User talk:Snowded/Archive 2

Big changes

As you see I have made some sweeping changes to Philosophy. I have tried to avoid the contentious bits, apart from the branches (but that was always part of the original). In addition, happy to change the 'wedded' bit. Well, not happy, but, you know. I'm off to watch the news. Peter Damian (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PS On seeing your userbox: this user has a rotary dial telephone. Still works. Peter Damian (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Ya know, I thought about saying that (..never speechless..). But, seeing as Matt's currently annoyed with me? I thought better of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I lost the rag with him on his talk page (and GoodDay's). And here's me with an even temper! Jack forbes (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt's view of me, is of little significants, (unless he chooses to somehow have me blocked for something). My instinct is to nominate the BI page for protection again. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There may yet, be a conclusion at BI. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"discussion at Matts"

Hello Snowded, I don't know if you have been follwing the "discussion" between Matt Lewis and myself where he accused me of being exactly the same as Wikipeire. I don't want to get you involved, but I need to ask you one question. Do you think he is right? If he is I might as well pack it in now, but perhaps I can't see things as clearly as everyone else. Jack forbes (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

philosophy

According to Roberts' Rules of Order, a motion to call for the question is always in order.

It seems to me that everyone involved has said everything they have to say on the subject at least twice, and that the current spate of sarcasm, hurt feelings, and insults is not moving the subject forward. Of course, if at a later date somebody comes up with the mot juste, further change is always possible. Nothing on Wikipedia is final. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that Snowded. I probably allowed myself to get dragged into a bit of a brawl with constant accusations being thrown at me. What he does'nt know is that I've got too much respect for Wales to use it to get my own way on another article. I am going to take at least a month off and maybe I'll think differently after that. Thanks again! Jack forbes (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

England/ Wales/ Scotland/ N. Ireland

Hallo, I thought that I'd contact you here, rather than add to the rapidly expanding page. Not everything on Wikipedia is correct, as the information uploaded is provided by people like you and me. Northern Ireland IS part of the U.K. but not part of Britain, so why would you call a person from Northern Ireland British? I was merely trying to raise a point that Chinese people come from China, Egyptians from Egypt, Swedish from Sweden but it doesn't work with U.K. People are called something else, usually by their country of origin; English, Welsh etc. This being the case, weakens, in my mind, at least, the case for the kingdom being a country. I am not saying (at least, I hope that I have not said) definitively, that this is the case but I have never known it to be one but a nation of peoples from a group of countries. I am yet to be convinced otherwise. Perhaps, when I have had time to read through the virtual reams of posts, I may concede. I do love a good debate! (Zippstar (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

Hallo, again. I do have knowledge of history and if you look at my post, which was more of a question trying to find some kind of accord, you will see that I did state that I am new to this and hadn't had time to read through everything which had been written. I had also observed that the debate had been taken in a direction I did not wish to go, so I was quite clear about what I was querying, hoping that I might get an answer, sooner, rather than however long it might take me to read all that had been written. I was, however, met with hostility and forced to take a defensive position, which was not what I had wanted at all. Seeing how quickly this was developing, I took the debate off the page and directly to the people who had responded, trying to keep things light hearted - hence the comment about loving a good debate - but still questioning. This has obviously not been your perception and as I said before, just because something is on Wikipedia, it does not make it correct; Wikipedia is, in fact, notorious for being inaccurate and unreliable. I also tried to show that I am not someone who is always right. I have never known the U.K. as a country but as a nation of countries (see nation), so when I saw the article, to my mind, it was incorrect. Was I wrong to ask the question? I don't believe so, particularly as I see people often confusing the U.K., Great Britain, the British Isles and the constituent countries and was seeking clarity. I am sorry if I upset you but if we did not question, Wikipedia would have no place at all. Please, feel free to contact me any time. I am always asking questions (Zippstar (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

