded; I put the responses to your ..just use Ireland counter-proposal, into it's own sub-section. Thus seperating it from Matt's proposal. Hope ya don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, no problem --Snowded TALK 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see IP 86.xx.xx has returned, with more of his/her hate posts. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen

Hello Snowded,

I was hoping that you could spare a moment to add your opinion to a discussion taking place here. Talk:Ysgol_Gyfun_Rhydfelen It is only a short discussion and will only take a moment to read and to get into. Thanks for your help. Harris578 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Images

Hello Snowded, I need help. User DrFrench is deleating Crown Copyright images of Plaid Cymru members on History of Plaid Cymru and on Plaid Cymru across the board, dispite that Crown Copyright images are free use here. Can you assist in mediation?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wynn family

Was it you that asked me about the Wynn family on my talk page?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Yep!

responded on my talk page, ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded again on my talk page, by the way i really like your signature!!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartincohen alias wooly sheep alias 86.220.119.55...

I'm largely unwilling to block an IP range over it. I could semi-protect his target articles of choice. What are they? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment Chinese Philosophy , he has given up on Philosophy I may have chased him off - will report if he comes back (or I get into danger of 3RR to deal with it!)

Reverting edits of a banned user does not count toward 3RR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we stop this sockpuppetry, now 86.220.119.55 (talk) ?--Philogo 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like by protecting pages he pops up on (see Chinese Philosophy. I suppose we need to patrol most the philosophy pages (sigh). Give the guy is a published author the behaviour is strange to say the least, mind you I have never read the books and the title/cover of each would not encourage anyone who knew the subject to pick them up. --Snowded TALK 06:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you really beleive he is actually that author? Seems more likely that he may have looked at one of the books and adopted author's name as pen-name. None of his posts on talk/philosophy page indicate study beyond a 1010 course, if that; e.g. he did not appear to understand what post hoc ergo propter hoc meant--Philogo 12:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the books looked sub 101!--Snowded TALK 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He may not be the author, but if you geolocate his IP address range, it comes out as the part of France where the actual author says elsewhere that he lives... --99.232.75.237 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

undo changes in Knowledge Management section

Greetings Snowded. I noticed you undid my clarifications in the Knowledge Management article. Surely it must have been the way that I formulated my addition, as the factual information was correct. Many companies locate their knowledge management neither in HR nor in IT, but in their core business where their critical knowledge resides (i.e. when they make their money with engineering they opt to have their knowledge manager report to the chief engineer). Buckman Laboratories, the long term number 1 in knowledge management, could be an example. Can you please let me know what you are looking for so that I can reformulate my comment? Many thanks, --Helgex (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you would need to clarify the statement, it just didn't make sense as it stood. "KM may also report directly into line function or to a member of the board" would be a reasonable statement. Not sure you are right about Buckman by the way, but I will ask Bob next time I see him. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do, many thanks. I only met Bob once, hence he would not remember, but was in regular contact with Melissie. Sure she would have liked our conversation.--Helgex (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, it's me again. My compliments, you are a very precise editor, but I must say that my comment about Nonaka's definition of tacit knowledge definition is not as controversial as it appears to you. In fact, it is a big credit to Nonaka that he found an application for the old "tacit" chestnut and thus contributed significantly to Knowledge Management as we know it today. Polanyi's "tacit" in the 1950's addressed the apprentice/master relation and advocated that learning is not only listening, but also practising yourself (a master can show how he is doing a masterpiece, but he can't necessarily describe it in words). Chomsky was less interested at this angle, he observed behaviors that are carried out at total subconscious level (e.g. falling into the trap of an optical illusion and still making the right hand movements to grab the object correctly). Both of these have value in the study of learning and of the subconscious, but only Nonaka, for reasons that are not mentioned, changed the definition of tacit to the conscious by defining it as "what has not yet been expressed in words" and thus made it possible to use it in modern KM. Whatever critics came later and are now referred to as post-Nonaka Knowledge Management are right in addressing shortcomings of his early work, but they still heavily build on it.--Helgex (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of us argued at the time that Nonaka's 'not yet expressed in words' was (i) a weak interpretation of Polyani and (ii) implied, as did the SECI model that it could be converted into words. There is a whole body of KM work which was not built on Nonaka and you can't say it defines the field. I made some general comments on your talk page before I saw this (working up my watch list) and made some suggestions there. Otherwise I will look at the edits when I have more time. The comments on apprentice/master above I think are accurate but not complete per se and please don't get me onto Chomsky!

I agree that Nonaka's interpretation was weak, and could have been a misunderstanding - but to me it was contemporary anyway. At the time when Nonaka published his thoughts I spent half of my day writing reports to add to the scarce documentation available to us via the local library. Nowadays I spent half of my day sitting in meetings to make sense of the flood of information overloading us via the inter- and intranet. KM issues surely have moved on a lot from the context of the SECI model (=you should write down what you know) to a "share on demand" model of discussion that helps to contain the exponential growth of information we are able to store away without being able to search efficiently (efficiently of course in the sense of searching to solve problems, not searching for keywords and characters). In a lot of the post-Nonaka criticism I miss the awareness for this change in context over the last 17 years that makes reading of Nonaka today so much more palatable (and nostalgic!). --Helgex (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No question that it was influential and has high citations. I will confess that I often call it "The model that launched a thousand failed KM initiatives" though. I am writing about post nonaka alternatives in KM World by the way, monthly column and one of my main arguments is that we need to store information objects at a finer level of granularity that documents, and also use semi-constrained tagging systems (a half way house between social computing and hierarchical taxonomies) if we are to have utility. I'd also say "We always know more than we can say and we will always say more than we can write down". All of that said the article is in bad need of radical surgery. --Snowded TALK 12:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFD

Can you double-check this edit? It's just that when I look at your recent contributions, and the comments immediately above yours, I can't help but think that Template:Cherrypicked wasn't the debate you were looking to comment on.  :-) 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

SORRY! Have corrected

British Empire

I posted this on the talk page but you ignored it. Please discuss there first to reach consensus. You are changing a long-standing piece of the article. It is totally reasonable for us to reach consensus in the talk page before changing the text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am playing fair. I have said to you four times now that I am not opposed to inclusion of the Norman conquest of Wales if you can show that it's consensus to do so in the context of the British Empire. I own pretty much all "the" books on the British Empire, and none of them connect Wales to the British Empire. (Incidentally, it didn't use to mention the Norman conquest of Ireland, but someone added that in against my wishes. It should, I believe, begin with the plantations of Ireland.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on talk. If you have the Normal conquest of Ireland, then you have to have Wales. One solution is to remove both (I would not oppose that), but I think the economic model para I added has value. --Snowded TALK 12:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with removing both. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I will do that, seems more reasonable to start with Elizabeth and avoids political issues between Normans, Anglo Normans etc. --Snowded TALK 12:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

insert title for editor who does not seem to know what they are doing

Hey there! Yeh you guessed right. i am back but editing with reliable sources which ive learnt to do. My source does match the one i put it, i didnt put any random number in and it does say on Cardiff Uni site that its the fastest growing city in Europe which i dont believe, its one of the fastest. So can i ask you what is wrong with my source? By the way i can spell i just cant be assed typeing full words ect talking to someone on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.122.142 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you are not making a good start. Changes on other pages reversed and the old pattern of inserting numbers not backed up by sources. The number you used is referenced in the source but as a previous estimate which proved wrong. Please note you have been banned from editing. You need to request that the ban be limited not just use an IP address. --Snowded TALK 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

how do i request? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.122.142 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you put a request on the talk page of the Admin who wanted to support you last time. I have already [1] told him you are back. Otherwise you go back to your talk page and follow the instructions in the last block notice. --Snowded TALK 21:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Snowded. I too am following the vandalism by Cardiff123098. When I come across multiple edits by the same user what is the best way to undo them? I got into a bit of a pickle last time :) Do I undo one at a time or re-type it all myself? Thanks for your help. Harris578 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You can undo a range - i.e. select the last good one, the current one and simply undo the difference. Or ping me and I can use Rollback (an admin granted me the right) allows me to unravel all the entries by one user. --Snowded TALK 05:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help. I will give it another go as I enjoy undoing vandalism. I will send you a note if I am still unsure. I have been given Rollback as well but haven't really used it because I can't see that its much different than Undo? Thanks again. Harris578 (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I just selected 2 histories and can see what you mean now. I used to just click undo on the history page without selecting the edits first. That way I had to undo one at a time in the right order. What am I like! Harris578 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce on British Isles usage

Hello Snowded. If (for example), the River Shannon/Severn is the longest river in the British Isles, is misleading? then so is Dublin, Ireland, to the everyday reader. It's time to haggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Provocative? On the contrary, I prefer to keep the discussion of my idea at the Taskforce page. I don't won't it held on any of the disputed articles talkpages (like River Shannon, Dublin, etc) GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here GoodDay. Ireland is the official name for what others call the Republic of Ireland. A sensible compromise has been reached where the political article is called the Republic and the geographical article Ireland. Given that those are both valid names you either have to pipe link or use a phrase like "island of Ireland" or possibly "state". None of this impacts on my belief that most people overseas do not include Ireland in the British Islands, and it is therefore confusing. Whatever I cam getting increasing pissed off with the level of provocation evident in the recent postings, in particular those under the recent heading of "Compromise". Wikipedia is not about some sort of primitive dicker, that would just provoke people to raise the stakes and its already infantile enough. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with the article Ireland; but articles like Dublin are questionable. Besides, making a deal between usage of BI & RoI isn't totally impossible. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at Dublin yet, spending too much time chasing down POV pushing of British Imperialism!  :-) Still don't buy the idea of a deal, need more than that --Snowded TALK 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is, it can be claimed British Imperialism is behind adding/using British Isles on Wikipedia. But, it can also be claimed that hiding Republic of Ireland via pipelink is backed by Irish Nationalism. Why not work one off the other? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference is in Sarah's latest post. Ireland is the recognised name world wide for the State. British Isles as a name is not universal, increasingly less relevant but still valid. --Snowded TALK 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah & Tharky seem to have given my BI/RoI suggestion, the 'bronx cherr'. Neither liked it. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said I don't think its about dickering --Snowded TALK 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Geography vs. Politics

Kingdom of Strathclyde was always on the island which is known by the geographical term Great Britain. The kingdom was independent from the political entity known as the Kingdom of Scotland, as the term "Scotland" is purely political related to that kingdom in originating in 843, then that is not the correct terminology to use. When the Kingdom of Strathclyde existed nobody called it "Scotland". - The Cavendish (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its poor terminology as the "Great" is a much later addition, it might be a lot better to say the British Isles . You can't argue one case for Scotland (the term is post 843) and another for Great Britain

It was not on both British Isles though, it was on one of them; the one known as Great Britain. That is geographical term by which the island is known, so why should we pretend it isn't, or pretend the island does not have a geographical name? I can argue against Scotland became the Kingdom of Strathclyde has nothing to do with the Scots or their Kingdom of Scotland, since it was ruled by Brythons (Britons) independent from all "Scots". - The Cavendish (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Its still in the northern part! Great Britain is the current geographical label as is Scotland so the same argument applies. How about trying to find a better way to describe it? --Snowded TALK 10:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Northern part of what? The island of Great Britain is a scholary, widely accepted geographical name, whether people pushing for independence of feudal territories like it or not. The fact that one of the Stuarts later took that geographical term to describe a political entity doesn't change the name of the island and where the Brythonic Kingdom of Strathclyde was located. It certainly wasn't in the territory of their enemies, the Scots. It was however on an island which has its own name. And also the wording is specific, so there can be no confusion; "the island Great Britain".

