User talk:PaleCloudedWhite/Archive 2

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 06:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Sorry we seem to have had an edit conflict - thus my post was misdirected ...I have corrected my post.--Moxy (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's OK, thanks - I worked the sequence out myself, thanks to your edit summary. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology
I am sorry for having made you feel as a wiki-neonazi - that was not my intention. I do believe that your proposal was made in good faith and not out of any kind of ill motivation. But the effect of it, had it passed, would have been a gift to those wiki-neonazis who in fact do come around from metapedia from time to time. Truthkeeper's rationale is a much better worded and less hysteric version of my own thoughts on the topic, and I wish I had written a statement like hers instead of what I did write. I hope you can meet on better terms in the future. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, that is a consolation. I think I haplessly wandered into a hornets nest, and just stuck a stick in and wiggled it around. But, as I have said on the page, I still am concerned about the title of the Ethnic Germans page, as it doesn't match its content - I'm puzzled that you agree with Truthkeeper that it is an acceptable title - or maybe that part of the proposal got overlooked in all the fireworks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of "Ethnic germans" is not to my liking no, but I also have no better idea for how to describe the complicated relations between the German concepts of "Auslandsdeutsche", "volksdeutsche", "aussiedler" etc. all of which have attained different unpalatable connotations over time. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You made a comment within the discussions, about "Germanic peoples" being a 'group' defined by language, which I interpreted as meaning that you didn't agree with any "ethnic" classification being attached to the word "German" at all, or did I misinterpret what you wrote? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept of "Germanic peoples" (with the -ic) is defined linguistically and includes all speakers of Germanic languages. Most people today use the word ethnic and ethnicity in a sense that is unscientific and nonsensical to mean something having to do with genetic ancestry. IN that sense nothing reasonable can be said about ethnicity at all since there is no way to use genes to define connections between contemporary people and linguistic groups or tribes in the deep past. In the original sense within anthropology and sociology ethnicity meant "cultural identity" and it was conceived as something that was always undergoing construction as groups come into contact and form new identities in relation to each other. In that sense one can talk about a German ethnicity that was shaped as the idea of "germanness" consolidated over the last half of the middle-ages culminating in the ideology of the German nation in the 19th century. One could also talk about German ethnicity in the sense of people identifying with the cultural group that considered themselves to be rooted in Germany. The problem is that people talking about "german ethnicity" tend not to realize that borders are arbitrary political constructions and languages and cultural identity are socially learned, so that people living in Schleswig-Holstein today only consider themselves German because of a series of political events through which Schleswig-Holstein stopped being its own political entity and ended up bveing part of a country called Germany - not because of a deep-rooted tie to Germanic tribes. The ancestry argument likewise is nonsensical, for every generation one goes back in time the number of ancestors increases, and necessarily the degree of any single "ethnic" category becomes smaller the further back in time you go. (A fun example is Royalty: e.g. Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden is 1/16 Swedish (and that is counting Gustav V as fully Swedish although he was in fact half German) 2/16 English, 9/16 German and 1/4 Brazilian-Portuguese. Not much "Swedish blood" there and it becomes less the further back in time you go. And yet few Swedish nationalists, even of the nasty kind, would consider her a "non-swede".) And eventually you reach a time when none of the distinctions are meaning ful anymore. Such as the time when Europeans didn't even speak Indo-European languages. Or the time when all of our ancestors where Africans. As Hans Adler said - there is no way of forming nice mutually exclusive boxes of ethnicity, and trying to do that in articles would make wikipedia misalign with reality ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I had made a proposal on the Talk:Germans page which really reflected my own view on ethnicity/nationality etc, it would have reflected something similar to that (though written in a less learned way, as it has not been a particular study of mine), but what I actually did was try to present a solution which could be acceptable to opposing views, and I think my proposal ended up becoming a sort of lightning rod. When I read my proposal now it does sound like it could be the beginnings of a kind of Nazi propaganda, which is a bit horrifying to say the least, though if one reads the whole thread of how I arrived at it, it's obvious (I hope) that my intentions were rather different. One lives and learns, haha! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(Editor's note: At this point on my actual talkpage, I blanked the page.)

s'up dude?