I did read alot of what has been written and I did explain that I hadn't read everything and apologised for any duplication but what I did read did not pertain specifically to my query, which is why I raised it. Perhaps I am a little sensitive but given how clearly I thought I had explained myself, I was a little surprised at my reception. (Zippstar (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

consistancy

Hello Snowded. I noticed you've brought up my old consistancy argument at talk: Scotland, -- good luck. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll stay away from the Scotland talk page for a few days, it appears to be getting a little argumentative and I've had enough of that for a lifetime. PS, Your idea to name it country sounds good. Jack forbes (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, what do you make of this. Am I being paranoid or do they appear to be one and the same? Jack forbes (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a report here and would be grateful for you opinion. Thanks.Jack forbes (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded! Jack forbes (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I thought that myself, but was unsure whether I should include that in the report or not. Jack forbes (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

One comment the ip made to me "Please do not continue this as it won't end well for you" seems very similar to what was said on the Wales page. Jack forbes (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look through the Wales archive pages and could'nt find anything. Ah well, I was pretty sure I had heard it before. Jack forbes (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, do you know who it was? Jack forbes (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note at the talk page of Bencherlite. Jack forbes (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tongwynlais

Hello. I support semi-protecting Tongwynlais. It keeps getting vandalised by I suspect the same person. How do we go about this? harris 578 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I did some detective work and found they edit quite a bit without logging on as well. 92.20.105.190 and Cardiff123098 are almost certainly the same user. Can you put the warning on there as well. Cardiff123098 changed the population even though it was well referenced. harris 578 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He's a hell of a boy! Why does he want to move Tongwynlais further from Cardiff and closer to Pontypridd? Good fast spotting thanks. harris 578 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell he did it again. harris 578 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff123098

Hey, we've never formally met though I do often see you around (British articles being my primary interests) Anyway, I've long admired you and your work here... Cardiff123098 seems like a harmless, if deeply misguided, kid. I was wondering if perhaps you would be willing to mentor him? I'd like to think that mentoring inexperienced Wikipedians is the only way this project has a chance of working. Nice to finally formally introduce myself, I look forward to seeing you around! -MichiganCharms (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested...

Seeing as the user seems to have targetted you the most, you may be interested to know that Fonez4mii has been accused of sockpuppetry. --Cameron (T|C) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

talk:United Kingdom

I think we may have reached a solution. Please have a look. Fone4Me 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that the current "compromise" was a joke by me at how cluttered the wording was becoming... -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As you've said, any solution reached at UK - would likely be rejected by (at least) 1 of the 4 articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why that discussion occurs at Talk: United Kingdom, is beyond me. It should've occured at Wikipedia: WikiProject United Kingdom. Afterall, whatever's consented to at the UK page? would only apply to the UK page. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about giving him so more advice (is it possible for an editor to develope Talk page ownership issues?). Anyways, I think I'll let an Administrator decide as to whether Fonez's conduct is unbecoming. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We might've had a chance if that discussion occured simultaneously on the 4 articles-in-question, aswell. And, you're welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Joke

I'm inclined to agree. And if there was any doubt as to whether or not there is a POV being pushed the fact that they dropped constituent country like a led balloon answered them quite convincingly. I'm considering nominating the whole thing for WP:LAME-MichiganCharms (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please sign the petition

I don't usually do this kind of thing but would you please sign the Come back Jack petition. Our fellow Wikipedian and respected editor User:Jack forbes has sadly decided to retire. Hopefully when he sees how many other Wikipedians really value his edits he will decide to come back! Thanks, --Cameron (T|C) 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration/Mediation

I think it's time someone start preparing a request for one of those for this country business. It's been an issue since the very start of Wiki, it appears, and I think it's time to bring it up a notch... that said I have no idea how to go about requesting such a thing! ha -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits concerning me

I am forced to wave this at you. There is not even any need for me to point out the diffs since they are so numerous. Mess up again, and you will receive an official warning. Fone4Me 15:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If any one wants to see my response go to the idiot's talk page.

