Wikipedia

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 23

< User talk:Snowded
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Daicaregos in topic BRD

What I did is not even close to vandalism

To be clear, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are countries within a country, just like Wales, Scotland, or England. In fact, they have there own language, government, national symbols, etc. Northern Ireland also does have a flag, although its unofficial.

Thank You,

Crimson&Clover71

Talkback

 
Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Talk: English Defence League.
Message added 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone's complaining about you at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Speedy deletion nomination of User snowded/nlp case

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on User snowded/nlp case, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

HeadleyDown

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Please be aware that you are mostly like dealing with Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown who has been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. Please treat his or her edits and posts with caution. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All I see is an editor being very patient in the face of two SPAs and one editor who frankly abusing policy. S/he is also doing sound research in terms of presenting sources while the rest of you are simply saying you don't like it or putting up your own opinions. Even if the editor concerned is HeadleyDown then I see nothing in the current pattern of behaviour which would not justify readmission to WIkipedia. You made these accusations before by the way, if you have evidence then you should report it. --Snowded TALK 06:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Snowded. Any investigation is fine. I am not a banned editor. I am editing using my own name. I dislike the idea of sockpuppeting. Its not just a false accusation to me. Its an insult from a very unconstructive IP editor.
The pattern of attacks here is a concern though. I see you have been attacked off Wiki by a familiar name, AndyzB: [1] [2](in the comments tab under the video). Canvassing is likely. It looks like IP is just trying to canvass support on the talkpage. Other sockpuppeting looks likely: [3], [4]? [5]?, [6]?. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
We have had one blatant case of canvassing so far and I would suspect more is going on in the NLP community with the consequent danger of meat puppetry if not sock puppetry. Its getting time to take this to ANI if it persists --Snowded TALK 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I actually do not need to go to ANI for this one. HeadleyDown is block on pattern of behavior. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
My point was that you might have to be taken to ANI. You have made no attempt to provide any sources to back up your perspective, there is one obvious case of meat puppetry (fortunately not repeated) and you have slow edit warred. You are now trying to remove an editor who so far has been professional in their interactions;. that is the only pattern of behaviour --Snowded TALK 05:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
HeadleyDown was banned permanently and you were supporting him or her blindly. You have broken all rapport and trust. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have evidence then make an SPI report. I can't see any evidence myself. Otherwise you are clearly canvassing and we now have a twitter campaign accusing me of being HeadleyDown - and that is linked to you. Assume you are going to end up on an ANI report or Arbitration enforcement notice for this. --Snowded TALK 19:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't even have a twitter account. Do you have link to these posts? I have no idea who you are personally and have no interest in finding out that information. Trying to discredit or embarrass someone by finding out their real name or disclosing personal information you gained through privileged private correspondence when they want to remain anonymous really shows malice on your part. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What private correspondence? Its all there in your talk page history and a few simple google searches. Are you really that naive? WP:DUCK applies and if I were you I would own up to those prior accounts now. Serial editing under different names is marginal, while parallel editing would be an automatic block. Being honest about it would remove the danger for you --Snowded TALK 11:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I must admit the are advantages to creating an account but there are no rules against editing without an account. There is probably less danger if you use an account. But I am not editing at all with any account at present. I just edit without logging it. Its easier because you can remain anonymous and I don't need to remember passwords because I am naive. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Disrupted editing

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Snowded. Developments are quite concerning on the NLP article. Its very disrupted even now. Some parts of the article go missing quite easily. I am guessing we might need a page protection at some point. What are your thoughts? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Its got to go to ANI or Arbitration enforcement to deal with the disruptive editing. I've got the case 2/3 prepared but yesterday involved a UK-Santa Fe flight so I couldn't do it then. Hope to get something up today --Snowded TALK 09:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive to whom? If edits disruptive pov-pushing then that's a good thing, isn't it? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a nasty feeling you are going to have to learn these lessons the hard way but I will try. Don't make claims without providing evidence, use the talk page, don't organise meat puppets and don't render yourself liable to an SPI. Any of those can get you blocked. --Snowded TALK 11:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I really doubt that arbcom would block an IP address range from a major ISP. Semi-protection of the article in question would require users to create an account for editing that article. It would probably be useful for such a controversial topic. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
And you already have two you could use --Snowded TALK 11:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying if I do or do not have an account but even if I had an existing account to use, I would not use it to edit that topic. From the archives you can see how abusive those editors were. You've always been polite and respective to other editors even when you disagree with them but I cannot say the same for some other editors on that article. I do not trust most people in the "NLP community" but think that some skeptics are just as bad. Sometimes trolls just pretend to be skeptics to cause trouble. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Its life on wikipedia, but ultimately failing to be polite doesn't get you anywhere. In the current dispute I can's see any abuse --Snowded TALK 12:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BNP sandbox

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, a number of changes have been made to the sandbox version here, User:Red Deathy/Sand3, its mostly been neatened out and edited to reduce the size of the article. Can you let me know what you think in your own time. Thanks U6j65 (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I will try and get to it tomorrow, but I have been somewhat occupied with an outbreak of meat puppets elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 07:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I placed a request for feedback from other editors so il let you know what they think and hopefully the page can move on from there. Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 July 2 U6j65 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the comments, im still waiting for some feedback from other editors but overall i was a bit reluctant to change too much as only myself and red deathy made changes, of which red fell away after his initial changes. I think your right that the article is mainly unchanged I tried to get rid of some dead weight that had no citations but again this was difficult as their was little input (il wait to see what other say) if you have any other suggestions about areas that could be deleted then do let me know. As for specifics, the Guardian section was amalgamated along the same length lines as the more well known BBC infiltration other parts in this section were deleted as they didn’t really have much relevance to the overall history of the party, for example councillors quitting or comments by individual members, il reinsert the mainstream parties in the lead (red deleted this tbh, but no fingerprinting). The policy section has been completely untouched.

couple of things you might be able to help me on 1.The Wikinews has related news: Question Time British National Party controversy located in the 2009-present is actually a dead link as the question time page is not a news link but an actual article, is there anyway that this article link can be placed as a box like the news articles? 2. Do you have any suggestions for further reduction? 3. Would you be opposed to a hat note being inserted into the info box direction the reader to the political tendency section. (just an idea i came up with, not wanting to reignite previous arguments) U6j65 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit location