Seems a bit drastic?! I don't think you're much a Nazi. Those are the wrong boots, for one thing... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin, I appreciate your good-humoured concern. I'm still here, I haven't retired (yet, haha!). My talk page was waaaay too long - it needed a bit of a prune anyway - but, yes, I am upset by recent events, and talking just to plants was seeming rather an attractive option after logging in and reading things this evening.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare!! Here's the only goose step you'll ever need!.. "a crowd of Rosalura's female friends jeer and ridicule him unmercifully, calling him a "mighty dairymaid in men's clothes" and "Some tinker's trull with a beard glued on."... (.. and you thought wikipedia was uncivil!) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You remonstrate with such kindness, I am touched ("allegedly", as you say, haha!). My biology teacher at school used to call me "a right little tinker", but then she was also my form tutor and I hardly ever turned up for registration, haha! (That's probably why I've never mastered goose-stepping - I can't conform to any kind of strict routine, everything's all loose and flexible, haha!....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll get no sympathy here, lad. But she was right, I'm sure. It seems that Wikipedia has her to thank, for so much! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Was "right little tinker" one of Jimmy Savile's catchphrases then? I can't remember. (I'm sure you've put in that link just so this thread has both Nazism and paedophilia connections in it - just to make it a really full helping, haha!) My black humour knows no bounds, I'm afraid - it gets me into trouble if I don't wash my mouth out with Kim and Aggie's secret weapon at least three times a day (sigh). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But, of course. Full helpings all round, I say. Apparently, there's been a lot of under-the-final-report-covers backwards tinkering going on, under our very noses, in that very article!! But as for Kim and Aggie... what a pair! don't get me started....!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was meant as a metaphorical bus. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see - you mean in the same way as I get in my metaphorical Aston Martin when I go to work...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * you are getting to be a bit of a Wiki whizz kid these days! But I had you down as more of an XJS man.
 * Personally, I've always had a soft spot for TVR - it's the noise, man, I just love the noise....! (Interestingly, the IP who made that edit geolocates to Liverpool; that's quite a journey to work - I wonder how many metaphorical buses are involved?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Too long I roam in the night.
 * "I'm coming back to his side to put it right" ??
 * Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Out on the wiley, windy moors
 * We'd roll and fall in green
 * You had a temper, like my jealousy
 * Too hot, too greedy." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * deep lolness, haha, that is the funniest edit I have seen this year. Poor old Raj - bless. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thought you might enjoy that one - I know you have psychiatric interests, haha!..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "The Lunatics (Have Taken Over the Asylum)" Martinevans123 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "There's this to do," thundered Heathcliff, "that your master's mad; and should he last another month, I'll have him to an asylum. And how the devil did you come to fasten me out, you toothless hound?" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "When I was a child Running in the night Afraid of what might be Hiding in the dark Hiding in the street And of what was following me..." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "You ain't never caught a (stalking) rabbit..." ! Or maybe you have. Sob. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A useful resource, perhaps. "It's grim oop North," I'll have tha' know, lad! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Blimey, how did you find that? The internet, eh - there's a page for every occasion (and quip!). I like how readers are invited to "Submit something sweet" - words which could profitably be added to the top of all Wiki editors' talk pages! I also like the strapline of the related "Gardenstalking" ("because what is life without a garden?"), but then that would appeal to me... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Horticulture and Gardening Project COTM
Northamerica1000(talk) 01:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Calathea pseudoveitchiana
Hi PaleCloudedWhite, that paper that you found would make a nice addition to the Calathea veitchiana page, so if you don't mind I'll add that. Making a whole page for the new species would be good also, though I'm rather too lazy for that just now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and add - I'm sure you'll make a better job of doing so than I would. I'm glad you found the paper interesting! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a very nice paper, and freely accessible too. So I've just added a note about that species being so similar to Calathea veitchiana. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (Emily Brontë article)
