Wikipedia

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 28

< User talk:Snowded
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Snowded in topic WP:ANEW report of Brews

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Ayn Rand

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The edit you restored at Talk:Ayn Rand is from the banned editor Edward Nilges (User:Spinoza1111), who has been reverted there numerous times by multiple editors. He didn't sign his name as he often does, but it is one of his standard themes with the same wording he often uses, and the IP is from Hong Kong. (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spinoza1111 and its talk page for more. A sockpuppet investigation would be a tremendous waste of time. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I sort of knew that, but he has created sourced material and it is an issue that needs some rational discussion ----Snowded TALK 17:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If there is an issue that needs discussion, I would suggest that you should revert his edit and post about the issue yourself. Nothing prevents you from bringing up any topic of relevance. Encouraging his continued block evasion isn't a positive. --RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
OK will look later and check the block ----Snowded TALK 18:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It goes way back. He's been indefed since 2006, but he keeps coming back. Oh, and his misbehavior is not just about Rand, or even philosophy. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Noted, under cosh on getting an article out at the moment but will get to it ----Snowded TALK 22:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Formally added as party to an ArbCom case

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You were requested by Arbitrator AGK to be added as a Party to the Tea Party Movement Arbitration Case, and therefore I have added you as such. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Routledge on Rand

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

You mentioned on the Ayn Rand talk page that you'd have to see the Routledge entry for yourself. Well, I saw it and you really ought to go look it up. It's short and fair. For a taste, here's how it ends:

"Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic."

I think it's disingenuous for them to use Routledge to defend her status as a philosopher while hiding the fact that the same source says that, in the field she's most known for and most influential in, her ideas are junk. This is all sorts of special pleading. She's a minor entry in a 9,000+ page, 10-volume encyclopedia, and the entry isn't all that flattering, but they make it out to be something very different.

I'm not the first to have noticed this. When I googled for that quote, I found this link to a gold mine. MilesMoney (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I have have the book by my desk so it was a pleasure to find it. With the Routledge quote we might finally be able to do something ----Snowded TALK 08:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't take credit for that, but I'll pass it on to the one who deserves it. You see, I asked a friend who has electronic access to it to send me an excerpt, but she sent me the whole article because it was so short. She also found the mention on page x and alerted me to it. I'm no academic, but I appreciate competence.
My own feelings about Rand are complex and mixed, but I'm putting them aside in favor of making her biography here more accurate and comprehensive. However, the more I look at the history of this article, the more frustrated I get. There have been many, many cogent and supported arguments for taking out some of the puffery and fanishness, but all of these improvements have been short-term. I don't know if Wikipedia, in its disregard for genuine professionalism, is even capable of getting this right. MilesMoney (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I got banned for three months from editing the article but was allowed to contribute to the talk page. The other 'side' got a year so it was OK! Over just this issue----Snowded TALK 09:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that's just fucking absurd.
Among other things, I'm trained in conducting audits, and a key part of that is that you don't just go in, looking around for stuff that sticks out. You have to start by listing all the ways that errors (intentional or otherwise) might get into the books. These are referred to as audit concepts, but they're basically hypotheses that you can run experiments on.
So, applying these techniques, one audit concept for the Ayn Rand articles is that some editors are big fans and don't want anything embarrassing to come up, even if it's true and relevant. To test this, you'd actively look for places where such things ought to be but ain't.
A good example would be her affair with Branden, which is hugely important to the course of the movement. The TL;DR is that she forced their respective spouses to allow it, and it was what fueled the big denunciation that schismed Objectivism. What do we find?
"a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses".
This is a half-lie. The spouses consented, but were strong-armed into it and expressed huge regrets later. Both Brandens wrote about it extensively, so this isn't exactly unsourced.
"In 1964 Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand."
This affair isn't "romantic", even though it led to a marriage as opposed to just hurting two. More to the point, it falsely implies that the Brandens had some sort of obligation to share the details of their marital difficulties with Rand. How dare they fail to air their dirty laundry?!
"When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI."
This is a massive case of lying by omission. If we look at Objectivist movement, it's no better. There's a section heading for the minor "Peikoff–Kelley split", but the Branden banishment is shoehorned into the second half of "The Nathaniel Branden Institute". There's not even a hint there that the split had anything to do with them being on-again, off-again lovers. And Nathaniel Branden Institute provides even less detail, even though it's supposed to be the full article. We have to look at Nathaniel Branden to find:
"In response, Branden sent out a letter to the NBI mailing list denying Rand's accusations and suggesting that the actual cause of Rand's denunciation of him was his unwillingness to engage in a romantic relationship with her."
Talk about burying the lede! Rand was jealous that he was willing to have an affair with a younger woman but spurned her advances. The article also mentions "the reluctant permission of their spouses", but the real meat is in this paragraph:
"Branden reports that Rand remained psychologically dependent on him after this period, and eventually began pushing for a resumption of their affair; his own marriage, meanwhile, was deteriorating, although he and Barbara were becoming closer as friends. Branden then met and fell in love with a student at NBI, Patrecia Scott (née Gullison). The two began an affair in 1964, shortly after which Nathaniel separated from Barbara and informed her of the affair. He and Barbara kept the affair secret, fearing Rand's explosive anger. In 1968, Rand learned of the affair, and, in response, violently condemned both Brandens, dissociated herself from them, and denounced them publicly."
This is interesting stuff that actually explains what happened, but none of the previous summaries were honest. They all whitewashed the affair and its consequences. The Branden article is better in this regard, perhaps because it was influenced by his fans. This might explain why there isn't any mention of why he changed his name from Blumenthal to something non-Jewish, following Rosenbaum's example. MilesMoney (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MilesMoney