This thing of geography and history isn't going to extend into one of those so-called "Celtic nations" victim complex things is it? Since you have now also come to the Scotland article and changed the date to a far more vague one. I've added two references from historians text books if your problem with the BBC was genuine. I don't have the patience for horse play to be frank with you. Thanks. - The Cavendish (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

just to get the facts right you inserted a precise date on the page. I checked it (as it did not correspond with my reading of Scottish history) and put in a cited source which recognises that the formation of a nation can rarely be sourced to a single date. Either way, its an issue, needs discussion so I have reverted to the stable position on that subject (before your or my edits) so that it can be discussed. The same is true on the Great Britain issue where you removed Scotland (something to which I reacted). I have therefore reverted again to the stable position to allow discussion. There is no agenda here on my part, just want to get the facts right and use terms which will not confuse a new reader. --Snowded TALK 10:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just a quick note that this gentleman was a sockpuppet of a banned user. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I must admit to getting really sick of sock puppets. --Snowded TALK 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unification of Scotland

Hi Snowded

In your recent edit(s) to Scotland, you've said that Scotland "was an independent state from the late first Century". I'm guessing you meant first millenium? I haven't altered it because I (a) wasn't 100% sure, and (b) don't want to get embroiled in an edit war ;-)

Cheers  This flag once was red  10:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about the resurgence of this guy. I was off-wiki then but I've blocked him now. Do let me know if it happens again, I'll just soft block the resulting IPs. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. I am just sorry he cluttered up your talk page in the process!--Snowded TALK 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You may like to know

That "The Cavendish" (who you have clashed a little with) has been identified as a sockpuppet of an ArbCom banned editor (banned for a year in a case ended this July in which I was involved), "Yorkshirian" - an editor who ignored all aspects of consensus, agreed procedures, and determined that he would edit as he saw fit, ignoring all other issues, dishing out abuse if challenged. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yorkshirian for details (links to ArbCom case found in that link).  DDStretch  (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain the lack of response. Another to look out for! Thanks for letting me know --Snowded TALK 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Prince Madoc

Hi Snowded. I've tried to find the agricultural evidence, of Prince Madoc's time in North America, you mentioned - but no luck. Would you point me in the right direction please? (I'm not claiming decent, but Maddock is my mother's maiden name. My family are also on censuses as Madoc, Maddog, Maddoxs and Maddocks. Couldn't seem to decide. We've lernt too reed und rite now, thow.) Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More architectural and linguistic -form of earth forts and aspects of language in Florida. A lot of goes back to Dee's attempts to create legitimacy for British ownership of the Americas. The last spat I saw was in the Western Mail but you have to take it with a pinch of salt! The evidence is circumstantial. --Snowded TALK 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's disappointing. Not sure what I was expecting, really. But not quite the 'Welsh Mary Rose' (in Newport), is it? Thanks for the link though. Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh Mary Rose in Tampa would be even better! The original article was a bit better than the web version and it referenced some other material. I have it at home somewhere (in one of the many many piles) in the study and will try and look it up. My own view on this is that there were multiple discoveries of North America from Europe given the nature of maritime trade and exploration and the need for land. There are enough legends around, but then (if Welsh or Cornish) they end up in the Arthurian mix and both John Dee and the Victorians then mess that up into all sorts of constructs so we will never trace back to the facts. Paying homage to the plaque in Deganwy seems reasonably to me however! --Snowded TALK 05:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someday

Hi Snowded. Thanks for the message. I can't be doing with the hassle at the moment, maybe some time in the future. Jack forbes (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, enjoy Australia, I just got back and for once it was a reasonable temperature! --Snowded TALK 08:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will Snowded, fingers crossed the weather keeps up. Jack forbes (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the forecast, doesn't look good for the next week, but then I'll be there for 2 months, so hopefully things will improve, I hope. :) Jack forbes (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It sure is nice to have a conversation with Matt. I'm still trying to take the dagger out of my back. I sure hope it's nothing to do with my politics, but then I'm too trusting, or I was! Or as I said to him Et tu, Brute? Jack forbes (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt is a force of nature, huge energy, does great work but a short fuse --Snowded TALK 07:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Magners League

The link I added is not a fan site any more than the Planet Rugby link is. Can you please explain to me what the difference is between allowing a link to PR and the link I put in. Users should be given options on where they want to get their news from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.126.122 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well two of us (I was not the only editor) took the view that it should be official links. But I am not set on that, open to ideas and I must admit I thought the Planet Rugby link was out - will check. The normal process here is just raise it on the talk page. Say what you think should be there and whey, then see how other editors respond. I am open minded, but if there is a history of reversals (as there was) then it should go to talk. --Snowded TALK 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, it would also help if you set up an ID, as far as I can see you are editing under a range of IP addresses, that makes it difficult to respond and does not build up trust. --Snowded TALK 09:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for responding. Apologies for the delay and various IP addresses but I am reliant on my IP for that and where I am the internet is not the best in the world. As for making an ID, I have no idea how to do that. Anyway thanks for re-instating the link - it goes into much greater depth than PR and I believe that users will benefit from the link.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Its easy to set up an ID, you do it from the login screen here --Snowded TALK 11:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pentyrch

Hello, I am going away for a short break for a few nights tomorrow and wondered if you would keep an eye on this page for me. Pentyrch It has started to get vandalised by an anon user and it is turning into an edit war. I think that the next step should be a warning on the users talk page. What do you think? Thanks. Harris578 (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to the watch list - although the thought of a brothel in Pentyrch is interesting to say the least! --Snowded TALK 09:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Harris578 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your response

Hi, I've no idea why you chose to leave an overall hostile response to my post on the BIT project page. I did not ignore what had gone on before, and I actually agree with your position that we should leave the political Ireland/ROI debate to one side, and keep to the geographical discussion. So, any clues? Is it personal? --HighKing (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you started by saying lets dismiss (and gave a long list) and then said, we will just talk about the british isles. I responded to that. Its not personal, more an expression of frustration. --Snowded TALK 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

St Lythans

It may not be your area of expertise, but if you have the time, would you take a look at St Lythans? It's my first article and I would appreciate some (constructive) critisism. If you would rather not, or if you're a bit busy at the moment, is there anyone you could suggest please? Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution over BIT

I'll be posting a dispute on this tonight - I won't have time before then, and I'll have to find the correct way to do it. I can only see your position as stonewalling now, and you have not given me one single reason why it would be damaging for the guideline to use the ROI in the most obvious way. Your 'tit-for-tat' reasons over British Isles are simply madness in my eyes. You have so little to negotiate with you are starting to sound fanatical to me! We MUST do this fairly and properly without any silly games going on. As for 'bundling' Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland in this matter - it couldn't look worse, and it couldn't be worse.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I've actually been working on this problem Wikipedia has since the start of the year in one way or another - everything I have seen you do on the subject since you realised it was going on has been motivated by your nationalism. I'll tell you up front that that is the kind of Wikipedian I think is a disruptive force for Wikipedia. Your sole interest regarding this matter, as far as I can see, is to facilitate the break up of Britain - but Britain exists and independence for Wales etc doesn't exist. The are not equal forces. That means you cannot bargain with things the way you want to. You have to get some perspective and try and understand that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, please try to read my edits and stop attributing motivations which don't exist. The above statements are nonsense. The simple fact is that you either cannot, or choose not to understand that you are being inconsistent in your treatment of two terms, namely British Isles an Ireland. You cannot argue that ROI has to be used because Ireland is a political statement, while supporting the use of British Isles which lumps the Republic in with the UK. You have persistently refused to engage with that argument and are now resorted to an ad hominem in a futile attempt at intimidation. If I was supporting a nationalist POV then I would have opposed the continuation of British Isles as a valid term, when in fact I have argued for it. Please (sorry to use this, but its appropriate) CALM DOWN, read what is being said, consider the arguments and stop overreacting and throwing our insults. --Snowded TALK 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your support

As above. I made a serious misjudgment about you earlier (re the Philosophy article) for which I sincerely apologise. Sadly, the AfD went nowhere. Peter Damian (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We should do some hard editing on it though - I have made some brief attemts, but something more serious is needed. Its also starting to link with another pseudoscience namely spiral dynamics by the way--Snowded TALK 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP: Trying again

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling

River Shannon

If you say the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles and the article makes clear beforehand which it does that the river is in the island of Ireland than is there any need to mention it is also the longest river in Ireland? By mentioning it is the longest river in the British Isles and that it is in Ireland, then it can only be by default also the longest river in Ireland. Christopedia (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you look at the history of the discussions, the use of British Isles is controversial. It is not uncommon to use two such terms, both are true and can be cited. There is a task force on this subject which may be stalled, but there is no point in creating an edit war. --Snowded TALK 10:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Snowy. I truly believe, ya'll should reconsider my trade-off between showing Republic of Ireland and British Isles on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean get rid of both? --Snowded TALK 15:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, take a peek at the BI taskforce & the Ireland MoS thingys for my suggestions. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's Matt's playpen at the moment and he's determined a structure for the conversation that works for him. Few if any are engaged, most are waiting to see what pop's out, and a fair number I would think don't believe it will get anywhere. I'm not even sure its the right place given that the Irish question is more important, resolve that and you the British Isles issue is different.

---

Admin noticeboard

Just a quick note, since you seemed hesitant to comment on a thread, but all users are quite welcome to post on the admin noticeboards. Just as the bureaucrats' noticeboard is used to get bcrat attention, the admin noticeboards serve to get admin attention; the only limitations on posting are practical ones (blocks and such, which it doesn't look like you need to worry about). :) – Luna Santin (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification --Snowded TALK 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process: pseudoscience

See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources

I've left a note on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Will try and look at it later in the week. Have 7000 words to write today/tomorrow and a three day workshop for US Navy in China Lake to run!

Oh yes, good luck with that. Have a good week. Peter Damian (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Hi, Just thought you'd be interested in the | europa.eu webpage you quoted a few days ago. It has been in fact changed and ROI has been completely removed. HighKing raised this change on the talk page, but there has been a lot of posts there so you might have missed it and I just thought you'd be interested. It looks like we're being watched!Pureditor 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted that so many thanks. I must admit I am finding the whole exchange depressing. Having been (as a teenager) on a civil rights march, lived through some of the attempts at reconciliation during the Troubles, seen things finally turn round (I am working in some Belfast based projects at the moment); its depressing to see the insistence on maintaining the language of confrontation.

Mediation British Isles

The case has been reopened. Three questions:

1. What, in a nut shell, would you like to happen that you feel is being prevented from happening?
2. Who or what is responsible from preventing it from happening?
3. Why do you feel it is being prevented from happening?

I'm initially talking to you and Matt Lewis. Who else should I be talking with? SilkTork *^YES! 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI Questions at WIkipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)

This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Hello Snowy. I've become concerned about the IP 78.xxx.xxx's involvement (it might be Gold heart, again?). GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The last thing we need at the moment is another sock puppet. Will try and have a look tomorrow (Although I am meant to be on holiday and have to sneak onto the lap top when the family are asleep) --Snowded TALK 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

They (your family) won't catch ya. Where there's a Wiki, there's a way. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Too true. I just did my normal thing with new IP editors - asked if s/he had edited before. If they are new, then we know to treat them as such and help out, if its an experienced editor then we know, if its a sock puppet (I hope not) it starts to put an audit trail in place. --Snowded TALK 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Welsh people

Fancy joining in this discussion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just did! Not at all happy, although D is a good editor and well motivated. --Snowded TALK 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wish his spellchecker would cover "artical" and "servay". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

An idea

Hi there, I have put forward an idea Here on the Republic of Ireland talk page. I would appreciate your views, positive or negative. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies only just picked it up. I have been doing some editing from a hotel PC rather than my lp top o have not really been checking the watchlist. I think to be honest we are the "summarise the evidence and send up stairs"--Snowded TALK 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

'royal' Badge

Hiya Snowded, Croeso yn ol. Hope you had a great holiday and feel all recharged & raring to go. Thanks for moving the 'royal' badge to the government section on the Wales article. Do you want to add a few words in the government section narrative (& possible the lede) to explain the significance of LCO's and the role of the badge? It would be entirely appropriate, don't you think? Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, will do. Somewhat occupied with Ireland/Republic of Ireland at the moment but will do later --Snowded TALK 13:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Snowded, off on your travels again? Where you to, now? Think you'll get around to adding those few words to explain the significance of LCO's and the role of the badge? Good to see the LCOs getting some column inches. Although I wish it were for better reasons. Oh well. Hwyl, Daicaregos (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rfc closed

Hi there, I have now closed the Rfc. There seemed to be no new editors coming in. In trying to help I hope I haven't confused it more. I'll be off to pastures new and wish you all the best. Cheers. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It was good idea, but this seems to be one of those problematic pages --Snowded TALK 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BI Taskforce