Hello, thanks for your help. I don't think there is any copyright issue if you just use a couple of sentences from the books, but I do appreciate your concern. My problem: you've removed all the Wuthering Heights (Mobi Classics) references (and I agree that it is not an ideal source, that is why I am trying to add new and more reliable ones), but you must know that sentences like, e.g., "She was interred in the Church of St. Michael and All Angels family capsule, Haworth, West Yorkshire, England", were taken directly (copy-paste) from that book, and from no other place. In fact, apparently the whole article was originally written based on very few (mostly bad) sources but, in any case, the difference between citing those sources and pretending that the text just fell from the sky is a matter of honesty. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Daniel Tomé. If a source is copyrighted, then it is a copyright issue when quoting even a couple of sentences, unless quote marks and proper attribution are used (attribution occurring within the article text, rather than as part of the reference). I removed the Wuthering Heights (Mobi Classics) references because it seemed to me that the novel was being used as a source, which is not valid when making claims about the real life of the writer. Maybe I misunderstand what Wuthering Heights (Mobi Classics) refers to in the context of being a source; is the source actually a preface to the novel, or an editorial comment? If so, I'm not certain how such sources should be attributed, but regardless they should not be copypasted, for copyright reasons. I am under the impression that you are new to editing Wikipedia, if so please be aware that copyright issues are taken rather seriously by "the management". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. I noticed that some sentences in the article were copied from "Wuthering Heights, Mobi Classics (2009)", so I thought that was OK, but of course I added the source. No, it is not the novel itself that is being used as the source (how could it be?), but rather the last few pages of the book, that contain some biographic information about the author. (The pages are not numbered, so I was not sure how to reference them properly). But I am now more concerned with the copyright issue that you mentioned, because I did copy quite a few sentences from different books, so I have to try to change the wording. I would like to ask your help, because your experience and talent for doing that is much greater than mine. Should I post here those sentences so you can see if you can adapt them? Sorry for the trouble ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want someone to do something for you, flatter them shamelessly, haha... I'm sure you have sufficient talent for the task in hand, but if you'd rather have a bit of cooperative assistance, then by all means post the offending sentences here, and I'll be happy to help. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are too kind. These are the problematic sentences: * Although she received little formal education during this ten year interval between schools Emily had access to a wide range of books, journals, and newspapers which, like her brother and sisters, she read avidly. Blackwood's Magazine, Sir Walter Scott's novels, poems and history, and the poems of Byron and of Shelley were Emily's particular favourites. * The two sisters were studious and became so proficient in French that at the end of the term Madame Heger suggested that they should remain and give English and music lessons in return for German. * But the illness and death of their aunt at Haworth recalled them home. * The character of Emily Brontë was a peculiar mixture of timidity and Spartan-like courage. * To other people's failings she was understanding and forgiving, but over herself she kept a continual and most austere watch, never allowing herself to deviate for one instant from what she considered her duty. * If Emily had begun to write her next novel, she, or a member of her family, perhaps eventually destroyed a manuscript she had been prevented by illness from completing. No manuscript of a second novel by Emily has survived, and there is no clear proof of its existence, or of its degree of completeness and its ultimate fate if it existed. And I think that's all. (If I adapted some of them, it was only a word or two.) Thanks very much for your help/work. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the "proposal for them to stay" part more clear just now, but failed. You can revert it, or use the letter to reword it better. I myself can't think properly now because it's 3:00AM here, but I will see how things go tomorrow. Once again, thanks for your work (I feel like the little kid who aks the older brother do to his homework for him, if you know what I mean). Take care, Daniel Tomé (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the "proposal" part looks fairly clear, though I adjusted the gender of the English master (I can do that kind of thing you know, haha...), seeing as Charlotte did use the term "master" - correct it back if you have other information. We live in the same time zone, so yes it was getting late for me as well. I'll be going to work shortly, so won't be able to do much for several hours. You seem to have tracked down a lot of sources, which is good, though do be aware that the history of Brontë biographies is somewhat hampered by a lack of reliable factual content, which unfortunately hasn't prevented biographers from presenting it as such. I strongly recommend you get yourself a copy of The Brontë Myth by Lucasta Miller (ISBN 0 099 28714 5), which is particularly valuable in the context of Wikipedia, as it is not a biography, but a scholarly critique of all (or most) of the other biographies. It is quite critical of Gaskell for instance. Admittedly it deals more with Charlotte than Emily, but I still think you'd find it enlightening. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, I will try to check out that book. Also, excellent work! The "his" really made the difference. Yours, Daniel Tomé (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: having read the article again this morning more carefully, and after doing a few edits, there is now basically just one part that still needs to be further adapted: The character of Emily Brontë was a peculiar mixture of timidity and Spartan-like courage. Her warm, human personality was usually revealed only in her love of nature and of animals... but physically she was brave to a surprising degree. To other people's failings she was understanding and forgiving, but over herself she kept a continual and most austere watch, never allowing herself to deviate for one instant from what she considered her duty. Thanks for your help. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is that the most honest approach is to state first that Emily was reclusive and hence her character is enigmatic and to a large degree unknown. Different sources will accordingly adopt different positions. The earliest sources in particular may merely regurgitate urban myths and prejudices based more on Emily's work than on any actual reported facts. To deal with this I would present small quotes from various sources, taking care to note how rigorous each source may or may not be; even rather whimsical sources can be interesting as comments on how Emily was perceived, even if their accuracy is doubted. I would however place most emphasis on the most recent sources, particularly those of a more scholarly and critical stance, all the while bearing in mind that Emily's character and personal life are to a large degree a mystery. I think it would be a disservice to the reader to emphatically state, "this is what Emily was like". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. I'll see what I can do. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried my best. Please check Emily Bronte. It is not ideal (especially the final part) and still needs improvement, of course. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty impressive to me. I've made an addition regarding Charlotte's position as a source - see what you think. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I did read something to the effect that Charlotte might have been biased in her account of Emily, but later I couldn't find the relevant passage again. Yours was an important addition! Cheers ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I think I must bother you one last time. I have just finished reading the article again and checking the notes, and I noticed that there are still 2 problematic sentences. Can you try to reword them? They are:
 * The exploratory nature of her character was evident to Constantin Héger, who made the following assertion (I adapted the sentence quite a bit, but I believe it would still be best to rewrite it);
 * It was not until 1850 that an edited commercial edition was brought out with Emily Brontë's name on the title page.
 * Again, sorry for the trouble and thanks for your help. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a bash at the 'offending' lines - hopefully they're OK now (the first one is perhaps a bit bland, but I thought the Héger quote could speak for itself, without much being needed in the way of interpretation). Feel free to contact me again in the future, if you feel inclined - your requests are far from bothersome! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to cause more trouble from now on (-: Thanks very much for all your help! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am glad we had this discussion — just think of how many more articles I could have screwed up if it wasn't for you! (Phew!) By the way, what do you make of this passage from Wuthering Heights: "...my mind is so eternally secluded in itself, it is tempting at last to turn it out to another"? I believe Emily could be telling us, through Heathcliff, the reason why she wrote the novel. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting question which could lead to many avenues of speculation, but for Wikipedia's purposes it is of course original research. Many writers live secluded lives and have secluded minds, and many writers use the contents of those minds as food for their work, but I suspect it is quite rare for any writer to write just for one reason alone. Also in Emily's case it is generally accepted that she was very resistant to having her work published, which means that if she was wishing to 'turn her mind out to another', then that desire was concurrent with other ones in opposition to it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those are indeed good points. I agree. ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The perils of research...
I suppose it's unlikely you'll ever be looking at this Daniel, but just in case you ever pop by as an IP, I thought this might provide some amusement; it's from The Brontë Myth:
 * "Among the various attempts to unearth Emily's supposed lost lover, the most notorious has to be that of Virginia Moore, who committed perhaps the greatest biographical gaffe in the history of Brontë studies in The Life and Eager Death of Emily Brontë, first published in 1936. Unlike Romer Wilson, whose 1928 biography had wilfully engaged in the stuff of myth, Moore announced that her aim was 'to recreate not a legend (to indulge sentimentalists) but the irreducible Emily Brontë, unexaggerated, unaltered, unobscured'. She boasted that she had 'paid especial and respectful attention to primary sources'. However, she had such difficulty in reading old handwriting that, in the course of her manuscript research, she misread the title of a poem, 'Love's Farewell', as 'Louis Parensell' and went on to invent a spurious lover of that name."

Dearie me. I guess that's what happens when boasts are made. The lesson has to be: choose one's sources carefully! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

About *my* username
Hi, PaleCloudedWhite,

Firetruck it, so many good usernames around, and yet I chose the number on a sports uniform. I'd much rather have been User:Grail Overfloweth, User:Peppermint Pig, User:Spangle Maker, User:PinkOrangeRed and so on.

Any chance you could help improve Iceblink Luck and Heaven or Las Vegas? As for the later singles... I don't much care. I think Blue Bell Knoll and Heaven or Las Vegas was when they were at their peak.