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Excuse me Snowded. But have you ever edited from the San Fancisco area? ANJPL (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, there now as it happens, just got back to the hotel after one of the most moving productions of Walkurie I have seen in several decades --Snowded TALK 07:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, are you talking of Richard Wagners Die Walkure from the ring? I have caught parts of it when tŀelevised. How long is the production? I would imagine it would be a little bum numbing at times. Carson101 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not then. Carson101 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying earlier, but I had a long day in Seattle and only just surfaced. Yes it is Wagner and the whole RING is on here. So we had Reingold on Tuesday night, Walkurie Wednesday, Seigfried tonight and Goetterdaemmerung on Sunday. The last three are five to six hours run time and no its not bum numbing, you get swept up into experience which is on a different level from other opera. Mind you the world is divided into Wagnerians and the ignorant! This is my 15th I think, and I am working on being in Seattle for the 2012 performance --Snowded TALK 15:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Not so long ago I saw a programme by Steven Fry on his love of Wagner. It appeared to suggest that as a Jew (a non-practicing one I believe) he is unusual in his love of Wagner. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the Nazis used his music for their own ends. I tend to agree with Fry, the music either stands up on it's own or it doesn't. Carson101 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I saw the same programme and he echos my sentiments. Wagner is redemptive and transformative in nature, a physical experience not just auditory and visual --Snowded TALK 21:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This is all very intellectual. More to the point: You didn't happen to meet Lam Kin Keung on your visit did you? Rememeber, dishonesty is a reason to stop assuming good faith. ANJPL (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
So is stupidity and paranoia. No idea where he is located. To help you out I am editing from Monterrey (Mexico) and earlier today from Dallas. Over the last 12 months you can add the major Australian cities together with locations in Scandinavia, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Add to that most east and west coast US cities as well as the UK where I live. Happy to supply diary dates to any admin who is interested. --Snowded TALK 01:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, a personal attack. Getting too much for you is it Snowded? Well your statement is useful anyway. Looking at the HeadleyDown banned sockpuppet article it appears he also edited from a wide variety of sources. The only way to identify is by edit behavior. You and Lam Kin Keung fit the bill to a T. Please keep on giving us evidence. You are making my job much easier. ANJPL (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
To the contrary, I'm finding it amusing although I am now starting to feel sorry for you which is a bad sign. Looking forward to your SPI --Snowded TALK 02:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your accusations are unfounded and unsupported

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

My identity should be of no interest to you. I have done nothing but ask editors in that article to provide evidence to support their edits and at least try to act impartially. You call that disruptive? If it disrupts someone's agenda to push a particular point of view then that can only be a good thing. It has gone on long enough. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've presented evidence for investigation and you had admitted to editing under more than one ID. Otherwise you are not using the talk page and are running slow edit wars over long periods. Sorry that is disruptive. All of the material in the criticism section is properly referenced, I realise you are unhappy with that but that's life. You have made direct accusations of sock puppetry against one other editor without backing it up with an SPI so your "I have done nothing" statement is simply not accurate. --Snowded TALK 13:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Good editing will be disruptive to POV pushing. I'm not saying that you are pushing a particular point of view but we're going to get editors with vested interested with an agenda to promote or disparage a subject. Only verifiable evidence will prevail over a long period. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Snowded, I've little interest in NLP stuff, but there's something suspicious about that IP. Sometimes certain socks who evade their bans, will pretend to get along with an editor (which they have gripes with), when they're really leading that editor on (per self-entertainment). GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, behaviour matches these recommendations --Snowded TALK 12:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay wrote this: "Sometimes certain socks who evade their bans, will pretend to get along with an editor (which they have gripes with), when they're really leading that editor on (per self-entertainment)." I'm not "pretending" to get along. I am clear that I disagree with this editor. But that is a comment about a contend dispute, not about his person. I revert his or her edits when I do not agree. I ask for clarification and verification of evidence. I do want to be civil and respectful though. I intend that my edits are neither pro or anti NLP as I am aiming for impartial editing. If you think my proposed edit is biased one way or the other then tell me and I'll make changes. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Pull the other one its got bells on it --Snowded TALK 14:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Rather than removing the citation needed tags why don't you just add the citation need inline. That way the information will be verifiable long term. Doubt the evidence that was added by recent editors given the recent failures to verify the sources on that article. Removing tags without resolving the issues does nothing to improve the article. The tags alert readers to where information has not been referenced properly. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the citations are already there in the text as you well know. And "recent failures" as far as I can see means "I don't like the source". Between that and your farcical accusations you have lost any sympathy/credibility --Snowded TALK 10:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You could flip that around and say that you want the source only because "you like the source". We both know that appropriate referencing and parity of sources is not achieved based on our personal likes and dislikes. I'll use the verification needed on statements that require third party verification and clarification. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If you insert a tag then you MUST explain why on the talk page. If you don't do that they will simply be reverted. There is no independent third party verification unit in wikipedia, you need to read up on that tag again --Snowded TALK 14:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Removing a tag without resolving the issue would be disruptive. You have been a reasonable editor in the past. If someone adds a verification needed tag, just verify the information or leave it until someone else can verify it or it fails. You should read up on the relevant policy. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If the reference is there then you need to say what you need to see and you should read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Given that you have university library access you have no excuse, given that you can access the material the obligation will be on you to say why you think there is an issue. Flyby tagging is frowned on. --Snowded TALK 19:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

edit war

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

You gonna give parrot of doom the same warning? didn't think so. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You are the one not respecting WP:BRD. You know this, and you know how it will go if you don't listen. Use the talk page --Snowded TALK 22:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I wasn't the original changer. Someone else was. I was simply maintaining his edit, which in my eyes, at the time was completely justifiable. If there is a lack of sources, I'm not breaking any rules editing the article. It would have been a different story if it had been new research ect. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"original" has got nothing to do with it. You were edit warring and the sources are elsewhere in the article --Snowded TALK 23:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I too posted a warning to Alexandre8. I have now noticed that Snowded's earlier one has been removed. Looking at the edits on my watchlist, I could see three reverts by Parrot of Doom and four by Alexandre8. The latter breaks the letter of WP:3RR. The former doesn't. Both of the editors who posted the warnings have taken the softer option of indicating what might happen after a fourth revert rather than going straight to the 3RR board to ask for a block. If I notice a fourth revert by Parrot, I'll give him the warning. I will take whichever of the two I first see breaking 3RR after their warning to the board.
A post such as the one that started this thread is a clear violation of WP:AGF Persistent behaviour of that kind can also lead to a block.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, WIkipedia can be a lonely place and support is appreciated! --Snowded TALK 13:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. wiki