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thanks. Please note I posted a PA message on MM's talk page. Level 2. My earlier message about AGF was removed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comment to MilesMoney. MM does have pertinent and valuable points about what the AR & Objectivism articles should contain, especially with the Oxford material available. But there is a certain confrontational approach from MM that is not helpful. I hope you will continue your efforts to instill a WP:COOL attitude about editing discussions and WP contributions. – S. Rich (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

pun or typo?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I note your reference to "Armcom" - typo or Britishism as "'armcom" with elided aitch? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WRT "experience" of some involved - is [1]] close to the mark? <g> Collect (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Typo, but too good a one to correct :-) And I agree on your link, but agreeing with you all the time is a novel experience ----Snowded TALK 16:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Considering the (fillintheblank) of ArmCom, you might not notice that I try my best to make decisions based on what is right, and not on personalities. Granted, I do have my very own personal wikistalker, but that is to be expected. I did hope that puerile admins would not get elected -- look to my ACE2013 when that time rolls around. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I said as much when I said you should not be on the list! OK we disagree on many issues, but it is possible to argue the evidence ----Snowded TALK 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism, pre-dating Rand?

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Snowded, I'm confused. How can we say Rand "gave rise" to Objectivism, and that Objectivism pre-dated Rand? (I do see your reply to my redlinked question.) Perhaps "Objectivism (AR)" needs a "antecedents" section. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is an article in Wikipedia and she gave rise to it. Yes its problematic as it is not really in the objectivist/subjectivist tradition (so no real antecedents) and doesn't merit an entry in the Oxford Companion, neither do any of its main players. However the name is in common use, there are University positions in the US linked to it so we have to accept the common name.----Snowded TALK 05:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, using the term "Objectivist" or "Objectivist (Ayn Rand)" doesn't matter to me in any personal sense. If there are university positions with Objectivism as part of the portfolio, that does not matter to me either. What I am curious about is the precursors/antecedents to Objectivism. You seemed to say they existed -- notwithstanding your "no real antecedents" comment above. With this in mind, perhaps the Objectivism (AR) article can be expanded upon. You know much more about this than I, so I simply make the suggestion for article expansion. (IOW, I don't really want to get in between the Randians and anti-Randians.) In any case, I wish the great taste...less filling debate would resolve itself. I'm about to WP:DROPTHESTICK. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Objectivism v Subjectivism has a long history in Philosophy. Interestingly Rand originally wanted to call her 'Philosophy', existentialism but that phrase had already been taken! We have a disambiguation page and to be honest its more important to get the Objectivism page up to scratch than to bother with the Rand one which is rigorously monitored by her fan club. I would't give up as I think we might be coming to a reasonable confusion and all editors of good will are needed to make that happen ----Snowded TALK 06:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Typo or not (above), I love it. More than a bot thanks is deserved. I can go to bed now, with a smile. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It was ironic glad you liked it! ----Snowded TALK 06:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Definitely "objectivism" in the senses explained in the articles on Objectivity (philosophy) and Moral realism both pre-date Rand's birth, much less her naming of her philosophy. I don't know that there is any clear source to confirm whether she was explicitly attempting to reference these traditions in choosing the name, although I assume she probably was. Any discussion of antecedents is complicated by her (somewhat inconsistent) unwillingness to admit to prior influences beyond Aristotle and (sometimes) a few others. But in any case the name has more than one well-known referent so we should be careful not to use it in a confusing or misleading way. (And, yes, "reasonable confusion" is a great typo.) --RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't a typo, but I keep forgetting that the use of irony is something refined in the British rhetorical tradition to a point where it can (sic) confuse. From what I have read she is more against subjectivism that for objectivism and I would also conclude that her understanding of Aristotle and Aquinas (remember her 3As comment) was lacking. I suspect she saw herself as occupying the same position for capitalism in respect of Aristotle that Aquinas did for Catholicism