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Pete/Shirt58. Thanks for the note! Strange, but I too was thinking recently that I might prefer another username - PaleCloudedWhite seems a bit normal. I like User:Grail Overfloweth, though I think if I was to change I'd probably plump for User:Mizake The Mizan, as it sounds mysterious and wreathed in sorcery. I also like User:Aikea-Guinea, even though I'm not sure how to pronounce it! If I was in the mood for appearing deceptively cuddly, I could go for User:Fluffy Tufts, or how about User:A Kissed Out Red Floatboat.....?! Miss Fraser is indeed a bit of a goldmine for usernames. So far I haven't done much editing on Cocteau articles, though maybe I should. I'm curious that the Iceblink Luck article states it was their first 'genuine' single release; maybe there's a technicality which bars Pearly Dewdrops' Drops and Aikea-Guinea, as both of those were also released on 7" format, at least here in the UK (and according to this page, Peppermint Pig was also, though I wasn't aware of it)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hello PaleCloudedWhite. I appreciate your efforts in collaboration with WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening/COTM. As evidenced by the template I've included to the right of this message, collaborations on Wikipedia haven't been doing so well (click on the "inactive collaborations" link for examples of those that haven't continued). I hope to keep the Horticulture and Gardening collaboration going, if possible.

I've found and added several interesting book sources to the Walled garden article, listed in the Further reading section. Check it out, if you have the time! Cheers, 04:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My efforts on Wikipedia are quite puny really, but I do try to do what I'm able with the H + G COTM, and it is always encouraging to feel that one's efforts are appreciated. I'll see if I can use your new sources to improve the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Lova Falk    talk   15:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ol Yeller21 Talktome  00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thankyou, you are quite kind. I'm really rather concerned about, as they seem to have received the most collateral damage from this whole unfortunate business. I hope they come back and realise that events of this nature shouldn't dissuade them from continuing to make genuine attempts at bridge-building, as such efforts are exactly what's needed at Wikipedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thankyou Daniel, that's kind of you. I think the article is much improved as a result of your efforts. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hello PaleCloudedWhite, I've only just caught up with all the bluster on the M4 talkpage, where you state "I am seriously thinking of filing a checkuser request" after suggesting (to User:Our other kid) "I'm talking about whether your account is a sockpuppet of User:The Rambling Man, which is something I suspect to be the case". I'd like it very much if you actually did that, I'd be interested in the results. I've managed to 95k+ edits here since May 2005 with one "travelling" account (User:The Rambling Man on tour which, you'll see, has a note regarding the "alternateness" of the account) and have never felt the need to run sockpuppets. Once you get the results, would you also kindly inform the editors at the M4 talkpage as well? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-script, I noticed that one of the M4 editors has already launched this, but I don't appear to be named. Maybe add me that one to stop clogging up the CU request queue? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if you don't pursue this Checkuser request, I would ask that you retract your entirely baseless accusations on the M4 talk page and apologise for accusing me of sock puppetry. Your call. (I'd go for the apology rather than look like an asshat and then have to apologise, but of course I'd understand you think I can flip between accounts within seconds etc etc [or whatever it was that made you "suspect to be the case"...]). Either way, we'll need to resolve this issue, so the sooner you respond, the better! Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi PCW. I don't think expressing a genuine suspicion counts as "an accusation". I must admit I found User:Our other kid's editing very strangely adept for an apparently new user. It's strange, isn't it, how conflict and petty name-calling can arouse one's suspicions so easily. I think we all have to be on the look-out for sockpuppets, in all kinds of guises, and at all times, unfortunately. Contrary to expert advice, however, I think it's probably not worth adding The Rambling Man to the User:DeFacto investigation. p.s. I hear "ass hats" are quite the thing at the Cheltenham Festival this year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As shown in my post there last night, I had the same misgivings about the validity of Our other kid –&#32;

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I can reset the timer. Strange how quickly you "both" arrived.  No, the point is that I have been openly accused of sock puppetry, and you and your other compatriots have gone along with the smear.  I'm genuinely looking forward to the results of the check user and I'm really looking forward to you apologising for the childish and sad insinuations.  Bring it on.  And please, do add my name to the investigation as you all insinuated last night.  You're a sad crew, and I'll be sure to advise others of the way you behave.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we all see the "open accusation of sock puppetry"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the opening quote? "I'm talking about whether your account is a sockpuppet of User:The Rambling Man, which is something I suspect to be the case"? Perhaps you're less intelligent than I gave you credit.  This needs to be either openly proved or openly retracted so deal with it.  Looking forward to it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that is sad material for someone who has this page on their watch list to read, I'd call "I'll be sure to advise others of the way you behave" a threat. It and "less intelligent than I gave you credit" are unbecoming to the dignity of wikipedia. So several people suspected the existence of sockpuppets; please get over it and stop being abusive. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said, Sminthopsis84! –&#32;