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I am the lead sysop on the Liverpool F.C. wiki. It is a wiki dedicated solely to Liverpool F.C.. We aim to make the ultimate database for the club we all love. Since adopting the incredibly inactive wiki about a month ago we have greatly increased the article count and modernized it from it's previous state. The problem is there are not many active members on the site and we need more for the site to properly grow. It is well organized and on it's way to be a great site we just need more editors to expand. It is based on Wikia's network of wikis. Like Wikipedia it is free to use and the editing process is exactly the same. If you know how to edit Wikipedia you will know how to edit the Liverpool F.C. wiki. Now for the question you may be asking yourself. Why edit there? Wikipedia has articles on Liverpool. This is true. At the Liverpool wiki it is all about Liverpool. We allow editors to edit anything about Liverpool no matter how trivial. We allow edits on reserve and academy players, and even things as trivial as the fitness coaches for the year 2011. We also do not lock pages to registered users. That means if you have something to say about Steven Gerrard you can click edit and not view source and actually write something. I would love for you to come by and check the wiki out. Feel free to edit any page. Every time you click edit your ARE helping this wiki grow. Thanks for taking the time to read this! http://liverpoolfc.wikia.com/wiki/Liverpool_FC_Wiki --Coffeeclub213 (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

List of countries

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Saw your comment at Talk:List of sovereign states#List of countries. I don't understand your argument in part of this sentence: "If we have a list of countries then it will need to include those countries which are not sovereign states, the current redirect avoids that problem." How would having a list of countries that lists countries be a problem? Daicaregos (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Will get back to it later today --Snowded TALK 07:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  No hard feelings, notice the tea is black, I am a vegan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And if you want the best Vegan places in Singapore let me know, whenever I go there I get dragged to them as most of our technical team are vegan --Snowded TALK 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite and graciously accpeting my regrets.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

BNP Ideology Box

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, cant believe im actually telling you after previous arguments, but it appears that the BNP ideology section has been deleated from the infobox, was this a mistake? Please do let me know as quick as you can as I want to move the sandbox over soon. Thanks U6j65 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, I outlined the changes made to the sandbox version on the discussion page, mostly edits and rearrangements of titles excluding policy section. Please do get back to me with your suggestions, thanks U6j65 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see the concerns I raised addressed. I will get back to it in detail over the next couple of days, in transit to the UK from Mexico over the next day --Snowded TALK 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the main problem was the guardian section i remember and the lead, i deleted the line on 'rise in media profile' at your request and left the line 'All mainstream political parties in the UK are united in opposing the BNP' due to no citation being available, but am completely open to it remaining. The Guardian section i was unsure which parts to include and will follow your lead on this. Other small edits made was the transfer of 'claims of repression of free speech' into the opposition section and a structuring of that section which included the deletion of the veterans paragraph and a suggestion on the Nick Griffin page that it be transferred there. Hope this helps, thanks U6j65 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you managed to come to an conclusions on this yet? thanks. U6j65 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, I can see there has been another slow edit war on the BNP page, I could have jumped in but decided not to. Please Snowded can we try and sort our differences out properly without antagonising each other, there are about four or five users maybe slightly more that want to contribute to the page let try and get together and discuss each others points of view on the talk page. Ill set up a new thread but ill need your help and contribution in discussion as you are arguably the most active editor on the page. Thanks U6j65 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I came to the conclusion that the proposed rewrite was more or less the same as the original and it would be better if people proposed changes to sections or more specific edits. Using the talk page is the most critical aspect and I don;t think you can find a case where I have not been willing to do that --Snowded TALK 05:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I understand, all im saying is that the article has no direction at the moment and can only be given some by editors seriously getting together to first talk about the direction they think it should take. For my own part i think the article should be edited and structured along the lines of the sandbox to sorted it and add structure so that any further info/development can be added more accordingly. If we can all agree on that I think there will be less edit wars over new info in the future. Its goanna take everyone discussing it on the talk page for that to happen though, thats all im trying to say. U6j65 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BNP

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

looked at all the sources to do with opposition to the bnp, and in none of them is there a mention of "unification". The opposition area goes into detail about who is opposed to who, and therefore do we really even need this line in the opening statement? Debatable. Let's keep the article neutral. Nothing "weasal" about my edit, I find that kind of rude. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The lede summarises the material. All political parties oppose each other, the fact that all three condemn (alternative to unified) is significant. --Snowded TALK 15:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please check last changes. Hope you approve. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The BNP is a Neo-nazi party. Wikipedia don't wish to allow this to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.222.236 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article makes their fascist and far right links very clear. Your vandalism is counter productive --Snowded TALK 08:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dave1185

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I think you got a little carried away with all that templating. The IP's language is terrible, s/he may or may not be a sock. Whatever, its easy to discuss it on the talk page rather than templates and edit warring. --Snowded TALK 14:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fact is, he started the name callings and for a newbie, if we can assume that to be true, even I didn't know what a template was back then, much less about him, hence the suspicions. Secondly, as you can see, I hold off reverting it because I realised that the link is now dead and other peeps cannot verified that the news report, which was actually quoting it as "explained" and not as "said", this was the source of our disagreement. And instead of him discussing the matter, he kept his name callings in the edit summaries after reverting me. Even most of his contribution history says that he is one ANGRY MASTODON. As concurred by an admin on my discussion page, what I did on his talk page was perfectly legit, the ISP template must stay, no matter, because it is owned by Wikipedia. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
He has behaved badly and I have said so. However I think its better to miss a few socks rather than attack a real newby.--Snowded TALK 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify, which part of this supposedly newbie am I biting? Honestly, that's a fair question and spoken without prejudice. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well with a non-functioning link you can't really call a one word change (especially when it means more or less the same thing) OR. The ISP template says that the edits were disruptive, which is stretching it. I would have thought it would have been a lot easier to just comment on the talk page and try and get a dialogue going. --Snowded TALK 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I, for one, would love to hold a constructive dialogue but his potty mouth preceded everything else until the extent I'm no longer receptive to his inputs/suggestions however smart he might think he is, and now to the point that I have totally no confidence in this particular anon IP's competence. IF he has an issue outside of WP and he brings it here, then he's in for a long, hard road ahead from other editors as well, not just me because today it might be me but tommorrow he could well be crossing swords with Jimbo instead. Who know? I wish him all the best, he's your baby now. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me, it doesn't alter my opinion. Socks and IPs are part of life around here --Snowded TALK 05:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Are we reading the same report? The admin looking into it found nothing, and closed it.--SPhilbrickT 15:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Learn to read talk pages

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

With this edit [7] you showed that you don't understand the concept of synthesising sources, or of a neutral point of view. The word used in the source is irrelevant. We do not simply copy and paste, do we? The word "explained" is not neutral. Your reverts of my edits were pointless and motivated only by pettiness. You also failed to notice that I had in fact stated my case on the talk page, so your "you need to use the talk page" comment looks really silly. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Stating a case on the talk page is not the same as seeking agreement. You may find wikipedia process on this petty I don't --Snowded TALK 05:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You are being extremely petty. You are not following the process. You didn't read the talk page before demanding that I use it, did you? 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not. I am. I did --Snowded TALK 06:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's remarkable that you reverted my edit, claiming "wording in source is the reason", and "you need to use the talk page", and yet not only had you failed to notice that I had used the talk page, you haven't even bothered to comment on the discussion there, in which it has emerged that the source did not even use that wording. And not only that, but you catastrophically misunderstood the concept of citing sources anyway. The wording in the source is irrelevant. The information in the source is what matters. All in all, your conduct has been a disgrace. If you don't want to look like a troll, you should go over to that talk page and apologise for reverting with such an inadequate reason. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you find a mentor, you need one.--Snowded TALK 07:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, and a question

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I just posted a comment to Cailil's talk page regarding an incident in which you are involved.