but she was never in that league. ----Snowded TALK 06:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There was an article once in Reason Papers -- by John Hospers, I think -- that argued that she had a lot in common with previous traditions, but that she had probably re-invented many of the similarities. I suppose that goes against my point above. I should probably try to dig that up for use in one of our articles, sometime. --RL0919 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see it if you find it ----Snowded TALK 06:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Easily found, as it happens, here. Seems that Reason Papers have put their archives online for free. Turns out that what I remembered was the first few paragraphs, but the rest is an argument that her ethics isn't really a form of egoism, somewhat similar to the Bass paper cited at the end of the "Academic reaction" section of our Rand article. --RL0919 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

MM

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would you take a look at the latest AR talk page post please. I do not think that "This is the sort of tone-deaf, biased and desperately literal misinterpretation that I've come to expect from you. It's the sort of behavior that makes me question your basic WP:COMPETENCE and write off your opinions as noise." is at all helpful. Perhaps Miles will take a message about civility from you would gain more traction than one from me. It is your call. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I spotted it last night but was about to go to bed. Have made a comment, do not want to loose the guy ----Snowded TALK 05:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Well done! Much more than I had expected. Let's hope this word for the wise is taken to heart. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I emailed an appeal to Jimbo -- wonder if he will see that "bosh and twaddle" is a literary reference - used by Teddy Roosevelt and many others <g>.

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

On the other hand, "said no one ever ..."[2] may also apply ... Collect (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw the response :-) I will enjoy writing the Why I left Wikpedia Blog where I am under no restrictions in my views of under graduates with little experience acting in judgement. I'll also enjoy it if I share a conference platform or speaker dinner with Jimbo again. ----Snowded TALK 15:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I had honestly hoped he was not in the barely pubescent mainstream of Wiki-editors who have not an iota of understanding of such difficult literary references as us old codgers seem to be aware. But heck, some of them think "Moby Dick" refers to their own appendages ... Collect (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Love it, and assuming this works out (which it might from changes today) we should work together next time not conflict ...----Snowded TALK 22:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see you're a member of Wikiproject Wales, and have contributed to Welsh articles. There's a new project under developement here which you might like to contribute to. Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path and the many and various activities and attractions. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in. Let's make this the best WikiProject on earth! Cymrodor (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I grew up there and will walk the coastal path next year. I'll take a look but given other issues I am probably about to retire from editing here----Snowded TALK 15:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

shoe fallen

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Barring sane action by TPRB, Ave atque vale. Collect (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We'll see. I plan to write this up externally to WIkipedia as an example of governance gone wrong, the whole thing has been a farce from start to finish. If they had topic banned me I would have withdrawn - that 'go beg Arbcom to readmit' you clause (which you avoided) would a level too far for any tolerance I had or ability to pretend humility. I'll start with a blog and link that to Jimbo then move to a wider publication. Interesting times as they say but at some stage I think this needs to come back into to Wikipedia as one (and there are others) example of Arbcom moving outside of its brief. ----Snowded TALK 15:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That's good. I was contemplating a bit of exegesis myself, but rather a cumbersome task and not as connected to my normal activities as it seems to be yours.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll post the links here when I do the first blog - probably next week ----Snowded TALK 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll be looking for that.
Just in case, on the outside chance, that you haven't been made aware of the appeals (three) that have been lodged at Jimbo's page, I thought I'd give you a heads up, as there is likely pertinent info to be generated from that, aside from the tracing out the manifold concerns in the case raised there by me and the other appellants (the legalese is distasteful, but expedient).--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No?