 * What is sadder is that a user who has made 95k+ edits is suddenly accused of being a sockpuppeteer after nearly eight years here. That's how to destroy the fabric of Wikipedia.  People need to get over it and stop accusing people without justification.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm obviously much less intelligent. I'm having difficulty with that word "suspect". But not sure how much credit I was given to start with, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the cap fits. Once again, I'll leave the Welsh Front to its own business, but I will not accept being accused of being a sockpuppeteer, so I'd like the Checkuser to go ahead.  Then I'd like those who gathered together to insinuate I was running a sock to apologise.  Of course, it won't happen because I suspect those who insinuated such are gutless and won't be prepared to admit to it, but nevertheless, let's do the Checkuser and we can then move on.  Marvellous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which cap is that Rambling? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the Checkuser evans. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was "Martin" yesterday ... "evans" today. Good heavens! –&#32;
 * I wasn't talking to you. You are rude and insulting and assume bad faith and have done nothing but misinterpret everything I've written.  You need to go back to square one. That's pretty simple, isn't it?  And like your friend evans, I hope the Checkuser is run sooner rather than later.  So your misunderstandings can start to be addressed.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you can actually add yourself on at the User:DeFacto investigation if you really want to. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. where's square one again? who wanted a Checkuser run again?
 * I've already asked this user (whom you and the other similar contributors seem so keen to patrol) to do exactly that. Please read above.  Feel free to do that yourself.  It is perfectly absurd for someone to add themselves to a Checkuser, but if you insist I will do such.  Having said that, I would ask you and your contingent to apologise as soon as the case is closed, publicly, since this is clearly an issue for your cohorts.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 22:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Incredible ... this all began with the removal of two little flags –&#32;
 * Shucks, but it looks like the Welsh one was the stupid one. I'll have to go back to square one again now. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, and now you have people accusing me of being a sockpuppeteer. Well done to you and evans and the rest of you.  Brilliant work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * hang on, I thought I was evans!? shucks, maybe I'm just Gareth's sockpuppet (sad face) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what happens,Martin, when a certain poster rambles over the page instead of posting chronologically –&#32;
 * So, do you think we should insist that Rambling man adds himself? I didn't know we could do that. But then, I don't have any brain credit left. So who knows. (happy face) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you can't insist I do anything, but I would encourage you, evans, or even the buzzard, to put your money where your mouth is and launch your own checkuser now the one that Martinvl misguidedly started has been thrown out. Let me know when you kick it off so I can contribute accordingly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello The Rambling Man. As an experienced editor you should concur with my view that User:Our other kid is seemingly familiar with editing Wikipedia, as their first edit was arguably too sophisticated for a first-time editor. This means therefore that the account must actually be operated by an existing, more experienced editor. The questions arising as a result of this observation are: 1) Why should an experienced editor start a new account, rather than edit from their existing one? 2) Why is the operator of the new account solely interested in that particular topic? 3) Which experienced editor might have started this new account? A possible answer to the first question is of course the classic case for sockpuppetry: having more than one account expressing opinions on a talk page may help influence the direction of the discussion towards a particular result. A possible answer to the second question is that the experienced editor is already engaged in a particular topic, in this case the Talk:M4 motorway page. The third question is always the most interesting, as I'm sure you're aware. In this particular instance, last night I could unfortunately see no other plausible option than the more experienced editor being yourself, as you were already engaged on that page and were the only other editor (as well as User:Our other kid) expressing dissatisfaction with the timeline table. So that explains why I made that statement last night, as at that time I was not aware of any other possible candidates for "sockmaster" (I was certainly not aware of any of User:Martinvl's history with User:DeFacto). Unfortunately I do not feel sufficiently assured about the whole situation to be able to declare unequivically in a belief that yourself and User:Our other kid are not one and the same. I apologise for such distrust on my part, but unfortunately I have had more than one