Hey Snowded, you are welcome to wipe this message off, this guy is a complete knob, he quite obviously has no life to speak of,and if he ever came here he would get a right good Glasgow kiss! :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Scotland is (again) prooving resistant to constituent county. PS- months ago, I would've predicted resistants at Northern Ireland - go figure. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I only removed the comment because it was stated at the beginning that IP votes would not be allowed. --fone4me 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. You are certainly not helping your situation are you. --fone4me 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowy, that's not helpful. PS- I request we bring the proposals at UK to the 4 articles in question, individually (starting with Scotland). Will it help? It can't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Anyways, the situation at Scotland will eventually go to Arbitration (IMO). GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We are walking ourselves into a stalemate

Please see my suggestion here. --fone4me 12:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

UK 'parts'

I'm gonna plug 'parts' (without a link) from now on. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All 4 articles should be in sync. I prefer part, but whatever's decided - constituent country, country, home nation etc? I'll accept it, providing it covers all 4. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fone4My/UK4ever

Please read my closing statement on this matter. Kind regards. Uk4ever (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's another sock of Fone4MY at the Cabel? things are really getting out of hand 'big time'. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would indeed be a good predictor. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

UK Discussion

Hi Snowded, hope you don't mind me contacting you direct (if you do, please just let me know. I won't be offended). Some time ago I tried to find Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau in the National Anthems article. It wasn't there, so I signed up as an editor and added it. It was reverted within hours and there followed long drawn out discussion (me: Wales has a national anthem, shouldn't it be included on any list of national anthems? Other editor: Yes, but it isn't a sovereign state. etc, etc, etc), following which they changed the name of the article List of National Anthems to List of Anthems by Country, thereby excluding Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, as Wales is excluded from the list of countries. I'd like to rectify this anomaly.

I've been following the (endless) discussions on the UK talk pages. I took a few breaks to preserve my sanity (I found UK4ever/phones4me more than a little annoying), but I am interested in contributing to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom discussion. In particular, I'd like to add country references to the table, but I don't know how.

I've checked a few books and several refer to Wales as a country (none refer to Wales as a constituent country). They are:

Wynford Vaughan-Thomas's Wales, Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, Mermaid Books 1983, ISBN 0 7181 2251 8

Land of My Fathers, Gwynfor Evans, Y Lolfa 1992, ISBN: 0 86243 265 0

Celt and Saxon, The Struggle for Britain AD 410 - 937, Peter Berresford Ellis, Constable and Company 1993, ISBN 0 09 472160 2

Wales - The Rough Guide, Mike Parker and Paul Whitfield, The Rough Guides 1997, ISBN 1-85828-245-4

The Tempus History of Wales 25,000 B.C. - A.D. 2000, Prys Morgan (Ed), Tempus Publishing 2001, ISBN 0 7524 1983 8

Wales: History of a Nation, David Ross, Gedded & Grosset 2005, ISBN 1 84205 018 4

My reason for contacting you is to ask if you think that book references would be useful and, if so, would you advise me how to present them on the table?

By the way, the article Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau says: " "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" (IPA: [heːn ˈwlaːd vəˈn̥adaɨ], usually translated as "Land of My Fathers", (but literally old country of my fathers) is, by tradition, the national anthem of Wales. "

Says it all, really. Many thanks, Dai caregos (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Cable Guy

I accept any proposal, with the hope of it being adopted by all 4 articles. PS- If no solution is reached by July (this Tuesday)? I'm giving up on consistancy (again). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As of 00:00 UTC; July 1, 2008. I've given up any hopes of consistancy across the 4 articles. By all means, let the articles decide for themselves. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Up to six

I made a report at WP:AN/3RR, for your information [1] concerning this new user. An admin should take it from there, I believe, not having visited that noticeboard before. --NewbyG (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message!

Hi there, and thanks for the message! I've read the 'mediation' discussion but haven't contributed as I don't think I've got anything to say that hasn't already been said. It is not difficult to get back to editing because I like to see thinks accurately presented -(yes, I'm a teacher!) - and its more interesting to spend some time on Wikipedia than watch some of the rubbish on TV! Anyway, thanks for your friendly message. Cheers for now. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied

On my talk page. Best wishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the second message and the comments. I've now reviewed and taken action, and replied on my talk page. Best wishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope you had a good sleep. 8-) Now get on and write that paper! 8-) (I also have a few things I need to write as well.)  DDStretch  (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales Poll