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Original text is more accurate ----Snowded TALK 21:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Britain retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles
  • Britain retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the United Kingdom

I get "accurate" in the fields of In the fields of science, engineering, industry, and statistics ...I'm (relatively) intelligent...go on, indulge me with your reasoning. Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom does not equal British Isles, this was also discussed before if you check the archives Anyway this should be on the talk page of the article concerned. ----Snowded TALK 04:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
If it were relevant it would not be archived. Tommy Pinball (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Archiving is time based nothing to do with relevance or importance. If you want to take this up use the talk page of the article. Further comments here will be deleted----Snowded TALK 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You may want to comment here. You might not have felt a complaint was necessary but still smarting from a topic ban as I am I'm not going to let a blatant edit war like this go ahead. Another compliant will follow shortly and you can guess whose name will be on it. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Early Welsh kings

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are numerous unadopted profiles at wikitree.com. Could you help please? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is needed? ----Snowded TALK 05:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Topic ban

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Tea Party movement. Those members of ArbComm willing to comment seem unanimous that, although (IMHO) Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans doesn't explicitly exempt reversions of blocked editors, they will consider a mass rollback of a blocked editor who happens to edit in the TPm realm allowable, per WP:IAR. Sorry I didn't get around to making the request before my edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

umm, pushing your luck I would say ----Snowded TALK 09:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I thought about what you said and have to concede. The OCP article identifies the original formulation of Objectivism as an amateur philosophy, but it's gone through some iterations since then, and now that Rand herself is dead, it can no longer be identified with the original. In particular, I found citations supporting the notion that Peikoff added enough rigor to it to make it non-amateur (without necessarily making it any more or less true). I'd be curious if you approve of the current version of the lede, which takes all this into account. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been travelling too much to check recently but will do so ----Snowded TALK 22
02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Watching dilemma of determinism

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Snowded,

As I mentioned on Talk:Dilemma of determinism a while back, I've got some personal drama keeping me from being able to participate in the discussion there. I'm glad you were there to at least keep Brews from doing whatever he likes to the article unchallenged, but it looks like you've been gone a bit too and now he is starting to implement a lot of changes along the lines we've been arguing against without challenge. I'm hoping you might be able to stick around and keep an eye on that article in my absence so Brews doesn't make a total mess of it while nobody's looking. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep on top of it, some crazy travel the last few weeks but I have become very experienced in managing Brews! You are far more patient with him than I am ----Snowded TALK 21:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You are probably aware of his latest attempt to win content battles by arguing for a policy change. Again he is getting the same response from multiple editors but seems incapable of listening. Otherwise I reverted the latest set and will repeat that as necessary until he learns to get agreement on the talk page or I loose patience and go to Arbitration Enforcement ----Snowded TALK 03:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Complex adaptive system

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Snowded, thanks for you controlling the Complex adaptive system article. I did restore the image recently removed, and explained here. -- Mdd (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Try not to use words like 'controlling' when I am simply applying the normal editing rules. It is an unsourced piece of original research----Snowded TALK 17:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Please explain what more source then "own work" do you require? -- Mdd (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You need a source which established that the diagram represents the field. Own work is synthesis. Diagrams are subject to same rules as everything else. That one is terrible by the way ----Snowded TALK 02:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Attack

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What do you mean by 'You know you have to stop this'? Are you threatening me? Not only, I have not removed any sourced content, but I also added one more sourced information. Please reconsider your behavior, in order to maintain Wikipedia as useful as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.58.234.92 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I simply repeat "You know thou have to stop this". Several editors have told you and you have already been blocked. Now grow up and listen ----Snowded TALK 00:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
 