I notice you used the following edit summary: You said:

Wording in source is the reason, and you need to use the talk page. Revert that again and end up asking for administrative action

I'm puzzled by the statement "Wording in source is the reason". I neither see it, nor understand the point. (If we were quoting, we should use quotes).--SPhilbrickT 18:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by all the fuss over a minor word change with no substantial difference of meaning. This issue came to my attention when the IP concerned complained at a notice board about the behaviour of another editor. I made the comment there (i) that the IP has been excessively templated and (ii) that the IPs language was appalling and s/he should use the talk page to reach agreement per WP:BRD. I said I would put the page under watch to help out. Despite the lack of civility I argued both on the board and above that the templating was inappropriate so I rather resent your cavalier "other than Born2cycle" comment on Cailil's talk page.
Next thing I see the the IP edit warring again and not using the talk page. My edit summary was as much addressed to the IP's false statement that no reason had been given as to the content issue. The reason given might have been wrong but a reason have been given. WP:BRD needs to be respected as much if not more so than WP:CIVIL. I did read the source and in my view it could support both statements but I am not interested in the content here rather the process and behaviour of editors. Even if the IP is right, s/he needs to seek agreement to the change on the talk page, not use edit summaries to advance the argument while edit warring.
The intemperate comments on my talk page by the IP indicate an editor with a major behavioral problem; compounded by the obsession over two words which are not substantially different in meaning coupled with the use of appalling language in their dealing with other editors. Cailil seems to have realised the need to nip this in the bud and should be commended not questioned. The time served proposal he makes on his talk page makes sense, subject to the IP making the request with due acknowledgement of fault. As I remember it the role of an admin is to manage behaviour not to adjudicate on content. I also suspect the IP is more than aware of wikipedia process.
So I think s/he needs your (or someone else's) mentoring to move forward, not your encouragement which is how the IP will see your intervention regardless of your intent. Reducing the block without the IP acknowledging the fault, compounded on other pages, would be foolish. I'm curious who asked you to investigate by the way, but that is just curiosity - no need to answer.
FYI, I am on holiday at the moment, so only checking in every day or so on an expensive internet connection. So if you have anything else you want to know/say assume a delayed response time.--Snowded TALK 07:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between the meaning of "explained" and "said". See WP:SAY. It was not acceptable for someone to revert good edits by claiming first vandalism and then original research. That second reason was truly preposterous. The more important point is that the person doing the reverting for those dishonest reasons should have been discouraged from such behaviour, but was encouraged by people who joined in the attacks on someone editing in good faith. You joined in the attacks, and you continue to do so with lies and snide replies. "Next thing I see the the IP edit warring again and not using the talk page", you say. Why do you say that, when the talk page was in fact being used? You know it was being used, because you were told at the time. So why lie? And your explanation of your edit summary is woefully inadequate. It seems very clear that you reverted not out of any interest in the content - you never bothered to discuss the issue when it was raised on the talk page - but simply out of malice against an anonymous editor who was suffering a sustained attack led by someone who simply didn't like the edits made to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.27.93 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Using the talk page does not mean making a statement there and then edit warring, it means using the talk page to reach an agreement before you edit the article again. I reverted to enforce WP:BRD as I said above. THe fact that you can't cope with that without throwing out get another set of invective around a petty issue says a lot about you and contributes little to wikipedia. Block evasion is also a bad idea by the way, but it looks like your ability and/or willingness to learn how to work in a collegiate environment is limited. --Snowded TALK 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, but the "fuss" is because the original sentence (with "explained") was not correct. While I can understand that some might view it as a minor distinction, it was important to the IP, and the IP's position was correct. (Or, to be more precise, the IP's contention that "explained" was wrong, is a correct conclusion. The IP erred in replacing with "said" because the source did not support the notice that Lee commented, said, explained or spoke at all on this issue. My question, as yet unanswered, is why you used the edit summary, "Wording in source is the reason,". IMO, the source did not support the inclusion of the word "explained". However, I've been know to make mistakes, so I came here to ask. I know you've expressed that the issue isn't a big deal, but it is to the IP. I see two possibilities, feel free to add a third is I've missed something:

  1. I've misread the source, and I ought to be telling the IP that the edit was wrong, along with reminding the IP that we do not tolerate language as used
  2. I'm correctly reading the source, and you should tell the IP that your edit summary was a mistake. That doesn't excuse the IP's language, but would rectify at least one of the many wrongs.