Had to jog my memory, sorry. You prefer pure geography & Matt prefers geography/politics mixed. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a geography article. Matt is using controversial political terms as the primary determinants! Using ROI to define things means you automatically exclude a whole body of editors who object to the term. att has sensibly supported using Ireland instead of ROI on that page by the way so I will freely admit to finding his position very confusing. However to defend BI as a term, we all argued it was geographical not political. If we now define it in political terms then its a contradiction. --Snowded TALK 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It concerns me, that TharkunColl & Sarah777 aren't taking part in this (taskforce). GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm using the state (whatever it is called) to determine things because it's the only fully flexible way. Geography only is too constricting, as one of the states cross the boundries. I can't help it if the way WP deals with Irish sate also upsets people. Hopefully the way Wikipedia refers to the state will change, and BITASK can be revised accordingly. It's not easy when people are upset with the name of the BI term and with the name of one of the two countries involved. Sarah777 is not far away - she will contribute when she has something to say, as will everyone involved, inc Thurcuncoll when it's close to the edit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tharky & Sarah777 will attest to this. I've little concern over what offends them or others concerning usage of British Isles & Republic of Ireland on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have concern if offence is citable as it should then be mentioned (as we did on the BI page). I also have concern if we get the language wrong. If we start to use the political terms here, then the BI article becomes political, it also emphasises political issues in resolving use or non-use of BI. For places where the geographical term coincides with a political division its easier and geography is "hierarchical". Here that is not the case and we have the legacy of Empire (British that is, the Romans used Ireland (Hibernia) and Britain as two terms. Starting the whole guideline with ROI and mixing terms is I am afraid, in my opinion wrong. We need to work through the principles that we collectively started to draft before we jumped to tables, labels and examples (prematurely) --Snowded TALK 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Having first accepted mixing Geography/Politics & now figuring we shouldn't - you & Matt can gather I'm being flexiable on this. For the momment, the Taskforce needs you & Matt to work this out (i.e. be flexiable). GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi Snowded, there's a Request For Comment on A. A. Gill. Would you take a look at the article please? Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ascribing "Controversial" to a source

I really think that it has to be properly ascribed to a source. The skeptics dictionary is far from neutral. Can you point me to the relevant policy or send me to a equivalently controversial topic on wikipedia that you think characterises it accurately and fairly. "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents." I'm going to read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again to see how it applies to this topic. This quote from Arbcom ruling seems relevant to the topci: Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy to have the discussion on the talk page of the article. If we remove controversial (which I think is a mistake) then it will be necessary to make other changes to balance the introduction. Controversial does that neatly. You were also wrong (I think) to qualify the controversy by reference to skeptics, when in fact it is considered controversial by most academics (see other citations). --Snowded TALK 09:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Snowded, you beat me to it, just. Jack forbes (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I do think it makes sense to give more detail, after all, there are seperate articles on the Welsh, Scottish and English Canadians. Jack forbes (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No strong feelings either way to be honest! Pleased to see you back by the way. --Snowded TALK 09:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Quite busy at the moment, so I'll just be popping in now and again. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template on Anglican Cathedrals

Hi Snowded, I notice you changed the text to agree with the move. I'm not sure if this implies that you agree with Tharky's article move or not, and if that's the consensus, I'm fine with that. My concern is that the move was performed simply as a reaction to the move I performed first, without any attempt to participate in a discussion or leave any explanation. --HighKing (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I debated reversing as Tharky appears to be on one of his missions to impose British Isles in 98% of Wikipedia articles. However on this article it seemed to make sense, and the other editor involved is taking a more sensible attitude (see River Shannon), seeking a balanced approach. --Snowded TALK 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force, 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/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lockeridge

Hello there! I'll try and take a look. Actually, I'm rather growing to like you and Matt, so a tail is appearing between my legs. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and pleased to hear about the tail ... --Snowded TALK 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem!

Actually I planned to do a little more work yet - there's alot of simple phrases and material that can be added to these type of articles that can really get things going. :)

Re the references, if I follow you correctly, then ay, I'm afraid that inline references are a must really to quality as references (there's even a cleanup template for it here). Does that help at all? If you're looking for inspiration, Denshaw and Wormshill come to mind. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All help appreciated and thanks for the examples, that helps a lot. Will get back to this during the week and will use what you have done to get West Overton and Fyfield up to a similar level. --Snowded TALK 23:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Give me a nudge if you want a hand - I love writing about settlements and have built up a body of sources that can be used.... Made a typo above: quality means qualify. I think I need to get some sleep! :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Jza's talk page) I've been nosey and looked at this article, noticing the messages here. I think I can clarify one puzzling issue mentioned in the article about the civil parish: West Overton is a civil parish, as is Fyfield. You can see them listed separately on the Election Maps website is one searches for Kennet Local Authority and switches on the parish boundary layers after moving to the appropriate place. This agrees with the Kennet District website, the ONS sites and the Ordnance Survey maps. The confusion comes about because, like many small civil parishes, including many in Cheshire (which I had to take a while to sort out myself), the two civil parishes have a joint parish council whilst still having separate civil parishes. Cheshire, for example, has some cases where up to 4 civil parishes that abut one another have a single joint parish council or (in one case) a joint parish meeting. One can have further confirmation of this by looking up the Neighbourhood Statistics website for census data: here is West Overton's entry, and here is Fyfield's entry (very unusual shape of civil parish there!) If more confirmation is required, (a) get the Southern England volume of Youngs book: (Northern Volume is Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. Volume II: Northern England, London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 0861931270), which is quite definitive, and/or (b) enquite from then local district council via email (I found the Cheshire ones apart in some cases from Cheshire District quite helpful when I approached them and explained what I wanted to know and why.) This matter of separate civil parishes and joint parish councils can cause confusion, and I am almost entirely sure that this is what underlies the puzzling notes in the article (in the "Governance" section). Consequently, the civil parish entry in the infobox needs to be altered to just read "West Overton", since that lists the civil parish and not the name of the parish-level council that administers the area. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Really, really struggling for editting time at the moment (just as well really, I was getting a little fatigued with the project), so I apologise for the delay and breivity.

As frustrating as it is (and I know from Shaw and Crompton, where everyone knows locals are called "Gorbys" but it doesn't appear in any source), "local knowledge" is a non-starter really. As hard and cold as it seems, WP:RS and WP:V state that all of WP's material must be attributable to a reliable (and importantly...) published source.

All's not lost though. Did the sources provided on the talk page help with the material you wanted to add? Are there any local history books? Is there a local library which could support you? I know it is possible to extract published facts for these small places: Neilston, Wormshill and Navenby all show it in their own way. Hope that helps. And I'm glad you're sharing the interest in settlements - I find it a much more soothing and productive corner of WP for obvious reasons! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:philosophy

Snowded, I have undone your edit to Talk:philosophy. In addition to being off topic, the discussion I removed contained a BLP violation. I will continue to remove this, and note that the three-revert-rule does not apply to removing BLP violations. Skoojal (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You could always have deleted the BLP violation. Also the banning of Peter was done in such a way as to make it impossible to comment so this all feels like censorship to me. The whole incident around Peter was shock to be honest, I had not expected Wales to behave in that way. Your name is vaguely familiar - where you a part of the whole Peter fiasco? --Snowded TALK 06:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It also carries a personal attack. Please stop, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire discussion was completely off topic, and I think the BLP policy is clear that this stuff does not belong on talk pages. I left a comment on the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents about this. Skoojal (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I made no personal attacks (that was another editor). Skoojal, I note you have not answered my questions. --Snowded TALK 06:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoring personal attacks made by somebody else can itself be considered a personal attack. Even if you don't see it that way, it's certainly not appropriate. As to the 'whole Peter fiasco' - I believe I had nothing to do with it (I did have one somewhat unpleasant exchange with Damian before that happened, but that's neither here nor there). Skoojal (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored a thread of conversation that I consider important, to suggest that was a personal attack is silly. I am not going to get into an edit war over it. I thought you had been involved in the debate with Peter so that you for confirming that --Snowded TALK 07:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the thread again. Granted, the most offensive comments in it had been removed, however, it is still uncivil, still off-topic, and still contains some pretty nasty personal attacks. You might want to discuss this on ANI. Skoojal (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I thought you would. I think you are too personally involved in this one and should back off. Another editor did the restore this time and I moderated it. I also raised it on the talk page of the other admin who got involved who gave a more reasonable response. Best to let people have some outlet when they feel strongly about something, reduces conflict, you are just making something that would have died naturally into an issue that could escalate. You would do yourself a lt of good if you reversed your reversal and talked with the other editors is a slightly less confrontational tone. There are no nasty personal attacks left in the current text. Sorry you are plain wrong on that, what is left is legitimate criticism --Snowded TALK 23:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I may not delete that again if someone readds it. However, the reference to 'offending Wikipedia's Inner Circle of wannabes', is a personal attack, yes. My view is that if someone is so bothered by those 'wannabes', it's undignified of him to participate in Wikipedia at all. Skoojal (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an existence beyond the original intent of its founders, and I am pretty convinced that issues of ownership will start to surface with increasing frequency. Given the importance of WIkipedia participation by all, and those who are critical of those "in control" seems to be of major importance and to call it undignified foolish. --Snowded TALK 06:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are one thing. For an editor who has not (I believe) been working on article to swing through the Talk Page unilaterally removing other editors allegedly off-topic comments is something else. Wiki Talk Pages are rife with off-topic comments, and it would be chaotic if the practice were generally adopted.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

BLP violating comments must be removed. There is no requirement that, to remove a BLP violation from a talk page, one must have worked on the article. Skoojal (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But you did more than just remove BLP comments, you deleted the whole conversation and ran to the administrators without even talking with anyone first, and there is at least a suspicion that you were pursuing a dispute with another editor (on top of your prior dispute with Peter). I'm not impressed. --Snowded TALK 04:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland, Ireland & Ireland

Hello Snowy. For a whole week, I've been trying to think up (even dream up) some kind of new solution - no luck. HighKing's suggestion is the best (IMO): Ireland as a disambigous page, Ireland (state) or Ireland (country) as the country page and Ireland (island) as the island page. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the first stage is to get the non Unionist ROI supporters to agree that a new solution should be found, then discuss what it is. --Snowded TALK 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But how do you know who's a non-Uionist & who is a Unionist? How do you proove political agenda, without getting slapped with assuming bad faith? We're walking on tricky ground here. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No intention of trying to work it out. However the pro ROI group includes a few die hard unionists wanting to use old language, a lot of editors with good will who don't think there is an issue, and some anti-nationalists (that you see on all these pages). I think what is necessary is for an agreement of the middle (ie no extreme unionists or nationalists) to attempt to find a non ROI route. --Snowded TALK 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to try & figure out who are the Unionist & who aren't, without causing an uproar? then I wish you well in that task. Figuring out which (and if) editors have political motives (on this topic) & what those motives are? isn't my style. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, please do not be provocative and distort what I am saying. I have no intention of figuring out who is who, what I am hoping is that enough of the pro ROI people will see the sense of trying to work out an alternative, and enough of the pro-Ireland guys will, if they do that find a solution which does not imply ownership of Northern Ireland. I have said nothing whatsoever able labelling people. You do have a dark side you know. Most of the time conciliatory edits, then every now and then you poke people; like trying to prod Tharky out of his page when he was not engaged for a period, you know enough to know that would increase the temperature. So can we have the conciliatory person please not the agent provocateur. --Snowded TALK 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Snowy; I merely misunderstood you. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mild irritation revoked, thanks --Snowded TALK 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles & IP accounts

Hello Snowy. I'm fed up with IP.86 & IP.79, they're being unreasonable about not signing-in. It creates the impression that they're hiding something (perhaps that they're banned editors, who knows). Anyways, I'm no longer responding to them, PS- IP.79 gave me the wrong answer. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

well I am on record as saying IP addresses should not edit. I think a third of my work is eliminating their vandalism on multiple accounts. However its not the rules as is, so we have to live with it. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying away from the discussions concerning British Isles & Republic of Ireland, until those IPs-in-question, register in. PS- IP accounts over 1-month old, should be banned or forced to sign-in. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PS- I see the IPs are still littering the Britis Isles discussion page. So frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep will go for semi-protection if it happens again - they are on Wales again as well - WIkipiere I think --Snowded TALK 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words Snowded. I have removed my emotional outburst from my talk page, this is a real world problem and after reading it again I don't feel too comfortable with it. Again, thanks for your kind words. Jack forbes (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words Snowded. I have removed my emotional outburst from my talk page. After reading it again I feel a little uncomfortable putting my real life problems on wiki. Thanks again for your kind words. Jack forbes (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

I wonder if it's wise of me, to return to that article? Last time I was there, I left with steam coming out of my nostrils. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well now Mick has decided to pick it up as a diversion from his arguments with the Administrator community over pictures of Shearer ti will doubtless get fraught. --Snowded TALK 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