Your recent editing history at Dilemma of determinism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Edit warring goes both ways and it appears that you are edit warring Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm restoring the default position against an editor with a long track record of disruption - check the history (including that of your previous interactions with me)----Snowded TALK 06:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Everyone that edit wars think they are right, just like everyone in prison say they aren't guilty. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we have WP:BRD no one editor can change things on their own cognisance unless they get agreement. ----Snowded TALK 07:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The real difficulty here, Snowded, is that you do not respond on the Talk page to the issues raised, namely (despite your claims to the contrary in one-line edit summaries), that the material you deleted is within scope and well sourced, and instead rant on about unrelated and previously discussed issues that haven't been active since 8 November. Your purpose appears to be simply to be a thorn in the side, and is not to assist in building content with constructive Talk page activity. Brews ohare (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Dilemma of determinism states its subject as

"The dilemma of determinism or standard argument against free will is an argument that there exists a dilemma between determinism and its negation, indeterminism, in that both are purported to undermine the possibility of free will."

The elaboration of this topic you deleted says:

" A formal statement of the 'standard argument' is roughly as follows:[1][2]
1. The concept of determinism contradicts that of free will.
2. The concept of indeterminism also contradicts free will.
3. Some occurrences are governed by determinism, and all the rest by indeterminism.
all of which lead to the conclusion:
4. Free will does not govern any occurrences (does not exist).
The first two premises are referred to as the "deterministic" and "indeterministic" horns of the dilemma over free will.[3] The third premise is sometimes stated as: "Either causal determinism is true, or it is false",[2] which is ambiguous regarding whether 'true' and 'false' are used in a logical sense, identifying mutually exclusive and exhaustive definitions, or are used to describe some empirical claim about how things happen."
References
  1. ^ Bob Doyle (2011). "The standard argument against free will". Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy. I-Phi Press. p. 27. ISBN 098358026X.
  2. ^ a b John Martin Fischer (2011). "§4.1 The dilemma of determinism". In Michael Freeman, ed (ed.). Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues. Oxford University Press. pp. 41 ff. ISBN 019959984X. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help) On-line version found here.
  3. ^ In his presentation The dilemma of determinism Fischer uses these terms not in reference to 'free will', but to the closely related issue of moral responsibility for our actions. The 'horns' of the dilemma also occur in Russell's discussion of Hume. Doyle's version of the standard argument refers to the 'determinism objection' and the 'randomness objection' to free will.

It is difficult to see how this addition fits your criticism of an expansion beyond the range of this article. This is your one-line edit summary remark, which is not followed up on the Talk page with any effort by you to identify how this sourced commentary about the 'dilemma of determinism' and the 'standard argument against free will', both identified in the topic sentence, are an expansion in scope of the article. All this has been pointed out to you on the Talk page and received no attention from you. Brews ohare (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've spent months responding to you on talk pages Brews. Now Pforest has done the same. But you don't listen ----Snowded TALK 18:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wales Coast Path WikiProject

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world.

If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page.
Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! And let's put Wales back on the map!

Diolch!

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You and Brews_ohare

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I initially placed this on Brews' talk page in response to your latest but he unsurprisingly deleted it w/o comment.

Snowded, this is like your fifteenth 'final warning' -- at this point you are nearly as much to blame as Brews for prolonging this endless, multi-article, slow-motion edit war. If you think Brews is in violation of his sanctions, report it through the proper channels. While I personally happen to agree with you about Brews' behavior, continually darkly muttering and sabre-rattling is not helpful. Put on your big-boy pants, do the hard work of gathering difs, and submit a report to the proper forums.72.93.233.150 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I don;t think its that many and he tends to reform for a period after each warning :-) Also the half day it would take to put all the diffs together is something I do not have free at the moment although I am building something in background. Nothing stopping an more uninvolved editor taking action. Your the nearly as much to blame might have some validity if I was initiating changes or had not been backed up on every RfC todate----Snowded TALK 20:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect 150, I think Snowded is to be commended for his ongoing attention to the matter as diffs are being gathered there... but you raise the very interesting question of proper forums: "If you think Brews is in violation of his sanctions, report it through the proper channels". Notice that a question of edit warring thereby seems to become one of whether or not he simply edited a physics-related article...
I wish I shared the optimism regarding an extension of those sanctions to cover philosophy,(it's just that physics had more torches and pitchforks)... so I wonder if we shouldn't also consider the possibility of an ironic turn: lifting the topic ban. All we'd need to do is establish that Brews' editing behavior on non-physics articles is exactly the same as was his editing behavior on physics articles. (I'd say Brews has established that quite nicely, although I'm not sure if he would even be amenable to lifting the physics ban, as it tends to shield him from actions being mounted outside it's purview).
For the sake of argument, let's say that Brew's editing behavior (whether or not technically edit warring) is evidently tolerable for non-physics related articles. Then why isn't it tolerable for physics related articles watched by a much larger community? If, on the other hand, his editing behavior on non-physics articles is deemed just as intolerable as it had been on physics articles, it's unclear that escalating the failed remedy to include non-physics articles will have a positive impact. It seem the easier win, and I guess this should be a question for Brews: if all sanctions were lifted, would that re-kindle his natural interest in spending at least some of his time editing non-philosophical articles?—Machine Elf 1735 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda/Happy New Year