I won't be surprised if you consider this much ado about nothing, but I see, in the aggregate, a poor showing by the community towards the IP. I think your edit summary (unless I've misread the source) was incorrect, and understandable, but easily rectified. Do you agree?--SPhilbrickT 15:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I already went to the trouble to explaining that my edit summary related to the edit warriors previous edit summary statement. Please read that I will not repeat it. Otherwise I am surprised by your comments. I have already made it clear that I think the tempting was a mistake. However the fact that are "new" editor responded by edit warring and then placing insulting and intemperate comments on this talk page and elsewhere means that s/he has lost all good will as far as I am concerned. S/he is now involved in block evasion and continuation of the behaviour that got the fist block. You an admin, your response should have been to extend the block not come here to represent an editor with obsessions. Also you are not a arbitrator of content; that is NOT an admin's role. So please don't make statements about what is right or wrong. You have your opinion, deal with that as an ordinary editor on the talk page of the article --Snowded TALK 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your "arbitrator of content" comment, I agree. I'm aware that I can come across too strong at time (although this is the first on-wiki example I recall). My intention was not to intervene as an admin, but as a bystander watching a train wreck, with interest in finding out what happened, to help make sure it doesn't happen again, and to make sure the article content reflects the sources.
I'm sorry about my "other than Born2cycle" comment, I have seen your concerns about the templating , and it would have been better if I acknowledged them when I asked about your edit summary, but I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that it would be better to cut to the chase.
I haven't yet decided what to do next, but one possibility is to write up a case study of how not to deal with IPs. If I do that, I want to be clear on what happened, and I still don't get your edit summary. If you are tired of this issue, I'll understand, and you are free to drop it. I've reread your posts on this page, and do not see or do not understand your prior explanation. OK, I get some of it now. The IP said that the wording in the source doesn't matter (the IP was right) and you said the wording in the source does matter( you are also right). However, then you say "Wording in source is the reason", but I don't follow it. On its face, it suggests that the word "explained" was in the source, and that's the justification for using it in the article. Ignoring for a moment that the inference doesn't follow, it is also not true that the word was used in the source (in connection with that incident). One cannot argue in favor of using a word in an article "because it is in the source" when it is not in the source. Again, feel free to drop this, but if I were to write up a summary of this incident, my summary would include something like "One editor explained a reversion the a word from "said to "explained" by referring to the wording in the source, but, in fact, the source did not support the wording". --SPhilbrickT 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I will try again. If you look at the edit history I revert to the previous version per WP:BRD after coming there from the notice board. I make it clear that the talk page is where any change should be agreed. It is then reverted by the IP saying "(Knee-jerk revert, no reason given. Re-reverted." I then responded to that, the other involved editor had argued on the talk page that the source supported "explained". Now it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong on that, the point is that the change once contended needs to be agreed on the talk page not edit warred. As I said before you have evidentially decided to get involved in the content aspect which is fine as an editor, but not if you see it as a part of your administrative role. My action was to enforce process but your summary above is just plain wrong. Now that I have put some more effort into this, maybe you will explain why you have not acted following the clear block evasion. Also why you are encouraging a blocked IP in a behaviour which goes against policy. --Snowded TALK 07:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
the other involved editor had argued on the talk page that the source supported "explained" - a lie. They did no such thing. If you felt sure that your actions were legitimate, you wouldn't need to lie about the situation. 90.199.34.148 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Charges of lying are rarely helpful in any discussion, and often not correct, even when someone states something that isn't true. A lot happened in a short period of time, and sometimes, people have recollections that aren't borne out by the facts. For example, I was accused of acting as an admin, when I was sure I had done no such thing. However, when I reviewed my comments, I found one where I talked about unblocking. While I didn't unblock, and had no intention to do so, it is understand fable that some would read that and say I was acting as an admin. Had I called them a liar, it would have gone downhill, instead of being resolved amicably.
On the merits, I agree there is no such claim on the talk page. That said, I thought someone had supported it, so perhaps Snowded misread or misunderstood the same way I did. I'd love it if Snowded reviewed the talk page, and conceded there is no support for the statement, and therefore elad which lead to an unfortunate exacerbation of the situation, but I don't think calling [[Snowded it a lie is productive, or is an example of WP:AGF, which could be used a bit more.--SPhilbrickT 20:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
On the edit summary, thanks for your explanation. I didn't realize you were talking about what someone else claimed. I didn't recall any such claim on the talk page; I just reviewed and still don't see it, but I now understand you weren't saying that you reviewed the source, which supported the wording, you thought someone else did. (BTW, if I missed it, please feel free to point it out, but I can now drop this, as I get your point.--SPhilbrickT 20:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "maybe you will explain why you have not acted following the clear block evasion", I'm puzzled. You've suggested that I should be acting as an editor, rather the admin, which is how I am approaching this. But then you wonder why I have not acted following the clear block evasion. Did you mean act in an admin capacity? I haven't for two reasons, I'm trying to act as an editor, not as an admin. I have no intention of using admin tools, unless I see an emergency, and I don't see one. Second, I don't view the actions as block evasion. I believe the IP is on holiday in Spain, so can't exactly ask for a block lift using his or her own IP talk page. That said, I don't think the IP should be editing anything, other than talk pages to discuss the block. The IP did edit elsewhere, was blocked, and, as noted here I said "I support the block of the second IP". What actions do you think I should have taken? Finally, what do you mean by "why you are encouraging a blocked IP in a behaviour which goes against policy."? If I have, I'll correct it.
Finally, I'm concerned if I come across as antagonistic. While I still disagree with a couple of your early edits, I think you quickly came to the conclusion that there was some over-reaction, and you worked to counter that. In a world in which sides often become entrenched, it's applaudable. If my question sounds like nit-picking a closed incident, it's because I'm fascinated by the community interaction with IPs, and I'm trying to understand this situation thoroughly so we can figure out clearly what happened, and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.--SPhilbrickT 20:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
We may have to agreed to disagree on a few things, but I think we are agreed on the fundamentals. Agree that the IP issue is an interesting one. If you edit/watch some of the controversial articles as I do then you can get a jaundiced perspective on them fairly quickly! --Snowded TALK 06:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Female GM

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I saw you commented on the request to move that I did so I'm just dropping you a line. There is an ongoing discussion over whether the term FGC should be retained now that the title has been changed to FGM. (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#Terminology). More input is required to determine whether the consensus on the usage of FGM in the title extends to the article, thanks. Vietminh (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We've got...