His last comment annoyed me. I've left the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jumpers, things are still emotional around those 4 major parts of the UK, aren't they? None of the US states list the President & none of the Canadian provinces/territories list the Queen or the Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They always will be, a history of conquest and assimilation, hard won independence and also strong opposition from people who want Britain to be Britain (not Welsh, or Scottish etc.). My grandmother (yes that close) was thrashed for speaking welsh in the playground of her school (an experienced mirrored in First Nation people in your country) and a culture was almost wiped out at the time. Those things are within living memory so advocates of "we are all British really" will get a strong response. Same on the Irish pages where memories of cultural assimilation are also strong (and of Cromwell for that matter. I remember being on civil rights marches in Derry in the 60s as catholics did not have a vote, something a lot of people forget or don't know (and still have the scars of B-special brutality from that). I could go on, but its not an academic issue for many editors, it is their lived reality and history. --Snowded TALK 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The last time I tried to make England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales consistant? I was given the thanks, but no thanks reply. That's the way the cookie crumbles (sometimes). GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PS- I contacted Darkie aswell. I don't want him going down the same frustrating path I did. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Noted, there is a time and a place for everything and he seems to be changing identity regardless of context looking through his edit history (and doing a few rvs as I go) --Snowded TALK 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rrius's proposal, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it too, neat if it takes here will action on Wales as well --Snowded TALK 23:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's the new kid at that discussion? GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Darkieboy? Don't know but its taken me an hour to track down various edits he has made removing England/Scotland etc and he already has a 3RR ban - although he seems to go to two then stop. His page indicates a strong Unionist position, but POV edits mixed with some good stuff so we will see. Did you ask the same question of others when I appeared on the scene? --Snowded TALK 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rain543. Nope, you've been around Wikipedia, as long as I have. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rain543 is new to me, and funny I thought you had been around a long time before I arrived! --Snowded TALK 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I registered-in on November 17, 2005. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You came aboard 'round October 2006'. Guess I'm one of the Elder statesmen. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and had an interesting introduction. See here --Snowded TALK 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's the Clint character? GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tired Response

Don't you think that the only reason you're replying to me is because I disagree with your stance on registration, rather than having a real objection to my actions?

• Oh please, I am saying that I think you are preaching, exercising a right to excess and lecturing people about things they already know.

If I was doing this, then I guess you would have a point. But can you honestly say that they already knew, or can you only say that you already knew?

Did GoodDay know that it's mechanically impossible to force people to register after one month of editing? No, or else he wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

Did Bastun know that the question of anonymous registration was answered with "No" ever time it was brought up? No, or else he wouldn't have said that it was "eminently sensible and long overdue."

Did you already know that you can ask for semi-protection? Probably, but you obviously didn't do it, so I did nothing more than remind you of your options.

Are you telling me that I can't tell people what to do? In my opinion, yes.

• You might be better editing articles than taking this line (and I note you have also managed to upset Matt and HighKing).

I don't know anything about Europe, and the reason I happened to get here was because Matt put up two redirects for deletion, and both requests were related to users that, in my opinion, he subtly criticizes on his user page. --Raijinili (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote because I thought you were giving GoodDay a needlessly hard time and were lecturing him (and indirectly others). Your preachy comment on naming discussions over Republic of Ireland didn't help your cause either. As to the rest. (i) its perfectly possible to set up a system to force IP's to register after a month, just a matter of writing the right bot and having a review page. (ii) Batsun can answer for himself but I am pretty sure he did know, even if not the pipelink with a comment would have been enough without all the words around it. (iii) Anyone involved with the British/Irish pages knows all about semi-protection it happens all the time. As to your opinion, well that is yours to determine. If you want to confuse criticism of a contribution with some attempt to tell you what to do then so be it. It will restrict how people can interact with you. --Snowded TALK 03:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I) No, it's not possible to make people register after one month. The majority of the people who will see the "You've been on Wikipedia for a month, and you'll have to sign in from now on" will be people who have never edited Wikipedia, while the problem posters will not be affected most of the time. Wikipedia can't tell who you are just from your editing, so they can't have a way to block you after you've been editing for a month, they can only block everyone who happens to be on that IP.

It is perfectly possible to set up a system by which any IP is blocked after a period with a message telling them to register. If that IP has been used by other users then the request is immediate. The point is that GoodDay's suggestion is technically possible. Personally I would enforce registration without a grace period but that is not the issue. --Snowded TALK 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

II) People who know about a proposition which is against consensus usually don't suggest the proposition as an obvious and sensible solution.

Why not if they disagree with the consensus? You obviously haven't edited on any contentious pages or you would know this. --Snowded TALK 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

III) My point wasn't about semi-protection, it was that he had other choices besides leaving. You'd rather him stay than leave, I'm sure, so why do you object to my suggesting other options?

I've know GoodDay for two years and if he wants to leave an article he will, but he won't leave WIkipedia. I respect those decisions when he makes them. --Snowded TALK 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Raijinili, GoodDay is perfectly entitled to express an opinion without being preached at. " You're telling me that I'm violating his rights, and violating someone's rights is usually something people aren't allowed to do. Do you claim that violating rights is something people shouldn't, rather than can't, do? You see where this is going, I'm sure. --Raijinili (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read what is written rather than throwing in emotive language such as "violating". Much more of this and I will start to treat you as a troll --Snowded TALK 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't interlace responses, please. It's confusing if other people try to read it. Instead, quote.

1) If you want to block editors from editing anonymously after a month, then it's impossible. If you just want to block addresses after a month, then the block will be pretty arbitrary on the client side, since most IPs aren't fixed. The second one is easy to do and useless. The first one is what I assumed GoodDay wanted.

2) If they disagree with a solution being obvious

3) I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, you should clarify your own remarks rather than leaving it up to me to interpret it the way you want to interpret it. You say he's entitled to express an opinion. If the entitlement is not a right, then what is it? Would I be entitled to preach at him? I'd like you to clarify what you mean by "entitled" if you don't mean it to be synonymous with "has a right". --Raijinili (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you've surfaced again, and still preaching I see. Interlacing in some circumstances makes responses clearer. Your opinion on this is noted, your instruction will be ignored (try and use the language with a little less arrogance). I am not particularly concerned to be taken seriously by you given the quality and style and responses in this exchange and the way you lectured GoodDay on his reasonable comments. While the praise of the praiseworthy is praise indeed, the corollary also applies.--Snowded TALK 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Interlacing comments makes things clearer for you and me, but this isn't exactly a private conversation.

As for "arrogance", there's little that I can say at this point which you would not see as having a little bit of arrogance, yet you ignore your own superior attitude. Not that there's anything wrong with that by itself, but you're the one preaching to me about preaching, and it's your double standard which you're trying to apply.

His "reasonable comments" showed ignorance on the technical aspects of his proposition, and the only reason that you're still annoyed at me is because I disagree with you on the matter of anonymous IPs. --Raijinili (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipiere, sock #20 (and counting)

Hello Snowy. The very fact that he's on his 20th sockpuppet, give indication that he's untrustworthy. Had he come clean & request re-instatement & a mentor after 3 sock? I'd be forgiving. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

His latest manifestations have done some good editing (as well as silly stuff). I get the impression is he young and needs to learnt. Given him a chance, it costs us little and if it works we get a good editor, if not well he gets banned --Snowded TALK 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He's banned, indefinately, as in forever. I'm not prepared to allow for another repeat of this nonsence again, and I don't think that's indicative of co-operation from him at all either.

To overturn his ban you need to go to arbcom; it's not a decision me or you can make just like that, and his latest incarnation was not open and honest to begin with, nor does it have the proper restrictions placed upon him (such as a ban from Ireland/Britain topics) as would be expected. He's not entitled to hold us to ransom on his terms like that. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, and I think you're acting commendably, however, in addition to User:Narson's point on my talk I'm worried that even if we could allow this gentleman to edit (which I still believe would need a much, much wider consensus, or arbcom) this would set a precident. Indeed, if this chronic sockpuppeteer gets another shot owing to a fellow wikipedian "allowing him", then what's to stop others making the same decisions? Or sockpuppets "allowing" other sockpuppets to do the same?

Speaking for myself I'm not comfortable with Wikipeire returning in any guise. Looking at some of the contributions by former socks, I've found him to be discriminatory, abusive and very very deceptive. Remember User:ThatsGrand and his repeated calls of innocence and threats of arbcom? - I certainly don't forget that. I agree with the other blocking admins (for example User:Alison) that this gentleman forfeit his right to edit and long time ago. We'd be much more productive without him. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it for a few hours - thanks for the comments --Snowded TALK 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I think User:Narson summed things up better than I on reflection. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way Snowy, I meant to say 20 socks (as I consider a sockpage & its talkpage, a single sock). GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Welsh criminal law

I noticed that you participated in this discussion. The outcome that I, and many others, voted for doesn't seem to have happened. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, merge it! Decision is clear --Snowded TALK 10:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you do that Snowded? Daicaregos (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Snowded, don't think anything has changed on this (and I still don't know how to do it myself). Hope you have a cunning plan. Daicaregos (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This may have been lost in your other posts. Daicaregos (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) sorry I did miss it. I did it once some time ago - will have a look see at the weekend and scream for help if I need it --Snowded TALK 17:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Snowy. Sorry to have bothered you, but I don't know how to do it myself. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

IP accounts

Wowsers. Who did ya think that IP account was at the Republic of Ireland discussion? GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one? IP89 who can't read or the others. Place is littered with them, rather like a insect infection --Snowded TALK 15:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

IP account 78.152.217.189. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

If you list the bits of the map you'd like to be altered I'll do them ASAP. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be difficult. I think the main difference are (i) the letters are more proportional to the areas and (ii) the colours less in your face. But I am only one view! --Snowded TALK 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems, I enjoy drawing. I've changed the colours to a pastel version and also tried to get the text to a more even size. With the text if you could point out the uneven ones then I'll change those as well. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you enjoy doing this sort of thing then you a treasure discovered! I think your "Marcher Lordships" are better, for the other names white seems to work better and the angles on the text means that they sit more naturally in the territory. --Snowded TALK 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to angle the text a bit more, but it seems to lose clarity if it done too much. Also darkened the map so the white writing is more legible.81.111.119.98 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I like that - you have my support and thanks --Snowded TALK 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whatabout my question above? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry missed the ID, well spotted have challenged --Snowded TALK 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just found this while browsing. The maps look good (a couple of typos - Deheubarth, Meirionydd), but above all the map needs a reliable source. The boundaries look very different to some I have seem, eg John Davies' History of Wales, and Lieberman's recent The March of Wales, which both indicate Marcher lordships over a much larger area of NE and E Wales - but that may be a question of the right date (I'm not an expert). And I don't understand the colour scheme, ie why Gwynedd and Brycheiniog are in the same shade. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why delete Knowledge networking?

Why do you fight against the article Knowledge networking? As the references show, there are many books in the field and the field is not just the idea of one author. It is correct that the fields Knowledge management and Knowledge networking have an overlap, but it is not true that 100% of knowledge networking is part of knowledge management. On the other hand Communities of practice are only one element of the field of knowledge networking.

You fight against the article is frustrating for me. The reason why I asked a student to contibute this article is that I needed to cite a Wikipedia article on this term. Therefore I searched in Wikipedia and recognoized that nobody wrote this article up to now. Instead of complaining about others, I asked the student to set up an initial version of the article and posted it. Some others helped with additional references and we ended up with a nice first draft of the article. Then started Anthere do delete main parts of the article and Kdurah tried to promote his theses. And now you propose to delete the whole article.

I have no problems with constructive critics and proposals for improvement but simply "delete all" is in my opinion no solution for a cummunity project. I think this is the main idea of Wikipedia: together you are able to increase the quality of an article. Of course, it is necessary to have no wrong information from the very beginning - therefore I understand that some volunteers take care of pages where wrong information is published.

We invested time in providing this article and everybody is welcome to edit and improve it. We will also improve the references whithin the next days, but 5 days is a very close deadline. We also know that the article is far from being perfect. But if you delete it, you loose the contribution of this community.