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda/Happy New Year Snowded. Hope you had a good one. Best wishes for 2014. Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

'stop wasting people's time'

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I understand why you can't accept my edit in Labour Party (UK) but I think that 'stop wasting people's time' is inappropriate comment and it seems to me like a personal attack. --Allytoon (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You were edit warring and you left no evidence, just your own brief opinion on the talk page. That is wasting people's time and is not a personal attack unless you are a very sensitive soul in which case wikipedia is probably not the place for you ----Snowded TALK 07:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed it and I will endeavour not to be engaged in edit war. --Allytoon (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Frustration

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I realize you are frustrated with Brews Ohare. As I'm not very active on Wikipedia, and whenever disagreeing with Brews, I have typically left the "bad cop" responsibilities of doing the actual reverts to you. This is of course unfair, and I will attempt to be more helpful with that in the future. Regards, Vesal (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I am making one last effort to get him to see what he is doing. If that doesn't work then I don't see any way of him avoiding a indefinite block or an extension of his topic ban ----Snowded TALK 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Nazi Party

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Which is probably only a webpage, but the guy's persistent. I've just raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitechristian2013. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FWIW

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Santayana may be right. [3]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

UAF

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Did you notice that with [4] Lokalkosmopolit replaced that smear about the Lee Rigby murderer with the comment "a bit about the kind of antifascism the UAF supporters practise"? I've given him a warning, but that's a pretty incredible edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, part of a pattern ----Snowded TALK 07:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When we've disagreed over the years, why do you always begin some kind of 'call for action' on me by pretending I'm some kind of persistent Wikipedia criminal ("up to old ways" etc) You've always done that, just as you call people multi-socking Single Purpose accounts like WikIPeire "great content editors" when it suits you. Can't you do this kind of thing fairly?

This is a killer '3RR'. Content-wise you don't have a leg to stand on, and I think you actually know it to. I think this was fully settled last night: you've just dragged it back up. What a waste of Wikipedia's time. All in the name of what? Minority nationalist politics. Certainly not policy content, so how can I can't see it as anything else? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Matt but you did not reach a consensus and you have a very bad habit of insisting you are right and insulting everyone else. You know the rules on edit warring, you have violated them. ----Snowded TALK 20:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually there was general acceptance for the compromise text I added - you just weren't following it unfortunately. It was accepted and acceptable. Tempers were frayed and no one voted that's all (I really don't like over-doing straw polls). Dai certainly wouldn't have reverted on his own: he just followed you, and BW does a bit of everything as you know.
Re being "right about everything": what's the point of arguing like that when you are even-possibly wrong? I only do it when things are this clear and it really matters too. I'm having a break for a week anyway. BW might back you today btw, but he won't on all issues of course. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Unite Against Fascism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Geography of Great Britain