encounter with sockpuppets in my brief time on Wikipedia, and I have become more easily disposed to suspicion. As you are an experienced editor, I'm assuming you can relate to that, and hope that you can be a little more understanding. In this virtual world it's very difficult to know who one is dealing with. Hence I apologise but I still feel the best course is to proceed with the checkuser request - though from your view, of course, such a course is to be welcomed, as it will clear the atmosphere. Thankyou for your forbearance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I look forward to seeing the results of the checkuser. Let me know when you get them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like the Checkuser that Martinvl was closed swiftly, with the conclusion "Closing the case as insufficient evidence has been provided that Our other kid (talk · contribs) is abusively socking. It seems unlikely that he is a new user, but that is not enough to warrant a block or a checkuser". Pretty obvious.  But please, if neither of the editors above can be bothered to do anything about it other than wring their hands and bluster and snipe, I'd very much like you to instigate the request at your earliest convenience.  Cheers. If you could do this as soon as possible that would be great.  I'm going to be a little busy over the weekend, but of course that shouldn't stop you from starting the request, it may take a day or two to be looked into.  Unlike Martinvl's approach to my supposed sock, could you let me know once the request is posted so I can add it to my watchlist, thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it but I'm quite meticulous and slow, so it might take a couple of days. I shall inform you once it's posted. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised. It seemed so obvious to you all a few days back, why is it so hard to provide the evidence?  Anyhow, I look forward to it, and the subsequent humiliation of a number of editors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Might also be worth taking a look at User:Cap-Saint-Martin‎ too, since his editing history indicates that he seems to know his way around Wikipedia as well. And interests of a very similar nature to User:Our other kid.  And therefore, according to you and your compadres, me as well.  I only just noticed him as he's bothering User:Martinvl again.  Cheers!  (Ooh, and on a sinister note, he's using terms like "red herring" just like I did.... I wonder if I have a wannabe doppelgänger, a stalker or just yet more socks?)  I think the sooner you get this Checkuser up and running, the better for all of us! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've just seen as well, worth while adding that to the check, another Martinvl stalker with similar editing patterns to me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, you may be right. Perhaps you do have a doppelgänger or a stalker - that had occurred to me as a possibility. Although in the case of User:Our other kid they made their first edit about the M4 timeline graphic before you did, so that would have been a pre-emptive stalk, quite some feat. I originally aired my concern about User:Our other kid not being a new account because I hoped that being spotted might lead the 'real' user to quietly withdraw the sock, though that didn't occur. I stated that I suspected it to be yourself because there didn't appear to be any other option, though that was before this other possibility of socks of User:DeFacto came to light (and who is DeFacto anyway - a sock of someone else?). It is true that User:Our other kid has used phrases and a general tone reminiscent of that used by yourself, yet it is also true that User:Our other kid has made edits within the same minute as yourself, which suggests it isn't you (though this isn't a 100% certainty - I imagine it might be possible to use 2 PCs to achieve simultaneous editing, if someone really wanted to do such a thing). Who knows? The dilemma for myself is that there isn't a particularly good outcome to any of this. If, as I suspect would be the case, a checkuser is declined, then that doesn't prove anything other than one person assessed there to be insufficient evidence to proceed further, and the ambiguous question would remain. If a checkuser was granted and the result showed your account and User:Our other kid's account are not the same, that would be the best result, but even so we still wouldn't know who User:Our other kid belonged to, and you would additionally use the result as the basis to achieve "subsequent humiliation of a number of editors", which is not a positive outcome. In what way is seeking to humiliate people a noble aspiration? And if a checkuser is run and identifies your account to be the same as that of User:Our other kid, well what then? Such a result would not give me any sense of satisfaction, and it wouldn't prevent the creation of new socks which might then go around being disruptive with an axe to grind. I find the whole situation somewhat depressing, not just the use of socks to influence discussions or cause upset and mischief, but the belligerence and intensity of feeling surrounding it all are foreign to me. Why are people so upset about a bar chart about motorway junctions? When the people involved are lying on their deathbeds, panting and gasping for breath as some horrible painful disease corrupts and destroys their flesh, are they really going to look back on their lives and say to themselves, "Well, at least I did some good in the world - at least I got that timeline graphic in the M4 article changed."