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

...special mention in despatches ! DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're safe now DeCausa thanks to the apparently onerous task it is for arbs to investigate things, your ignorance of policy is free to roam the pedia, and fuck up whatever article you choose to put your muddy paw prints all over, you're free to go forth and ignore whoever you like for whatever reason you like, while of course claiming to be an utmost civil editor, with the help of this asshole who does the same, and thinks that anything goes here content wise as long you discuss it on a particular talk page between two or three like minded people, and pretend the rest of the pedia doesn't exist, even if you are manufacturing whole new ways of working which ignore basic policy, you can after all always just act stupid when presented with the proof of your idiocy and claim you read the policy in completely the opposite way, and then pretend that there's a policy around here that allows you to act like that with impunity. In reality yes, you get away with it, because its too much effort for good people to stop two faced manipulative bastards like you doing what you will. This templating fucker should be banned already just for his incompetent habit of throwing around essays as policies one day, and then vice versa the next. I shouldn't be too hard on him though, every body gets a little stupid at his age. Old cunt or not though, he should have been out out to pasture years ago for his disgracefull tactic of using nothing short of mental abuse as his "civil" way of interacting with poor simple bastards like GoodDay, who while their understanding of what makes a good collaborative editor is as fucked up as this Welsh tramp, at least GoodDay doesn't harm actual articles by pretending his opinion is any better than the average halfwit. At least he's open and honest about the fact that when he says something here, he really doesn't have any policy backing him up. Would that you two had the same honesty about your activities. You'll both get your just desserts one day guys, Wikipedia has to evolve eventually, it's on a very slow death spiral at the moment while pricks like yourselves think you understand what is and is not civil conduct or cluefull application of policy, while in reality the only way you "discuss" things is on the Address To Tone method, and the only way you use your policy knowledge is to make something up and see if any passing retard agrees with you. Well, the length of time that sort of reform will probably take will likely ensure father time catches up with the leek muncher, but you DeCausa, you'll definitely be lucky to retire with honours from Wikipedia from what I've seen so far. Adios amigos. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm neither simple or a bastard. Please, be more accurate in you discriptives of me, Micky. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh get real GoodDay, you are a simple bastard. What you know about policy isn't worth knowing, and what you bring to talk pages isn't worth bringing. Everybody knows it. Unlike this bearded wanker though, all the while I remained an editor here I took WP:CIV seriously and in the manner it is intended, not as a tactical weapon, and refrained from vocalising that belief, because it would serve no useful purpose given your lack of doing any real damage on actual articles (certainly compared to these guys) and the fact that your alleged disruption on talk pages and the like has always been easily removeable in the appropriate policy mandated drama-less ways if ever pricks like this had actually wanted to do so; and if it needed to be said to you as feedback, it can be said in better less hurtfull ways. But frankly I don't give a fuck anymore about not offending even you GoodDay, truth be told, as that's the place where people like this cunt and arbcom have pushed me into these past months with their hypocritical bullshit. It's sad you never did anything about this guy's persistent mental abuse of yourself, but it's even sadder that nobody else did anything about it for you either, not least the many many admins who've seen it over the years, but this is the general failing of this site of which I now speak freely and with authorative experience. MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not simple minded, thus the reason for my not getting banned. I'm not a bastard, as my parents were married, when I was conceived. Yes, I was indeed bullied around at those British & Irish articles, but not broken. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, you are not helping. Your original post on Mick's page released a torrent of invective that will make things more difficult for him and those who are concerned to loose an editor who does a lot of hard work, but seems unable to find non-abusive ways to interact with others. Mick, despite the invective above and on your talk page I do think the Arbcom ruling if expected is harsh. In their shoes I would have gone for a topic ban on UK/BI stuff a 1rr restriction and some form of civility restriction/mentoring. I am happy to propose that if you want. --Snowded TALK 06:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you are. In another life, on another Wikipedia, people charged with investigating the root causes of disputes would see this proposal for what it is. I removed a blatant NPOV violation from the UK article, that you edit warred to keep in, and over which you acted the fool on the discussion page when you were given the opportunity multiple times to demonstrate you do know that consensus is more than just achieving the local agreement of simpletons, who showed quite clearly they have no idea about some very very basic policy concepts, and not the slightest intention of ever doing any of the recommended things when confronted with someone who is challenging their logic, not least of which is avoiding the tactic of Addressing The Tone method of 'discussion' as a way to compensate for your ignorance. The Tone exists for a reason, and is only evident once you have demonstrated such failings repeatedly, making it clear that they are not merely mistakes, but wilful ignorance borne out of sheer arrogance, or worse, a true desire to ensure articles here do not meet certain core policies. A topic ban is of course the most ridiculous suggestion, because the basic concepts you failed to grasp in that discussion are some of those that underpin what makes good quality articles here, and what would stop that page from ever being peer reviewed as a decent piece of work, if the likes of you and DeCausa were given free reign to topic ban everybody who points out your obvious failings, meaning that such corrections would obviously never be made, as the article would never escape from your grubby grasp over the revert button and insidious involvement at the talk page. You charge of abusive interactions is as usual, the distorted view from your own perspective, as someone who refuses to acknowledge or even realise that they are the root cause. Putting aside for the minute that barely 10% of the times you claim incivility are you actually correct per the actual policy, as shown by your success rate in the complaints you file, which are few and far between given how many times you make such accusations of others (all hail the hypocrisy therein), as they are almost universally all rather lame attempts to avoid facing up to some harsh truths and perfectly valid and demonstrable criticisms of your knowledge and practices, I have had perfectly civil interactions with thousands of editors in my time here, editing in hundreds of other topics, from sport to politics to history to biographies to technology etc etc etc. You however, seem to attract the same observations in every single topic you edit, which is of course a very narrow field indeed. The problem is not mine. You are fortunate indeed that the arbitration system is so broken, it cannot see when it is being abused, and their inability to investigate the back story and history of the small number of complainants who have a similar record like yourself in other topics, is merely facilitating your ability to continue to ensure high profile articles like UK have garbage in them, which the policies are quite clear should not exist, but which your behavioural failings ensure do. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mick, you obviously want to wear the Martyrs Crown. Your responses seem to present two unpalatable alternatives. Either the community accepts that Mick is right, or evil people have cast out the one true upholder of wikipedia policy.

I first started editing here after sitting around a table in Singapore with Jimmy and various Government officials. It seemed from that conversation that Wikipedia was a complex adaptive system in which the only governing constraints were linked to behaviour. Now that fascinated me and I decided the best way to understand it was through participation. Having arbitration processes for content would never have worked, using behaviour was a stroke of genius as it forces editors to work things out or leave or be thrown out for their inability to work collaboratively.

The UK article you reference is a good example. You arrived out of the blue, changed the text and told all other editors they were a bunch of f***ing idiots who didn't understand policy. Your edits were reverted per WP:BRD by myself and others and eventually a sensible solution was achieved. It was not too far away from what you wanted, but it was achieved despite your intervention not because of it. A refusal to discuss things and an antagonistic attitude coupled with a over dependency on foul language never helps things along. It also creates a poisonous atmosphere that deters other editors from taking part.

Otherwise I have no memory of making formal civility complaints so I don't know what you are talking about there. I have taken various issues to ANI over the years and only failed to get the desired action once (when events had overtaken the report) so I think that particular accusation is a figment of your imagination.