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Geography of the United Kingdom covers the geography of Great Britain, along with the other 10% of the UK's land area. 5% of England, Scotland and Wales combined is not located on Great Britain, so really, linking to these is no more appropriate. It also makes it more difficult for the reader if they are looking for general information about the entire island's geography, as they would have to read 3 separate articles. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 18:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Then link the 5%, do not confuse GB and UK ----Snowded TALK 20:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not confusing Great Britain and the UK. 'Great Britain articles should not reference UK ones', are you kidding? Great Britain is 90% of the UK's land area, and 97% of its population, so of course there's going to be instances in which topics for both entities are covered within one article. Geography of the United Kingdom is the most relevant article readers looking for geographic information on the whole of Great Britain. This may be trivial but I will take it to the talk pages, as I'm fairly sure your position is based on your political views and not logical thought. Care to reconsider please? Rob (talk | contribs) 16:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
They are not the same thing Rob and you perpetuate a confusion by trying to pretend they are. If anything I'm the one being logical here. The position is one that has been discussed at length in Wikipedia over the years. ----Snowded TALK 22:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not pretending they are the same thing. It's recognising that roughly 90% of the content at Geography of the United Kingdom would be identical to what an article about geography of Great Britain would contain if it existed, and therefore is the most relevant article on Wikipedia for a user looking for information on the geography of Great Britain.
In regards to the 'see also' at British Isles#Geography, I think Geology of Great Britain has to be changed to either Geography of the United Kingdom, or to Geography of England, Geography of Wales and Geography of Scotland as geology is a narrow topic of geography. I'd be okay with changing it to Geography of England, Geography of Wales and Geography of Scotland for now, if you agree this should be changed?
Rob (talk | contribs) 23:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
90% or 99% it is still not accurate and creates a confusion. Using three articles is fine ----Snowded TALK 08:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
(WP:TPS here) If I may make a suggestion as someone who doesn't have any special interest in the geography or politics of these areas, it seems to me that the logical solution would be to move the bulk of the content of Geography of the United Kingdom to Geography of Great Britain, so that the directly relevant article exists. The UK geography article could then be reduced to a summary that states that the UK encompasses several distinct geographical entities, then sends the reader off to the articles about those for further information. That way there is no issue of readers looking for info on Great Britain being sent to one or multiple articles that describe the geography of political entities that don't exactly correspond to it. And if at some time in the future the UK no longer encompasses all of Great Britain, it would be easier to rewrite it to pass readers off to the list of regions that it does encompass. --RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You could have Physical geography of Great Britain, but to have an article on the UK's human geography excluding Northern Ireland is problematic. Northern Ireland is intentionally covered in both Geography of Ireland and Geography of the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) to satisfy both sides of the community there. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
According to what I'm suggesting, the UK article would still exist, so Northern Ireland could be handled there as appropriate. The key is that Great Britain would have its own article, rather than assuming some other article or combination of articles covers it. --RL0919 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As long as content isn't removed from Geography of the United Kingdom, then I don't care. It would be creating a near-identical article, but it wouldn't do any harm. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RfC

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! Would you care to vote or comment at this RfC? I noticed your name at the talk page for WP:NOR and figured you'd be an appropriate editor to ask, since the discussion concerns that policy. Dan56 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About the thing on Talk:British Isles. I wasn't going to remove that comment again. Also, I am fan of your work here on Wikipedia! Although I can't say much on your professional work, sorry. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Union Jack

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Snowded - I've re-added the point I added to the article Union Jack, which you undid with the summary "Not sure what that adds".

Although the flag's de facto status is dealt with in passing elsewhere in the article, it needs to be spelt out in the section where it is most pertinent, i.e., the section on "Status". Also, no mention has been made elsewhere in the article of the fact that the constituent countries of the UK have their own official national flags (albeit in the case of Northern Ireland this is open to debate). This is of major relevance to the status of the Union Jack within the individual countries of the UK, yet has not been addressed anywhere in the article at all. The "Status" section is, again, the most relevant place to refer to it. As such, both parts add significantly to the article. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You should take this to the talk page of the article. The addition of de jure and de facto just adds words but not meaning and there is controversy over the constituent countries with Northern Ireland having no flag ----Snowded TALK 11:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OER inquiry

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Snowded, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ArbCom of course

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An arb decided that there is sufficient evidence to sanction me for American Politics (broadly construed) it seems. I find the "evidence" submitted to be a tad inadequate for the purpose, but that arb was the one who submitted the "evidence" in the Tea Party case, so I cannot say I am really surprised. The same arb proposed the "kill them all" solution there. About which you know my opinion :(. BTW, ever write the blog post about that "solution"? [5] shows the dramatis personae and evidence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, our moralistic and naive Scottish student again? I am between my third and fourth successive red eye flights so I don't really trust myself to look at it now, but will do so tomorrow. ----Snowded TALK 15:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:ANEW report of Brews