Please tell me your proposal how to continue in setting up a good article in this field. Heisss (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a very bad article. It doesn't really cite sources and is over reliant on Skyrme's writing. In effect the issues and cases presented are generic to knowledge management as a whole. Knowledge networking is not a specialist subject as such, its part of a set of methods and tools that make up a wider field. There are (in my opinion) far too many articles being set up which take a single author perspective on a field. If you want to develop an article then you can use your sandpit, opening it to others and publish it when its complete. I'd even contribute to it. You could open up a paragraph in the main KM article which is probably more appropriate. In effect you only have a paragraph of data at present so that would be a better place. If you agree to that I'd happily change my delete proposal to a merge one. . --Snowded TALK 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please extend the deletion deadline until October 6, 2008. During the week I have no possibility to work on that issue.Heisss (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don;t make those decisions and you can object you know. Follow the link and say that you plan to work on it by 29th September. If you make that commitment then its unlikely that an admin would delete the page. I still don't see how this is an independent topic however, but open to being convinced if there is new material --Snowded TALK 20:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles and TharkunColl

Hi. While I agree that you are defending a long-argued consensus text against apparent IDONTLIKEIT vandalism, please be careful on 3RR. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Know the limits - had a post ready to go on the administrators page if it happened again, but see that it has been protected. Thanks for looking out! --Snowded TALK 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi Snowded, Please be careful. You're currently on revert 3 at British Isles and as such are in danger of violating the 3RR rule. Regards, 141.6.8.89 (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, but dealing with tag teaming .... --Snowded TALK 10:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just when it looked like the BI page was finally stable? Kaboom. IMO, saying the British Isles is controversal (or whatever word is used) in the content & having the article named British Isles? is the compromise. PS- and the IPs still refuse to register-in. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a position where everytime the page is opened Tharky will make his change again - or at least thats what it looks like. I want to tie down the issues on the page and sort out an agreement for when the block is taken off --Snowded TALK 20:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I've previously suggested taking this whole thing to a formal process since people like TharkunColl, Matt Lewis, and others simply refuse to accept the references as true until confronted with the "threat" of having to justify themselves to a formal process. I don't believe there is anything you'll be able to adjust to make the intro acceptable to that bunch unless you remove all reference to the fact that there is objection to the term. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I can get it to the point where there is NO legitimate objection, that then allows me (given the edit warring history) to request a constraint on editing when the page is unprotected. That is also why I deleted the extreme comment the other way. --Snowded TALK 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already no legitimate objection. You've seen it. There is lots of IDONTLIKEIT and "it couldn't be true", but not a single supporting reference. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff Image

Hi Snowded, i dont think there is anything wrong with having more than 1 image as a city photograph, all the major cities have it, London New York ect. It makes Cardiff look much more inviting and vibrant than that boring Cardiff Bay one which lets face it looks Swansea look better. You cant see any of the skyline in the Cardiff Bay photograph so i am changing this back to the one i uploaded. All the images are free images. If you are not happy with this please refer to the Cardiff talk page. Many Thnaks Toby.--123TOBY123 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Look you have just started to edit - please don't edit war. Discuss on the talk page --Snowded TALK 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And another thing..

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your sterling efforts in maintaining a neutral and balanced viewpoint, and making positive headway, in the multiplicity of tussles between editors in those pesky islands of ours in the top right-hand corner of the Atlantic - your fairness and indefatigability do not always go unnoticed! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! That's my first ever, much appreciated. --Snowded TALK 22:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved! Does this mean you stop talking to the likes of me? :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Never Jack, and thanks --Snowded TALK 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there Snowded. I have requested this. [[2]] Got a feeling that you think the same! Harris578 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Had the results. 123TOBY123 is our young friend! Harris578 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He is fairly easy to detect! The "I have been warned about you" was a give away. --Snowded TALK 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mrs Snowded

Hiya Snowy. I hope your wife's illness isn't too serious. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

God you're fast GoodDay. Its progressive but not fatal, just having a bad period at the moment thanks for the thought. --Snowded TALK 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm speedy. Glad to hear it's not fatal; stay strong (both of you). GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your news Snowy. Hope things turn out OK. Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys --Snowded TALK 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto from me (no ack needed). 79.155.245.81 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And me Snowded. Jack forbes (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys - you realise that there is a real community here despite the occasional differences. --Snowded TALK 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you back. Hope all are well. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

England

No. You are wrong. Any challengeable material needs a cite. You have re-added material that includes Wales and Scotland. But the ref is for Wales alone. Operating (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Normal practice is in insert a tag and discuss. You are also acting inconsistently deleted some items, but leaving other uncited material. --Snowded TALK 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanet

So - tell me - how do I get agreement if no-one can get to see it? Peter Shearan (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Outline the principles of the changes you want to make, and how the history will be referenced on the talk page. If no one objects make the changes! If I had more time this morning I would go through it, but in a dash between meetings. WIll look at the changes later. --Snowded TALK 08:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Informal Mediation

Hi. In case you missed it - I almost did - Karbinski took his move proposal to the Mediation Cabal [here].KD Tries Again (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Typical - playing process and not telling people Thanks --Snowded TALK 14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Look out for forum shopping [too], although this doesn't quite reach that level.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

FYI, now that Karbinski has raised this twice at the Village Pump and on the Disruptive User Talk Page (implying, as far as I can see, that you and I are disruptive obfuscators), I have posted a note on his [Talk page] about forum shopping.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I spotted the Disruptive user one and responded. I think we should assume we have been randed!--Snowded TALK 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipiere's latest socks

See User:CroatiaShoes. I do believe Wikipiere has been caught using new socks. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And as I said to Matt, I would prefer to be seen as naive for trying to bring him in line, than ruthless in eliminating him. He has withdrawn his request any way, he may enjoy creating socks! Its a pity some of his edits have show signs of a good editor in the making.

A community ban is required IMHO. PS- I'm even starting to believe that my pet Shih-Tzu might be a sockpuppet of Wikipiere (or whoever he is). GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wales

• Factually, England does have principalities, which is why Charles is the Prince of Wales. As for the consensus, it's wrong, so it doesn't really matter. Wales is a principality, not a country. Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't you know, never has (England) at any stage in its history. Prince of Wales is an honorary title given to the eldest son of the monarch, it has never had a prince/kingly role in respect of territory. Check the history and citations I gave you. The agreed consensus was reached after a table of citations and other material had been gathered. --Snowded TALK 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in. England has principalities?? GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a double-take - at a glance on the edit diff, I thought GoodDay was questioning if England had principles! My mistake, but it amused me to think of GoodDay being *that* controversial. --HighKing (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to either question would be the same. :) Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did worry that GoodDay had gone over to the darkside, but fortunately note ... --Snowded TALK 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed it, what's the gag? GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Read your post! 'England has principalities?? --Snowded TALK 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's plural for principality, what's the gag? GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lightbulb comes on. I get it now, HK mis-read my post. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

HighKing

Yes, I agree (to your latest comment at Talk:Saint David, here is perhaps a better place to continue the discussion). Can I ask you, sincerely, for your views on the actions of HighKing over the last year. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time he has been on a mission to remove British Isles, in many cases without justification. However he is also right some of the time and the aggression shown by Tharky has not helped. The solution to this is to deal with each article on the evidence and not get caught up in the insert/revert battle. That is what I tried to do to on cup and ring (and got Tharky to agree). St Davids I left with a comment and I checked a whole bunch of others and made no change as BI seemed appropriate. --Snowded TALK 17:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I'm sure there are instances where British Isles is plain wrong. I didn't examine HK's edits in sufficient detail to note any valid deletion. What strikes me though, is the massive amount of deletions and his tireless "crusade" - though such a word might get me into trouble. My worry is that his motives, as I perceive them, are very likely to lead to inaccuracies. They certainly lead to content deletion in many cases. This cannot be right. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think any crusade is a bad idea! But I don't think the issue is all one way. Your insertion of Ireland into cup and ring is I think a good example of how we should behave. I will post a suggestion to HighKing to see if he is open to a different way of proceeding. --Snowded TALK 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll watch this space. I'm away for a few hours now. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I put a proposal up on HighKing's talk page --Snowded TALK 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I can butt in here a little. My view is that High King is unwise in his actions: he deletes a lot of instances of "British Isles" when he has no idea whether the term is used correctly or not. As evidence of this, see the discussion on Talk:Frodsham some time ago now, where his removal of the term meant that a claim was placed in the article that was not present in the reference that had already been given. The response was to begin to question whether the reference was a reliable source or not (on the spurious grounds that it did not possess an ISBN number, which not all reliable sources do not have: in the end, I went to WT:V and its noticeboard to get that resolved, but it then dragged in other people who questioned the use of "Frodsham" in other villages, as you can see if you read the discussion. It was time-consuming and on the point of being disruptive.

On the other hand, Tharkuncoll is no stranger to being disruptive himself, in that he has been blocked in the past for being unduly provocative and "baiting". Some of his actions are of that nature, I consider, in all of this. The two are in some ways as bad as each other, and when they clash, well - we can see the results! An additional problem is that Tharkuncoll often uses arguments that imply or directly make use of the fallacy of equivocation (e.g., saying he is on the side of truth and accuracy, in a way which often implies that those who are taking him to talk are not and thereby deficient in some way).

Highking very easily and quickly accuses others of not assuming good faith because they make use of personal comments: in fact, having studied and lectured on informal logic and argumentation theory extensively in the past, I can say that he fails to distinguish between an "ad hominem argument" and an "ad hominem attack": "Ad hominem attacks" are not to be made on wikipedia, and are rarely justified elsewhere except in certain well-specified kinds of dialogue which shouldn't concern wikipedia. However, "ad hominem comments" are made often, for example, on WP:RFAs. where a candidate for an administrator's is supposed to be trustworthy and so on: all of which are aspects of teh person's character which can really only be fully discussed in ad hominem arguments. His inference from observing that people are almost saying he has a history of single-purpose edits, to claiming that they are "in effect" arguing that he is some kind of nationalist is only one such inference (and is also an example of the fallacy of equivocation, used by Tharkuncoll on occasion), and is necessary to try to increase the chance that pinning the label of "personal attack" on the comments he is commenting about will succeed.

I've largely kept out of all this, largely as a result of getting my fingers burned in trying to reign in Tharkuncoll a couple of months ago. But I do believe it has helped me sit back and see that this current drama between the two is largely of their own making, and that a successful solution would be to try to be more rational in examining every proposed addition and deletion of "British Isles" on a case-by-case basis to see whether it is justified or not. I also believe that both their actions are almost disruptive in themselves now, if not already disruptive: one can claim that one is following the guidelines, but there are ways of following guidelines that do not inflame matters, and both of tehir actions may follow guidelines, but inflame matters considerably. The need to both change their approaches here.

Sorry for butting in.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

DD, point taken on your explanation of ad hominen, but personal comments have no part in discussing edits on Wikpedia, and since I was not standing as candidate for administrator, the constant stream of personal comments must be pointed out and stopped. Also, your case regarding Frodsham illustrates perfectly the fragility of many editors views on my actions. I made one edit to that article, and posted one comment. And you call that disruptive? Proves the larger point that certain people readily accept the term British Isles in articles with no concept of what they are saying and no regard to accuracy. I usually look for references. When they're found and they're good, I'm delighted and happy and move on. Sorry if that's disruptive. --HighKing (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But along with your first reply to my question about ruining the Frodsham entry was to mention ad hominem comment to me, which was quite outrageous. And this is part of your problem: you leap to making that comment too frequently, and I note that you make no mention about the distinction you blur between an ad hominem comment (which can be challenged by means of a warning) and an ad hominem attack (which can), and you have, I undertand, templated people who have made ad hominem comments rather tha ad hominem attacks. You need to realise and accept this as part of your contributing behaviour to all of this. Secondly, you claim that the edit you made to Frodsham was not disruptive: of course it was not in itself, but it was what then happened that became disruptive: you challenged the reference by trying to point out that it was not a reliable source, and sorting that out involved many people on the WT:V's noticeboard, including one who wondered why on earth it was ever a question in the first place, as well as other people then chiming in with issues that showed they just did not understand the issues involved in naming villages in this part of the UK at all. On the whole, your edit and the questioning of the reliable source had a ripple effect that just was on the point of being disruptive. Until you can acccept that actions like this are unwise and can have poor consequences, you will for ever be getting into trouble over what you do: as I said, one can follow the rules in a collaborative way that assumes good faith in established editors to know what they are doing (which you could have seen I was), or there is following the rules in a rigid way that can be disruptive: an almost "jobsworth" way. Indeed, we see it here exactly, by your words in which you class my comments as being part of the "fragility of many editors views on my actions". In other words, it is the other person's fault, and this seems to happen too frequently in your responses. I think in the past some of your actions have fallen into that latter class, and along with Tharkuncoll, it is a recipe for large scale disruption when you both run into each other, which, as we see, is happening again and again now. Both of you need to examine yourselves critically and with a fully open attitude to perhaps being wrong, and I hope that in that way, you may both change for the better. Finally, you reacted as if I had said your actions were disruptive, but go back and read very carefully what I wrote: I said that they were on the point of being disruptive. Over exaggeration of someone's position has been a major problem in all of this, from mischaracterizing other's actions, making assumptions about motives (whilst accusing other's of making assumptions about one's own motives), and misusing the claim of personal attacks on the basis of confusing ad hominem arguments and ad hominem attacks. Similarly, you mention that you were not standing as an administrator, and hence, I assume, that is meant to argue that ad hominem arguments should not be used. Of course this is not the case; as I said "for example": there are many other legitimate occasions when ad hominem arguments are appropriate: this discussion about your behaviour being but one of them. Once again, please take care to not mischaracterise another's position.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

DD, just to put this one to bed, here's the first reply to your question - where did I mention the outrageous ad hominen bit? In fact, I can't find any ad hominem comments put in your direction. And if you notice, the very last comment in this thread, from me, was:

• I don't think anybody has stated that it's not acceptable? I'm looking for clarification on the policy, but that is a separate matter, and in truth, your thread above answers my query. But as far as I'm concerned, the article quotes a book, and an editor has provided a reference for the book, and that's all that's required.