Bore da Snowded. Doesn't look like anyone else is up and about yet. Any idea why these editors don't like Wales being called a country? It's very frustrating when one provides sourced, reasoned arguement and they just go 'Nah. don't agree.' without saying what it is they don't agree with, why, or why they think that their position is correct. I'm sure they don't have sufficient arguement to be able to back up their actions. Meanwhile, constituent country remains as the description! Hwyl. Dai caregos (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. But, easier said than done, I feel. Dai caregos (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How long should we wait for a response, do you think? The 3 (?) editors who seem to have an anti-Welsh view have no incentive to do anything, as the wording to which they changed Wales' description is that which is currently on show. Dai caregos (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I bit. Dumb, I know. It was good advice that I should have taken, but enough is enough. Sorry. I await the onslaught. Dai caregos (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A Reply, etc

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I've replied there, and I see the editor is now being inflammatory on Talk:Wales, even though the proposal will have the effect of bringing about a large degree of consistency amongst the relevant articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales

I've taken that page off my watchlist for now, as it was too time-consuming... Try this diff and the current version - the dangers of the same point being discussed in two places! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the comment at Wales; it did come across as a putting Wales down kinda way (which wasn't my intent). I've scratched out the offending comment & offered my apologies there aswell. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Hello Snowded, I'm probably the last person you want to hear from, so before you scrub it let me finish. I'm sorry you gave me backing when you did'nt realise I did not deserve it. I feel I let you and others down and I don't feel good about it. I let my anger and frustration get the better of me, which is not an excuse. As I have said to Matt Lewis, I am old enough, but not wise enough on this occasion, to let these thing go over my head, I did'nt, so lesson learned. I will also be avoiding Britain and the British Isles articles for at least 6 months, and when or if I do come back, I hope you and others will see me in a different light, that may be wishful thinking, but I hope it happens. Sorry again! Jack forbes (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Snowded, I will avoid those pages I mentioned for a six month period, which I think may be a good thing. I hope to come back to them, not with my opinions changed, but with a cooler head. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I have replied to your comment on my chat-page. MinYinChao (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: various "British" issues

I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who thinks I make "unionist" contributions or thinks I do not have respect for legitimate users. Indeed, can you find any of my "hardline unionist" edits? That's rhetorical of course - I'm actually a rather good contributor who has Wikipedia's interests above ALL others if you take a deeper look. You've actually confirmed to me what I suspected; you think that an opposing political view means I automatically have ideological gripes and biases on Wikipedia and with you. I don't - I'm actually quite the inclusionist. You think this is about unionism vs. nationalism? Come on. You talk about mutual respect - I seem to lose more and more for you with each exchange, and I'm now running very low. Firstly we have enforced and crazy neon infobox colours, next on accusations of bullying, then after other comments you make, we're now on to incredably dismissive edit summaries ("too bold"/"respond to insulting comments") and are on to an arguement about how you want unsourced contributions pertaining to the Welsh language included on Wikipedia (!). What can I say here Snowded? Do you think I'm meant to respect this, because I am struggling. Help me out here - show me I'm talking to someone who can hold regard for the other perspective. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a content builder above all else. I write GAs and FAs and enjoy it - love it even. I have little time for single-issue users who spend there entire usership on talk pages and stir up debates about (for example) the "fact" that places are countries (facts are infact, seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions), despite a MASSIVE wealth of material and users who disagree (no I'm not one of them - I think Wales is a country - but unlike you I accomodate and appreciate the benefit of alternative views). Right now, I think you're one of these single-issue users, and you've dragged me into yet another bizarre debate about a topic you want to debate endlessly and repeat your views to the world over and over. There's also a fundamental and chronic unwillingness to listen, learn and compromise, in my experience with you. Just move on - I have. You think I'm interested in intervention? No chance - I'm interested in making a great encyclopedia, and (with respect) have far more constructive ways to spend my free time on Wikipedia than in a debate with you where you won't listen and in each instance I nullfy your point with frank and robust debate, you slur it as an attack. Therefore, I give you my kindest regards, and wish you well until we meet again, --Jza84 |  Talk  02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(note: responded on user page)