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Just to give you a heads up, I started a report at WP:ANEW about Brews' behavior, which today crossed the 3rr line. I'm not involved in the dispute between you two, nor do I have any desire to be - the topics are completely outside of my wheelhouse. That doesn't mean though that I can't recognize disruptive behavior. However, I was involved in some of the physics article disputes that led up to the arbcom case and sanctions involving him. Admittedly, I was more involved with the other sanctioned editor and tried not to comment too much on Brews' edits and behavior back then. That said, I fully expect Brews to use my non-involvement in this dispute to argue that the ANEW report should be dismissed. In the report I picked out the most obvious examples of tendentious editing that I could quickly find, but you might have better examples of personal attacks and lack of assuming good faith since I really don't want to go through his walls of text on the talk page. Like I said, I just wanted to let you know that the report is up in case you wanted to comment. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on this report, you have breached WP:3RR been edit warring. Please comment at the report why you think you should not be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: It sounds like Snowded wasn't planning on checking back today.[6]—Machine Elf 1735 22:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I have limited time and access. However as I understand it sanctions are preventative not punitive. When I realised Brews intended to impose his additions regardless I backed off, tagged the article and said I would come back in detail over the weekend when I had time. that remains my intention. My understanding is that such behaviour is what one is expected to do. If I went over three reverts then I apologise, I thought I had stopped at that point. I was trying to keep the agreed version stable. With the benefit of hindsight I should have moved to tagging after the second revert. ----Snowded TALK 09:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Based on your explanation and the fact that you didn't breach 3RR, I'm not going to block you. However, you should be more careful, not just to avoid 3RR, but to avoid edit warring generally. You don't have to breach 3RR to be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hence my stopping and tagging when I realised I was falling into a bad habits :-) ----Snowded TALK 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
A question while I am at this to Bbb23. If you check out Freewill and also the original research notice board you will see Brews going at it hammer and tongs with several other editors. On Freewill Pforest puts a lot of effort into explaining to Brews why he is misinterpreting the martial his has found with searches of google scholar. Those attempts are rejected and ignored. Brew's used to use RfCs but he has now stopped that as hi views were consistently rejected including his first attempt to change the definition of Philosophy over multiple articles. Now I have a full time job so I tend to monitor articles where. I have knowledge and that includes philos,ophy. As it happens enactivism is an area where I am working. In fact I m with others at a Philosophy festival this week. There are limited numbers of editors working in these areas so monitoring for original research falls on a few heads. Whenever other editors have engaged with Brews I have backed off and left it to them as I realise the interaction is difficult. But short of abandoning the articles to his loose collection of partially understood quotes I am not sure what else is possible. I do my best to explain the issues, but the basic fact is that he wil not listen. Last time it came to ANI I strongly suggested that an independent admin should look at the whole history as I realise I am too involved to make an ANI case.
Now I thought things were improving on enactivism. Brew's was accepting modifications and the article was improving. I responded by allowing stuff which was tangential to the subject but not harmful. However we then get the imposition of the AI section that a group of editors had previously agreed was a different use of the term and belonged in a different article. Brews refused to engage with that argument and started the edit war. He does this all the time, normally reverting twice then reluctantly returns to the talk page. This time he seems to gone beyond that, and also has reverted to using language like 'vandalism'. Some third party really needs to engage here. ----Snowded TALK 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You can take him to ANI again if you wish, but at this juncture I'm not going to involve myself ex deus machina. I wouldn't file a report at ANI, though, while he's blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't really asking you to assume the role of a deity within the space - although an independent admin going over the history would be useful. However it was more a question of advise. You were prepared to consider a punitive block after I had stopped reverting to the previous stable position per WP:BRD and used tagging as an alternative. So lets take the likely scenario, over the weekend I will create a detailed talk page summary of the issues and then restore the previous stable version of the article - the last agreed position. Now suppose Brews then reverts that because he doesn't agree with the talk page arguments, or starts to play a modify but not technicality revert game. He has a running debate with multiple editors over original research and excessive quotation from sources obtained by google searches without contextual understanding. So if that happens what is the proper response? There are few active editors on philosophy articles and this is a position that has been reached with Brews on multiple articles over the last year. So what would an admin of your experience do in these circumstances? ----Snowded TALK 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_28&oldid=1168308237"