You appear to be developing a position that it's OK to use the term British Isles wherever you see fit. Sounds just like Tharky's entrenched position that there's no controversy over the term and it should be used wherever and whenever anyone feels like it. BTW, the usage of British Isles in the Frodsham article will fail according to the current guidelines at WP:BISLES. At least I'm only looking for a reference for claims, and I still maintain it was a reasonable request to ask for a reference for the Frodsham article.

I invite you to look over my behaviour this past month or so. No harm to also compare my behaviour to Tharky or MidnightBlueMan, and then I'm happy to talk about reflection on my behaviour. But do the homework and don't make assumptions - I think you'll find that most of this discussion will revolve around the tactics employed by certain editors to make sure my editing is perceived as disruptive. --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote I was thinking of is this one: "For your own part, please assume good faith and I'm not sure that you meant to claim that I am trying to remove the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia.", which occurred in your comment to me here. The suggestion that I had not assumed good faith in my initial reversion of your mistaken removal of "British Isles" from Frodsham then went on to make large claims of bullying and ad hominem arguments. In the context, it was directly implioed that I fell into the same camp, and it was that which was outrageous, given what had happened. However, I can see that this may not have been the case, and so I apologize for that, but merely restate my position as being that in this instance you were too ready to make an accusation of failing to assume good faith on my part. As for the rest of your reply: ":You appear to be developing a position that it's OK to use the term British Isles wherever you see fit. Sounds just like Tharky's entrenched position that there's no controversy over the term and it should be used wherever and whenever anyone feels like it. " Nowhere have I suggested this, and I do not belive you have any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up about my intentions or motives. If you feel that it is so compelling that people should avoid making pesronal comments about others, this situation where you are not only making personal comments about my intentions and motives, but you are doing so in the presence of no evidence whatsoever is quite regrettable.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(The case of Frodsham was discussed on The "Demonstrably Findable" section, here of WT:V, and also on Talk:Frodsham and sections 12 and 13 of HighKing's talk page archive here, as well as DDStretch's talk page, archived here (section 82: "Frodsham".)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Don't apologise! I agree with every word. My suggestion on HighKing's page is to try and find a way to let him propose change without getting into edit wars. --Snowded TALK 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on my Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful if we continued this discussion on the Arbitration page now, as I am sure Snowded doesn't want this cluttering up his talk page. May be he can transfer the discussion over to there?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded just landed in Singapore after a 13 hour flight and is catching up on a busy Sunday on his watched pages. Yes I can transfer it there (do I just cut and paste it or is there a formal process). --Snowded TALK 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You cxan just transfer it there using cut and paste, making a clear note about what you have done. However, may be you need to read the arbitration comments and see now if it necessary to do that.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just found them and added my support to Matt's analysis. Its good to see Sir Fonzzie involved in this, hopefully the wider issues will now get close to Arbcom attention (I think we are going to need that). --Snowded TALK 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work friend!

• KNOWL is playing WIKI RP on his user page and invites you to donate your favorite weapon in his RP LOG!WIKI-RP

-Knowl <(Go to my user page to play WIKI RP! Its FUN and educational!) (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

England

How is it vandalism to remove the patently false statements that England has a Prime Minister, a legislature, an official language, etc? England is region of the UK - it hasn't had a legislature since 1707, and it has never had a Prime Minister. You are obviously just as ignorant as the other editor who tried to revert me. I suggest you find out something about the topic before you start accusing people of vandalism. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

your style and level of discourse are appropriate to your nom de plume --Snowded TALK 06:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted twice, and I am aware of the 3-revert rule. Instead of threatening me, why don't you engage with the topic? Is it your position that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of England, as the article now states? Can you provide a source for this assertion? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I must concur. England, although sometimes synonymous with Britain in the vulgar sense, is technically NOT the United Kingdom as a whole. Or so my degree in Political Science has taught me... -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to see you know about the three revert rule. Now please take this to the talk page on England and also read the prior discussions. We really do not need to keep coming back to this topic again and again. Also don't assume I am asserting a position, I am reverting controversial edits that should be discussed first, at the moment I am engaged with your edits as a matter of process not content. If you come up with a reasonable argument rather than aggressive and intemperate assertions (supported by insults), and demonstrate you have bothered to check the prior discussion then I'll be happy to discuss it. --Snowded TALK 07:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the helpful note inserted at the top of Talk:Wales be replicated on Talk:England, and possibly done for the other countries as well, if necessary? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Britain

Just changed a couple of things on History of the formation of the United Kingdom, including the map (from Principality of Wales to Wales), and realised I was colluding in the pretense that nothing existed in Britain before the Kingdom of England. It may be a huge task to change Wikipedia to reflect the reality of pre-existing communities in Britain before the Saxons arrived. Can I ask for your guidance on how/where to start. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

UK != Britain

I'd be interested to see a source that backs your view about the inaccuracy of Britain, or it not equalling the UK. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a common abbreviation, but its also ambiguous. Britain and Ireland for example is a common geographical term (most atlases these days). My online dictionary says "Britain |ˈbritn|

an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland and includes the small adjacent islands. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit. See also Great Britain . ORIGIN Old English Breoton, from Latin Brittones ‘Britons,’ superseded in Middle English by forms from Old French Bretaigne (from Latin Brit(t)annia)." --Snowded TALK 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Conduct

I think your somewhat arrogant post have reached the point of intolerability, so i have raised the issue on the wikiquette notice board

i also suggest you read these. Wikipedia:Five pillars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.42 (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers, that newbie IP learnt the Wikipedia ropes fast. I'm been here for 3-yrs & still don't know all the tricks of the trade. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Socks

I understand your comment, but to me, to be labelled as a "sockpuppet" is one of Wikipedia's biggest insults - as bad as being called "racist" in real life. It's not a term one should throw around, but if you believe it, then do an actual complaint. drive BMW follow 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think its as bad as being called a racist! That said I did not accuse him of being a sock puppet, I tried to explain to him/her that his/her behaviour would lead to that suspicion. I believe in giving people a chance to understand how their behaviour can be interpreted rather than jumping in to report them. --Snowded TALK 12:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, having been called a racist here on Wikipedia, and having been called a Sock, I personally find them both offensive ... BMW(drive) 12:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree both are offensive! However I think there is a difference in the level of offensive. That said, I am not making an accusation that either of the IPs is a sock, I am advising them that their behaviour if uncorrected could lead to that accusation. --Snowded TALK 12:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the way I read it, it sounded like an accusation, which will automagically get someone's back up ... -t-BMW-c- 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some people may tend to take offence at some things that other interpret differently, no matter how carefully the things under scrutiny are expressed. I do think that Snowded did not make the direct accusation. If he had, it would be a different matter. Instead, he was giving advice about what others might suspect if things did not change in some way. In another context, if I gave advice to someone that if they continued to make unsupported clearly contentious changes to an article without discussing them on the talk page, they might be seen as being disruptive. Would it be a gross insult towards that person, or merely the giving of good advice? In fact something similar to this has happened on occasion in reaction to messages from myself, even when I have taken particular care in trying to make it clear that there was no accusation of disruption in what I was saying. There are grey areas in between the black and white of incivility and civility, and there are also degrees of sensitivity in the minds of the editors who receive comments and interpret them negatively when there was no negativity directly spoken or written; if there was no direct accusation of being a sockpuppet, yet the reaction was as if there had been, I am sure a case of equal power might be made that the reaction was itself not one which assumes good faith. Perhaps both are best downplayed. However, if something like this results in a report to wikiquette alerts, then given the "unmerciless pulling apart" of one's contributions to wikipedia that can happen, and which we are specifically warned about, I think a case could be made to gently suggest to the complainant to relax and don't take things too much to heart, as they may quickly experience even worse things that are quite acceptable here.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still amazed, that the IP knew about making Wikiquette reports. He/she's only been on Wikipedia barely a day. It took me 'bout a year, to learn about such things. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of signs that suggest that this IP editor is not a new editor to wikipedia (knowing about the Five Pillars as well, is another). Whether that equates to using multiple accounts during overlapping time periods is not as clear, and certain conditions need to be fulfilled if a report to WP:SSP is accepted. What I find intriguing is that the editor is still not signing his messages, even though the point became part of the discussion. Now, I know it isn't mandatory, but after a number of requests, with little effort in fulfilling the requests needed, it seems strange that the editor is still not signing messages. It makes some discussions very difficult to follow. There may be a number of reasons why it isn't happening, from forgetfulness (unlikely given the knowledge easily to hand about procedures on wikipedia), through a basic defiant independence ("I know I should, but I'm damned if I'm going to do what someone suggested I should do"), through to basic unpoliteness, and onto baiting, and none of these are being asserted to be the real reason by myself here. It remains a complete mystery.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, much appreciated. I must admit (and it would serve me right for trying to help) that this one felt a bit like Wikipiere. Part of the reason for asking him if he had edited before is that such a question met with stone walling in that case as well. Hopefully he isn't. --Snowded TALK 18:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

IPs on discussion pages

Hiya Snowy. I gotta congratulate those veteran IPs on discussion pages concerning heated topics (like British Isles & Republic of Ireland). Their refusal to create accounts, has encouraged me to remove many articles from my watchlist. PS- It's too bad, I rather enjoyed those articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is almost certainly one editor who is cleverly bypassing various checks and using different IP addresses to intermittently post a lot of invective about the United Kingdom based on actions many years in the past, but which are said by this editor to be symptomatic of the United Kingdom today. Consequently, WP:SSP can do little. My first thought was to semi-protect the talk page so that only established editors could contribute to the discussions, but I think that might be a step too far at this stage, as there are some anonymous IP users who do not vent fury and invective in every message and can be quite reasonable. I also think it would get stamped on by a group of admins who don't seem to know what it is like dealing with articles one is trying to improve whilst facing a barrage of disruption from such anonymous IP users. I wish we could force anonymous IP users to at least register, as I think it has gone too far, but if one mentions this, there is a chorus of perennial proposal, which is sufficient it seems to leave any such proposal dead in the water. It is the combination of this attitude and the stringent rules within which which editors who are permitted to investigate SSP cases say they operate that is allowing such excesses to continue and intensify, in my opinion. However, I do know that the disruptive IP editor I mentioned above normally makes use of the Irish equivalent of BT to access the Internet (as I have my own nettools that at least allow me to do that.) It is a pity that the left hand of wikipedia seems not to care what the right hand is preventing happening.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does consensus on individual articles not outweigh general policy? And if the "good" IP addresses are truly interested in contributing, why not get a login? I think a block on unregistered users is required. --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the consensus would apply in this case, and I'm unwilling to try it, as I think I did quite enough in the eyes of some by the block I made a couple of months ago (which I was told "you can't do that" - i.e., an admin can't tell editors not to engage in certain topics, though I see over adminds doing this all the time with impunity!) If we asked about it, I guarantee that it would blow up into a lot of drama and be ultimately bruising for all involved. I've looked through the various documentation and guidelines about semi-protecting talk pages of articles, and nothing is mentioned about it at all. I think if anyone were tempted to do it, there could be justification: the history of disruption, inappropriate use of the talk pages, and ongoing evasion of the various reasonable checks when disruption happens could quite easily, I think, make for a convincing case to reasonable editors. But we do not have the luxury of reasonable editors, and there are quite enough people willing to froth at the mouth with anger when some perceived limitation on their (and others) free-reign is perceived (RENT-A-FROTH might be their codeword, in fact 8-) ).  DDStretch  (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I got very frustrated this week with some of the admin responses over two IP edits. Either way, between flights will catch up at weekend. In the meantime thanks to both of you for these comments - shows other people care about the issue and want to do something. --Snowded TALK 15:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You lot want to get a grip of yourselves regarding IP editing. It's allowed, it's a core Wikipedia policy and it brings benefits to the project. If you don't like it why don't you go and find another Wiki where you do have to register, there are plenty of them about, try Wikinfo for instance. DDStretch - don't even think about putting a block on any article purely to exclude IPs; it is expressly forbidden at WP:PROTECTION MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, there's no article on Wikinfo any more. What's going on? MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RENT-A-FROTH indeed. Now, on WP:PROTECTION, I can't see where it is explicitly forbidden. Perhaps you can find out where if it is there. All I can see is this:

In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption – for example, due to media attention – when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.

and "pages" includes talk pages, does it not?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote from WP:PROTECTION "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." I think this is quite clear. The debate above includes suggestions that protection could be used to "discourage" IPs. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not as clear as you make out. The suggestion was to primarily avoid the continual disruption to WP:TALK by an anonymous editor posting inflammatory messages. In that, it is hardly different to the semi-protection that any article would have to prevent vandalism by an anonymous editor. So, try not to be so black-and-white about this in future.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I now have confirmation that what I said is, in fact correct. Straight from one of the horses' mouths. As I suspected above, it can be done under certain circumstances, but that it isn't a good idea in these circumstances. So, it is NOT "explicitly forbidden" at all. I do think, however, that there is a need to be alert and to remove the no-content message that merely denigrates the United Kingdom (or anything else) with no contribution to the aim of improving the article (i.e., any message that doesn't conform with WP:TALK and related pages and sections)  DDStretch  (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, what I said regarding this situation was, "not a chance". User MidnightBlueMan has it on the nail. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He may have it on the nail in the specific instance, but I asked the question and interpreted his comment as being about a much more general case, in which case, it is possible. I think that is where the confusion has arisen. No need to make a bigger difference than there already is.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything at Talk:British Isles that would merit SP. I haven't looked at Talk:Republic of Ireland. On a related matter, the main article British Isles is also SPd. This appears to go against the policy in that it seems to have been SPd just to exclude IP editors. Can this be reviewed? Fine if there was heavy IP vandalism, but if this was not the case then it should be unprotected (or re-protected - preferably not though). MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, as you are right: it has been semi-protected for a very long time, and too long, in fact.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I personally favour maintaining IP edit facilities on all articles by default, but I wouldn't be surprised if British Isles attracts the vandals again, and would thus require temporary SP, yet again. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Celtic nations

Hiya Snowded, more than happy to be re-educated, byt, as ever. But didn't this come up in the 'Wales is a country' saga. I'm sure that someone suggested nation and was shot down, as nation referred to the people rather than the territory. Just had a look on Encarta and their definition #2 is: "people of same ethnicity: a community of people who share a common ethnic origin, culture, historical tradition, and, frequently, language, whether or not they live together in one territory or have their own government." Seems to apply to Brittany as much as it applies to Wales, Scotland, etc, in this context. After all we're discussing an article entitled 'Celtic nations', not Celtic countries, Which would, by the way, also exclude Cornwall.

Don't think I'm going to be of much help in this Celtic stuff. My primary interests are Welsh history and culture. Although I have been to Celtic League meetings in London, I've read very little about the other Celtic nations and have no books on the subject. Having said that, the page is on my watch list and I will contribute to discussions when I can.

Are you back from Aussie yet? Daicaregos (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Came up in Wales and we were able to show (i) that Wales had been a country and (ii) was recognised as such by the UK Government. That could not be done for Brittany which only existed as a Dutchy. I have a sister studying Breton through the medium of Welsh and its very similar but the historical facts would not support nation or country if it was proposed. Now in Singapore for a week, moving on to North America before landing at Heathrow morning of South African match ..... --Snowded TALK 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't see why the historical facts would not the support people of Brittany being defined as "people of same ethnicity: a community of people who share a common ethnic origin, culture, historical tradition, and, frequently, language, whether or not they live together in one territory or have their own government." Bretons seem to fulfill all the criteria. The definition of nation is different to that of country. Nation pertaining to people and country pertaining to area. Does your sister consider Brittany to be a nation? Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I could interest my sister in the question! I really think you have a problem with Brittany on this. The survival of the language and culture is not as strong as say Catalonia and it is and has always been part of the history of of France (which if course includes England) which includes areas such as Burgundy, the Aquitaine etc. I know that the use of nation here would be controversial if we tried to apply it to Wales or Scotland (you know what would happen) where there is stronger case. I'm open, if there are no objections to retaining the name I am OK with it, but I think it will attract attention from the odd politically motivated vandal as we have already seen. --Snowded TALK 00:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, simply curiosity. Please tell me which part of the definition you think does not apply to the people of Brittany. Daicaregos (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think they satisfy all the criteria, but we saw what happened when nation was attempted as an alternative to country ... --Snowded TALK 08:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland to RoI related changes

Hiya Snowy. Who's the fella behind those changes? GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, ya mean Setanta747. IMO, all related articles should be left at or moved to RoI; until (if) Republic of Ireland is moved. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its as bad as the British Isles wars between High King and Tharky and may end up in the same place --Snowded TALK 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sky is blue

FYI - [[3]] - I hope you see now that I do not take the policy of WP:V to extremes.  :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the article requires more references (good review by the way you must be pleased after the work you have put in) does not that all additional references are right! One lesson from the diff is keeping disputes to the talk page - will do my best to help on that. --Snowded TALK 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"unnecessary extension of title"

what did you mean by that? I shortened the title see: diff ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wales

I have decided to leave the discussion on the Wales page. I notice in your last comment you mention ip's and new names coming in to troll and distrupt. I hope you were in no way referring to me, I was only there to take part in an interesting and perhaps fruitful conversation. An added note, as I mentioned on the talk page, the ip not only changed Alex Salmonds nationality to British but at one point he changed it to English. I think that says everything about his intentions. There seems to be too much bickering going on now, thus the reason for my departure from the talk page. Cheers! Titch Tucker (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to you! Please stay engaged, we need serious editors here --Snowded TALK 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall certainly keep one eye on the discussion with interest. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rand book sales

I agree that the sentence does not belong in the "intellectual impact" section. It's more about cultural impact, and is adequately covered in the Ayn Rand article. — DAGwyn (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my feeling - glad we reached agreement on that one. Otherwise I think you are right on Greenspan, but wrong on Einstein. I thinking about a response on that one as the whole paragraph is a bit clumsy. --Snowded TALK 11:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph

Well I don't know but maybe your religious views just took offense...well its removed regardless.Rodrigue (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Try not to be tiresome, you are littering articles with meaningless paragraphs. Try learning how to use WIkipedia. --Snowded TALK 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

Hi, I wonder if you can help me in how I would go about invetigating sock puppet activity in Wikipedia. There is a user User:Welshleprechaun, who has actively pursued an agenda in making Wikipedia an advert for Cardiff. For a long time now, his edits are very much in the same vain as User:Cardiff123098, trying to force the idea that Cardiff is a primate city. Any help and advice you can give would be very much appreciated. Avebury (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience Welshleprechaun is an editor in good standing and in no way a sock puppet. I don't watch Swansea, but I do watch Cardiff and I don't see anything to support the view. --Snowded TALK 07:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for your response anyway. Avebury (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Feel free to investigate, Avebury, but you will find it a waste of time. I admit that I believe that Cardiff is a primate city, as do a lot of people, and I will continue to search for sources to back this up. I feel Avebury's accusations are nothing more than petty revenge to my reverts of his/her disruptive edits. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And just to add that I do not condone Cardiff123098's edits. In fact Snowded and I have reverted several of his/her edits because of vandalism or unsupported claims: [4][5]Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hello Snowded, is this another sockpuppet insisting that English comes before Welsh in the infobox? If it's not, then he's quite obviously just a troublemaker. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

a one time editing IP ?- almost certainly. --Snowded TALK 06:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not me, honest guv! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been accused of that as well have you!  :-) --Snowded TALK 12:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a first time for everything.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Please do not precipitate edit wars. The length of this section was already discussed. The pertinent information is still there - as Wiki-Ed pointed out, there was too much detail here. I am wasting my Saturday attempting to improve the article by adding inline references, and you are coming along and reverting. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are incredible - if someone dares to change one of your edits, you immediately reverse their edit, refuse to take it to the talk page and then accuse them of edit warring. You remove a key material, 90% of your edits were great, that was bad. Please deal with your ownership issues. --Snowded TALK 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I accused you of precipitating an edit war. Why must I raise it on the talk page, when it has already been raised by another editor, but this rule does not apply to you? Why is you reverting three times (NB, in violation of WP:3RR OK? Please deal with your hypocrisy issues. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice you deleted the comment as provocative rather than admitting it was wrong. As a matter of fact I did not breech 3RR. I restored in part some of the material you deleted and then matched your two reversions in an attempt to get you to engage in a conversation. The fact that something has been assessed as too long does not mean that any reduction you make in that text is therefore correct. You took out too much. I have edited down a bit and hopefully we now have something reasonable. In the meantime you might like to read WP:Civil --Snowded TALK 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read 3RR more closely. "A revert is any action...that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Note: in part. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read it and commend you to do the same, I started with an edit to restore some (but not all) of the material you had deleted. You then initiated two reversals rather than taking it to the talk page. I'm pretty sure my actions would survive a review by a third party on WP:3RR and I am pretty sure that you are either in breech, or close to breaching WP:Civil. As it is I think we have got somewhere with the new text, and could have easily got there via a quick chat on the talk page - its what it is there for. --Snowded TALK 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

List of flags by country

Hiya Snowy. I've also suggested sections for that article. Ye must control ye temper. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you might want to consider controlling your language. As far as I can see I haven't lost my temper just suggested you should resist the temptation to provoke. We have one editor under an ArbCom warning and you are giving their provocative edits credibility by a completely unnecessary suggestion for deletion of country flags or the creation of an unnecessary section. Next thing we know you will be dropping one of your "We haven't seen you for a long time" notes to Tharky to rattle his cage. Best to leave these things alone.