Either way, my offer stays open, I think most people will understand your anger and I doubt you have burnt all bridges if at some stage in the the future you want to return. The community is tolerant of poor behaviour in editors who otherwise contribute good content and rightly so, but there are necessary limits to that tolerance. --Snowded TALK 07:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the above text I note that Mick mentions that everybody get's a bit stupid at your age. Alas, this means that I am in a similar boat and will doubtlessly in future be a shadow of my younger self. Dribbling over my books and nodding off half way through a paragraph should have been an early sign of my old age. I would (and I'm sure you would too Snowded) have thought of myself as middle aged until this bombshell. Alternatively, maybe Mick is only 17 or 18. You know some of these young ones. They would think that anyone ten years older than them is ancient, never mind if they were in their forties or fifties. That's enough from me, I'm off to find my slippers and have my forty winks. Carson101 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well you've got to feel sorry for him. Wikipedia was most of his life (or so it seemed) and he genuinely always thought he was right which was most of the problem. The Arbcom decision was certain from the moment they took the case and he refused the advise several editors on how to handle it. Once the decision was obvious he just let rip. Mind you I thought GoodDay was at his vacuous best with the comments on his talk page, and then on the decision page. --Snowded TALK 19:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attempted ownership of the English Defence League article

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You are a strong opponent of this group and your attempts to write the article to portray the group in as bad a light as possible are obvious. Allow others to write content there without unbalancing it. Off2riorob (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

if you think I am not editing in a npov way then you can take it to ANI or elsewhere. Otherwise your own bias is showing! --Snowded TALK 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I will report you at the earliest convenience you can be sure of that. My involvement in your topic area is in response to the bias that you assist in reporting there. Off2riorob (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It is a real pitty that the independence you show on biographies does not translate to rightwing articles. Beware Australian throwing instruments --Snowded TALK 09:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation terminology compromise

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the discussion on terminology. We would welcome your input on this compromise. Vietminh (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

congrats

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

On the work with the EDL logo! Wiki-users for generations to come shall be enriched by your efforts! :P! I'm still completely inept at adding photos. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes well, some of the sick stuff I had to read finding it was not good --Snowded TALK 10:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Lmao, I'm sure it didn't fry your brain too much. Since when has anyone ever paid attention to drivel hmm ! Alexandre8 (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Surreal

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Are you aware of this: User talk:Snowded/GoodNight? Daicaregos (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I created it --Snowded TALK 17:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You aren't noted in its history. Daicaregos (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad, I hadn't realised just how childishly stupid GoodDay could be --Snowded TALK 17:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Boxers

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

Thank you for your message. I would be OK with "Mr. X is a British boxer from Scotland" kind of wording per WP:OPENPARA, but not going to pursuit this actively, so as you wish. Thank you for accepting MOS:FLAG edits. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You good faith was not in doubt although I cannot say that for all editors involved. In practice the UK nationality issue is a wide one, and it seems to come up again and again even after we have resolved it. So I appreciate you bringing the community's attention to this --Snowded TALK 21:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hope thats not a thinly veiled reference to me Snowded. I am acting in good faith, i think its very biased and bad faith to impose nationalist ideals over reality. There is a clear difference between ethnic nationality and citizenship nationality. Self-identification works well with ethnic nationality however that has no bearing or relevance on citizenship. There is a (weak) case for self-identification in the lede which i have acknowledged and accepted and even provided a viable reasoning for you at Joe Calzaghe's talk page - however what case is there for the infobox to impose a false citizenship in place of a real citizenship? How does WP:MOSBIO affect infoboxes?


Also it would be helpful to provide any prior consensus' or agreements in relations to this to back up your arguement as so far you keep saying we go by self-identifiaction yet haven't provided me the proof for this? You stated it was in WP:MOSBIO but it wasn't in it at all so either you lied to me on purpose on have gotten it mistaken for something else? WP:UKNATIONALS by any chance? An essay that is not a guideline but a failed attempt at one and has no bearing on any article at all whatsoever. So far no evidence of a prior consensus or agreement.
Try to see that i am acting in good faith, however please provide the prior clarifications and consensus' for me and i will have no case to argue. So far no evidence has been provided to me otherwise so i have a right to seek clarification and challenge. Mabuska (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't help your case when you say "its very biased and bad faith to impose nationalist ideals over reality". In practice nationality in the UK does include Welsh, Scottish etc. so it is reality. Please don't confuse citizenship with nationality. I also think its bad faith to raise the issue on the boxer discussion forum when you know its a general issue and the discussion is already there at BLP level which is where it needs to be resolved. Checkout multiple articles for politicians, sports people etc. and multiple prior discussions (its called precedent by the way) Otherwise you need to address the arguments for nationality based on fact rather than some unionist or anti-nationalist perspective. --Snowded TALK 11:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You haven't really helped your own arguement with "Please don't confuse citizenship with nationality." - note how i clearly point out the differences between the two meanings of the term "nationality", you are simply blanking it as having one meaning. Whether you like it or not nationality first and foremost also refers to citizenship. Agreements on an article per article basis is not the same as a general consensus or agreement that covers all articles and can't be used as the reason for other articles to conform to it. I have provided a good arguement, whereas it is you trying to casually blanket all mentions of nationality as essentially meaning ethnicity rather than citizenship which it also means. Nationality provides little help either and is rather ambiguous in its opening paragraph. Mabuska (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The info box says nationality it does not say citizenship, sorry to point out the obvious. I am simply working with common use and I (unlike you) am not trying to impose a universal rule that supports a particular POV. If someone sees themselves as British fine, they should not be forced to be English or whatever. If they identify as Welsh that that is fine as well. In some cases it has (British) added but the pipelink makes it clear what the citizenship is. You seem to be on a campaign to eliminate non British nationality, please stop. No one is campaigning to remove it. --Snowded TALK 12:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again (in your opening sentence) you are abusing the use of the term "Nationality" to argue that it has nothing to do with citizenship. Nationality is frequently used to mean citizenship and you know it and many other editors would take it to mean citizenship first before ethnicity. Your arguement is highly flawed and poor as your argueing a POV based on a single definition of a dual-definition term.
Also you should know better than to resort to ad hominem and making unfounded accusations in an attempt to deface another editor. Your accusations would only apply if i like you mistreated the term nationality as having one and only meaning, and even then only if i treated it as meaning ethnic nationality.
A very easy counter that dispells you've above low accusations is that i have several times proposed to you a compromise where we use ethnic nationality in the lede and citizenship nationality in the infobox. Yes that really is a non-British nationlity removal campaign. Grow up with the lame accusations. Mabuska (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh calm down for goodness sake. Nationality is not necessarily the same as citizenship, and I don't accept your use of "ethnicity". As to attacks you might want to look at the log in your own eye before you tackle the mote in someone else's. You are the one making the accusations of nationalist agenda. The long standing practice in Wikipedia is fine, there is no need to "compromise" with your particular interpretation. If you can't have a discussion without the sort of invective you display above please take this elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 13:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As i've asked before in regards to this practice, where is this long standing practice codified at? Where was its discussion, agreement and adoption achieved at? Surely it should be part of a guideline or wikiproject convention or similar where editors can find it an be easily shown it? If it an agreement between a few editors on one article, surely its a red herring to imply it should apply to all without such an idea being discussed properly in a central place and agreed upon? Then it'd have to show it applies also to the infobox and not just the lede. Provide me the evidence and what arguement would i have? None. Mabuska (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Its established practice Mabuska, like a lot of things it hasn't been codified because it works and there are many many examples. There have also been several debates on articles which have reinforced that practice. If that practice is being challenged (at the moment its really only you I don't count GoodDay) then it may need codification, which is why I raised it at the appropriate forum. --Snowded TALK 15:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Where is that forum Snowded? I'd like to have my say on this. Carson101 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Here you are although Mabuska seems to be working a few --Snowded TALK 15:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Carson101 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Snowded but simply stating "Its established practice" does not do it. Essentially your failure to provide evidence means there is no evidence. Anyways i closed the Joe Calzaghe talk page discussion as the issue has spread from it so it is no longer relevant to the now overall issue. Mabuska (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Mabuska, but its the way things work. If something is established practice it is so. If someone then challenges that then policy needs to be made, hence raising it at the right forum. You can't deny that it is common across multiple articles --Snowded TALK 16:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested several times that if its not a codified guideline then it should be made one to prevent any future bother, i've even restated that notion over at WP:MOSBIO. The fact there is no codified guideline means it's wide open to challenge and i am within right to argue a case where i've seen no evidence to support the position against mine. Mabuska (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

of course you can argue for a guideline, and for a specific version. Who says you can't? I think its a waste of time, petty minded and disruptive but that is just my opinion. No one challenges your right. --Snowded TALK 04:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Petty minded, disruptive, and a waste of time if it helps prevent future bother over the issue? Mabuska (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Its never been a bother until you made it so --Snowded TALK 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably as most editors who have raised the issue are either bullied off the issue or are gullible enough to believe WP:UKNATIONALS is an actual policy or other querysome reasons given. Also don't you think "I think its a waste of time, petty minded and disruptive but that is just my opinion. " is uncalled for and uncivil? Especially when you want to work with WP:AGF. Mabuska (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hardly anyone ever raises the issue and no one to my memory has been bullied off it. In general common sense has prevailed. If you want to raise AGF issues don't start off with a silly accusation. Otherwise my opinion on my own talk page is exactly that. --Snowded TALK 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ip sockpuppet of User:Owain

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I am sure you are aware, the ip you just reverted is a sockpuppet of the highly disruptive "traditional counties" campaigner User:Owain. I could point you to several other of his ip's I have come upon recently. Over the years he has probably used hundreds for edits he does not wish to be tracked. Time for Admin action? --Mais oui! (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't made the sock connection but its of a pattern. Maybe ask for a range block? --Snowded TALK 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Has there been an SPI? RashersTierney (talk)#

Snowdon

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I take it that this edit was a mistake – there are many mountains in Scotland higher than Snowdon. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry about that using iPad and didn't notice that change --Snowded TALK 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem – just making sure I hadn't overlooked something significant. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

English Defence League

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think your recent revert (now two) was helpful. You mention BRD, but I've already discussed many of these changes. You haven't, except for a short comment about Searchlight being anti-fascist and Gunning not being in the lead, both of which I've taken into account. I've addressed more or less PassaMethod's points, which I've shown to be nonsensical; eg he says Garland 2011 doesn't source what I wrote, but I've given the page numbers. It's ironic you mention BRD when you yourself are not abiding by it. Also, adding a 3RR template to my page is not helpful; I know the rule (you should assume) that, and I've only made two reverts in 24 hours. You cannot expect every little change to need prior discussion. Indeed, that's how BRD works, but it can't happen unless both sides engage in talk. I'd like to continue editing the change and I'd much rather work with you than against you, but I can play any way you like. Christopher Connor (talk)

When your changes are reverted then they need to be discussed. You would be a lot better breaking them up into different sections and seeing what agreement you can get. At the moment you have several changes in one edit. Also given that you are changing the whole paragraph its very difficult to follow. By making your proposals clear on the talk page we can make progress. Also remember 3rr is not an entitlement, making the same change over several days can and will count if there is no agreement --Snowded TALK 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I've started a separate discussion now on the talk page. It's not just the responsibility of those who want to add stuff to discuss, anyone making a revert is obliged to do that. If you don't explain your objections, how am I supposed to know what you disagree with? Christopher Connor (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I just responded and in effect repeated two points I had already made. Thanks for making it easier by creating sections however. --Snowded TALK 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BRD

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Snowded, a genuinely friendly word —

BRD is not a license to block any and all changes to the encyclopedia. BRD is a means to develop articles quickly. It is not intended as a means to bog the development of articles down in discussion. If you cite BRD, please engage in discussion with a mind to developing the article — not freezing it in time.

Also, please stop citing it as if it is editing policy or even a guideline. You know it's not.

--RA (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

BRD is enforced RA as you well know and if you bother to check you will see I did discuss the issue on the talk page and made an alternative suggestion. I wonder if you read that or are just reacting? You seem to have taken up edit warring of late, I suggest you stop --Snowded TALK 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware you are discussing the issue. I posted there before I posted here. My concern there, as here, is the same: please stop citing BRD as a means to hamper development of the encyclopedia.
If you are concerned about any editor edit warring, take it to WP:ANI. --RA (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not hampering the development of the encyclopedia to reverse a poorly written and (the first time round) unreferenced piece and in parallel propose an alternative on the talk page. If you were aware, then you should have joined that discussion rather than reverting. I suspect you know this, and I recommend that you self revert and take part in that discussion. Oh and please don't make a fool of yourself with accusations of ownership, the percentage of reverts by myself on that article is very very low --Snowded TALK 19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
RA, BRD is there for a reason - it fosters discussion and consensus agreement. I note you ignored my request to abide by BRD - and in that case you reverted my (R)evert of your original edit. Not cool. Especially considering your edits at Saint Patrick's Flag are still being discussed days later. --HighKing (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
HK, BRD is not policy, it is an approach to editing that can be useful in some contexts. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it isn't. My posts here are in relation to reverts by Snowded that are contrary to the intention of BRD. In particular BRD-NOT:
  • BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
  • BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
  • BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
Snowded's approach to BRD is directly contrary to all of these: implying that it is policy (here), using it as an excuse to revert good-faith edits and for reverting more than once (here). It doesn't need to be a big deal but he (and others) need to stop citing BRD as a means to hand-tie others and bog down discussion. --RA (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You do talk nonsense from time to time RA. On both of the current articles I have used to talk page to suggest alternatives. As to reverting more than once you seem to be suggesting BRDB which is not the rule and would simply encourage edit warring. Its called BRD for a reason, if you are reverted you discuss, You don't revert again, make silly accusations and generally pontificate against clear policy and practice (and yes I do mean you) --Snowded TALK 21:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


@RA - it is particularly poor form to re-write a Wikipedia policy then admonish editors for not abiding by that very rewritten policy. Laughable, in fact. Have you no shame? Daicaregos (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_23&oldid=1144611774"