Again, I'm not a provoker or cage rattler of Setanta, Tharky or other (shall we say) strong minded editors. Anyways, you are entitled to your opinons of me (or my supposed behind the scenes motives). GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay you do from time to time stir the pot - I've pointed it out a couple of times before. I have no idea as whether its deliberate or not, only you can answer that one. --Snowded TALK 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have answered. I'm not a provoker, Snowy. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words "Goody" --Snowded TALK 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Goody?. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

equivalent of Snowy --Snowded TALK 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of countries

I've asked about the 'apparent' exclusion of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Got my response. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales don't fit that article's criteria for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall leave my vote to keep, but for the moment I think I'll take a step back from this article. I obviously don't know the full history of the Eng/Sco/Wal and N.Ireland country issues. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

it has not been fun ,,, --Snowded TALK 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Had to give up on both those articles. The NPOV approach didn't work. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, you were taking and proposing a controversial position - something you are entitled to but please don't pretend that you were the only NPOV editor, its simply not the case. --Snowded TALK 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out Matt Lewis' idea, for both articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: My PoV would be to use 'only' the United Kingdom in both articles. However, I chose to compromise - but my offer was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They are countries GoodDay, its that simple. The fact that you are not making proposals to group other dependent territories makes your position inconsistent. --Snowded TALK 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By all means, group the other dependant territories. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would I, I don't agree with grouping. I was simply pointing out evidence of a POV position :-) --Snowded TALK 21:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider Matt's idea. Put United Kingdom (in brackets), next to England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland at both articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Why? then you have to put France next to its dependent territories and so on and it would get very messy, pipelink to the country articles - that makes the status clear. Sorry GoodDay I think you and others are tilting at windmills thinking people will be confused as to status. Why on earth you are opening a can of worms like this on a minor page I fail to understand. Do you like conflict? --Snowded TALK 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have to oppose my proposal at List of flags by country; in doing so, have you not (yourself) helped fuel that supposed conflict? GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I was taking a "leave well along" policy and trying to get you not to raise the issue on the grounds it was controversial, and not important. --Snowded TALK 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you'll agree. It's best we end this discussion & move on. PS- No hard feelings? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not (hard feelings that is)! --Snowded TALK 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, eating crow

Though I disagree with you on those articles. You are correct about one major thing: I shouldn't have started discussions on those 2 articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised! But you are helping deal with the fall out so thanks for that. I came to this after I made a comment on the countries page - would not have made that if I had come here first. --Snowded TALK 05:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also banned from Matt's talk-page. Guess he didn't like my suggestion (that things would be easier on Wikipedia, if England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland were independant). Ouch, what a bump on the head I got. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Matt and I are agreed on your darkside which says something. However I promise not to ban you. --Snowded TALK 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I know; but I found his attitude towards me darkened after my suggestion. He's very sensistive about the UK. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the Manual of Style?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Task_Force_terms_of_reference and in particular the subsection Compromise Proposal. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My old username

The last time i used a different username was about 3 years ago and it was only on a couple of occasions which is why i cannot remember it. Even when i used that name i didnt make edits to either the talk pages of the UK or main articles, that was not what i was looking at on wiki back then. I have used wiki often since then but never made edits, The first time i made comments on these things were this week, the only edit to a main article on the UK / Regions was on the UK economy page just before i registered. I deleted a section on income based on enthic origin which had been flagged for a long time, with debates going back over a year on it. I saw a previous comment by an unregistered user saying they didnt want to delete it themselves as they were unregistered and it would probably be reverted. So i decided to register just incase, to re delete it or argue for it to be deleted if someone reverted it (which they didnt). Whilst we may have strong disagreements on views, please accept my word that i am not the person you think i am. I dont aim to stir up trouble, ive just had concerns about certain things for some time and decided i wanted to join in with the debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to understand that the history of new IDs on these pages is not good. Trust increases when histories are declared - that allows statements to be checked. I note your above comments but I cannot validate them. --Snowded TALK 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what i posted on the UK countries page, incase you did not read it.

When i made a comment on the Scotland discussion page a couple of days ago, i forgot to sign it or sign in and in response Daicaregos posted i may be banned Nimbley6/Bennet556. That is how i think i knew who you were talking about but that person was not me. Also just to avoid confusion, one of the edits on the Scotland discussion page made on the 29th of October was not me, as that user also posted on the Russel Brand page (somewhere i have never edited).

Now i want us to move on from the argument, i have infact accepted your position on classing W/S/NI/E as Countries of the United Kingdom, although i disagree on using them on most international "country" lists on their own. Now i agree with the term countries of the UK i want to see that page issues / merger resolved, i noticed the poll on merger was made in july so i thought it required a request for further action on the page to resolve it one way or another.

We may strongly agree on political issues but i am not trying to cause trouble, i just want to see action to resolve some of the problems with certain pages. So i am sorry if some of my original comments seemed rude or offensive, and if the user:check thing you mentioned would convince you i am not that person im happy for them to do it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BW, do yourself a favour & move on from the articles you're currently frequenting. Don't make the mistakes I've made. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

British & Irish articles

Hiya Snowy. That IP 86 account has been making 'familiar' changes across those articles. Could it be Wikipiere, again? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could well be, he has been active. Matt is the expert ... --Snowded TALK 18:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

::Hiya Snowy. On the Ireland Taskforce, I scratched out (mainely out of frustration) my 'support' opinon for page movements to Ireland (state), Ireland (island) etc etc. Just wanted to say, ya'll can restore my 'support' (if ya's want). GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks it is appreciated --Snowded TALK 23:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see things calmed down at the Ireland Taskforce, since I've left those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have some new definition of "calm"! --Snowded TALK 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Anways, as I was saying to Waggers. If the RMs at Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) fails, we'll have to acept the status quo. Also, we must try not to rough up the RM opposers. Annoying them will only tighten their resolve. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

List of countries

Hello Snowded. I've just had a look at the discussion and I thought about posting again, but I don't see the point. I would only be repeating everything that's been said already. In my opinion those who don't want to include the home countries are stonewalling. Your question, asking them to cite evidence that German states are known as countries are not being answered. How does a deadlock like this on wiki get resolved? Do people just wander away from the article (a bit like me) or does the final vote count? Titch Tucker (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One keeps calm, stays focused on citations etc then seek a consensus. If that doesn't work then there are mediation and other options. --Snowded TALK 05:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A new challenge?

Don't know if you're interested, but I'll be keeping an eye on how this debate develops, particularly in light of that editor's website here. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well by that web site's standards I am not one of the saved! Will add to the watch list and engage, anything to get away from Irish naming excuses and yet another newby editor (or old editor in sheeps clothing) who things Wales is not a country. --Snowded TALK 10:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A 'Born again Wikipedian'?

Hiya Snowy. You & Matt have giving me 'lots' to reflect on (concerning my conduct on certain Wiki articles). I've chosen to remove myself from those articles-in-question. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

America and the Welsh

Hello Snowded, you may already know this, but as your a proud Welshman I thought I would let you know anyway. I was looking at the article Americas and what do I see? A Welshman has been credited with giving that continent its name, have a look here. Another proud moment to be Welsh. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It was Madoc who discovered it, forget the vikings, saint brendon and columbus, we got there first --Snowded TALK 04:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

I rue the day I ever pointed you in the direction of this article. Instead of reverting within seconds, TAKE IT TO THE TALK PAGE. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You have real ownership problems Pat, you are making the changes, removing stuff despite prior conversations. Making multiple changes that are difficult to follow, forcing people to either accept your view or reverse the whole thing. Please try and learn that other editors are entitled to be involved. --Snowded TALK 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am as entitled to be involved in edits as anyone else. Please note that I am actually trying to improve the article - you contribute nothing except reverts, and reverts within seconds at that, as though you are some final arbiter as to what is or is not allowed. The edits to this section are not set in stone, and there is no contractual agreement that they must stay word for word. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The one time I ever attempted an edit you reversed it. You don't tolerate other editors Red Hat and your aggressive edits make it very difficult for other editors to involve themselves. Please see my comments on the talk page in respect of the actual edits made. Please also note that the vast majority of your edits I accept so stop playing victim and start being collegiate. --Snowded TALK 15:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to make this point to you: immediate and wholesale reverts are a sure-fire way to get people annoyed, as you've done with me today. It's also not very nice to post on public talk pages with headings along the lines of "Red Hat's ownership issues". You are very quick to judge me and the way I behave, but you are hardly an innocent party here. Alternative approaches you could have followed were: (1) a comment on my talk page - "please consider what was previously discussed, I think this or that should be re-added, and if you decide not to I will raise it on the talk page" or (2) a comment on the article talk page - "I disagree with Red Hat's edits for this and that reason" or (3) add back the portions that you think should not have been deleted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check the talk page I suggested a compromise along those lines several edits ago (although it means you changing too). Sometimes you will get reverted, learn to handle it. I've only done it to you a few times and we have generally worked our way to a compromise AFTER a bit of abuse, so your point is taken, but it smacks a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. If you made smaller edits then your proposal above would be easier to follow. Also Red Hat you really cannot issue a 3RR warning to someone who reverts twice, note the "three" in the template. In any event this is my talk page and I am fully entitled to delete it (check your policy). --Snowded TALK 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not as though we are all "allowed" three reverts per 24 hour period. From WP:3RR: the three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. As wholesale reverting can be quite inflammatory, I rarely employ it against the edits of seasoned editors. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have never breached 3RR and have no intention of doing so. Two reversions to the prior text is reasonable. As I have said (and say again) with several paragraphs being changed in a single edit, it is sometimes difficult to avoid reversion and starting again. --Snowded TALK 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to chip in here, but I have to pick up one thread here and say I agree that the multiple edits do make it very difficult to follow. It disguises what has actually been changed. It is quite disheartening to click on to an edit history and see a wall of substantive edits to an article, each of which needs to be checked. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to chip in! `The trouble with multiple edits is that you either have to put a lot of work in to track each change, and editing to change is hard. The alternative is a revert with comments. --Snowded TALK 00:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Chipping in. If I want to change a lot of text I find it a little difficult to do it with the one edit (maybe its just me). I haven't worked on a busy article yet, to be honest I have only worked on ones with a single editor, me. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, Titch - if you do decide to work on a busy article, choose one that isn't British Empire. Unless you'd be happy for any edits you make to be reverted as a matter of course (with any correcting Wikilinks added back later) and then seeing a talk page littered with whingeing about nobody helping on the article. Yours, bitter & twisted from Wales (Daicaregos (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC))

I know how you feel, but its life on Wikipedia. Ownership problems come with commitment! --Snowded TALK 08:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh we've got the handbags out today, haven't we ladies... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And Daicaregos - if you are referring to this edit [6] all I did was readd two "had"s, where the Pluperfect tense was required - your removal of them changed the meaning. The rest of your edits remained, so what are you whingeing about? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A mature and sophisticated reaction I see. However I'll stand my by comment despite the provocation. Commitment to an article is useful, but it can lead to ownership issues as it has in your case on several occasions. Learning to take criticism and some contradiction might be a first step on the path to recovery, tossing out handbag jokes probably isn't. --Snowded TALK 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Path to recovery"? As I've told you before, a little introspection on your part wouldn't go amiss either. I see I'm not the only person you've got into disputes with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, grow up. Secondly, I don't agree that pluperfect is required in this sentence. It would only be necessary to emphasize specific arguments expressed by Adam Smith - in Wealth of Nations - in the Pluperfect if he had subsequently propounded a contrary, or divergent, theory. It just makes it unnecessarily complicated otherwise. I note that the additional 'hads' are not in the current version, so someone must have agreed they were superfluous. Perhaps it was you. Thirdly, I've rechecked, and the edits I made to 'Company rule in India' section stand. While throwing my toys out of the pram I didn't check all my facts. I apologise. However, and fourthly, edits I made to the 'Pacific' are no longer there, as discussed. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And you consider your snippy little comment mature, do you? The pluperfect tense is used for events that preceded other events in the past. The Wealth of Nations was published before the loss of the American colonies - Smith had argued that colonies were redundant and free trade should reign. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say it now, does it. Best you scuttle off and change it again. Daicaregos (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the Pacific, your changes were not reverted per se. They went because the surrounding wording was removed as part of the shortening of the text in that section. But your change "whilst" to "while" still stands. So, your accusation that I "revert edits as a matter of course" is completely unfounded. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wales Map

Hello, after your constructive comments on my last map, I was wondering if you could be as kind and have a look at the following map. It's to replace the map of Wales in the geography section of the current Wales article. I'm not sure whether to include England and whether the Irish Sea bit should stay or not. Thanks 81.111.119.98 (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

old map

new map

I think its excellent. Sorry for the delay in replying I was in transit from Singapore to the UK and only just made the Millennium Stadium on time so have been away from the WIkipedia for longer than normal. I would put in the outlines of the English Coast. Style, colours are all outstanding. Will have to find you a barnstar for this! --Snowded TALK 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope the journey was pleasant and thanks for the compliment. I've added a dotted coastline for England as the bold line detracted the eye from Wales too much. If possible could you replace the version on the Wales article with this one (Image:Map of Wales.svg) please as the page is semi-protected and so I can't edit the page. Many thanks once again.81.111.119.98 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do - which type of BarnStar do map makers most value? --Snowded TALK 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the map and the message. They are quite demanding aren't they, I don't know how you cope :) I think judging on what may happen a banner for patience might be adequate, otherwise just knowing that I've helped improve the maps is enough for me. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as well as being a nuisance generally round here, I've also got a geography degree.... :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While/whilst

I thought that too :-) But then I read this User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Misplaced_formality and these...

• Times Online Style Guide: [7]: "while (not whilst)"
• Guardian Style Guide: [8]: "while not whilst"

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I also read this and the Wikipedia page on the subject which allows both. I think a newspaper style guide is an indication not an absolute, its going for the simpler more international use of the word. The evidence is that both could be used so I think we can keep with whilst, no reason to reduce the number of active words in the language. --Snowded TALK 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)