? I really don't understand it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you've made your bed now by practically accusing me of running at least one sock puppet, and as I said, the other two editors on the M4 talkpage seemed thoroughly convinced too. You all seemed to have sufficient "evidence" back then to openly accuse me, so now you need to follow through with it and get the checkuser run. It's entirely my name and reputation on the line and having edited here since May 2005, it would be a shame to leave the various sniping and accusations littered around Wikipedia as a result of your statement. The humiliation is currently all mine as your baseless (perhaps careless) accusation have left a really bad smell in the air. I have no real interest in what you "think" about the various editors here, I just need you to get the facts straight and get them published as soon as possible. Otherwise please publish an open and clear retraction of your accusations and an apology for all this grief you seem to be trying to withdraw yourself from. Incidentally, you ask what would happen if the checkuser showed I was a sockpuppeteer, I would immediately resign from being a 'crat, an admin, FLC director and leave Wikipedia for good. Seems reasonable? (P.S. It may have escaped your attention that the M4 article is just one of a number of articles I've edited over the past near-eight years...). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a court of law in real life in which a judge can demand that I behave in a certain way otherwise I'll be bound over at Her Majesty's pleasure. My statement above was quite measured and acknowledged various possibilities. If you think it's nonsense, I'm sure other people (the 3 who watch my talk page?) can think it's nonsense too. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that you've openly made assertions that I run one (or more) socks. You now need to prove it or retract the assertion.  Surely you understand that?  Your attitude is very odd given that I'm doing my best to help you with your investigations, and given my bond that I'll leave here for good should you find any discrepancies in my editing behaviour.  Please do something active rather than just this series of vague answers.  Start the checkuser or remove your assertions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

With my SPI clerk hat on, such a request would be declined, and deleted with prejudice. Please stop making baeless accusations or you will be reported to ANI. --Rschen7754 20:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's easy for him to stop making accusations, what I want is for him to retract the ones he's made already. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't been in this much trouble since, ooh, not since 1985, when I was caught riding my bicycle on the pavement. I was given a right bollocking I can tell you, even though it was midnight in a semi-rural location, with not a soul to be seen (except for the cops of course, who appeared as if by magic, rather like a certain shopkeeper...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So are you going to do something about this or just leave your accusation hanging? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you at least be courteous enough to tell me if you're going to pursue this and if you're going to leave your accusation in place? It's quite important, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have at all times tried to express myself courteously and unambiguously so that others may understand my position. Unfortunately any further discussion - which might have led to some sort of resolution, or at least mutual understanding - has been stymied by the decision of the patrolling admin. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, in plain English, "no" you're not going to file a checkuser and "no" you're not going to retract your baseless comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (sigh...) What can I say? You must have read all the words that I've written, yet you also must interpret them through a filter which only allows you to see certain aspects. And did you not read what the other admin stated - that as far as they were concerned a checkuser request "would be declined, and deleted with prejudice" (I find it's always heartening to know that actions are being carried out with prejudice...) - so why do you ask whether I'm going to file one?. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So it's "no" to running the checkuser but how about retracting the baseless accusations if you haven't got the mettle to get on with it and provide sufficient "evidence" (which you seemed to think was so obvious a few days ago)? You and I both know the clerks will surely listen to you if you provide anything other than just "your suspicions". You were mid-way through preparing a whole bunch of evidence, remember? Why not complete the task and launch the Checkuser? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, get involved, publish your evidence, I've even actually "asked" for it to be provided, both here and there. Do get on with it, when it's convenient to you stop keeping me hanging, of course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, this impasse has been noted here and here. It would be useful if you could contribute at some point so that this hanging issue can be resolved.  I've asked twice for a checkuser to be performed on my own account, and have twice been rejected.  Hopefully with your body of evidence that you've gathered, we can either initiate a suitable check, or you'll publish a suitable retraction of your baseless accusations.  If not, per the advice I've received from a couple of different users, you should be advised that you are in breach of WP:NPA.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Either proceed with a SPI investigation or retract/refactor your comments. Per what is a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." You are accusing The Rambling Man of sockpuppetry, which is a serious accusation, and you have as of yet failed to provide sufficient evidence. NativeForeigner Talk 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that I've positively encouraged you on a number of occasions to instigate this request, with my blessing (whether that's required or not), or if not, redact your accusations publicly. I have nothing to hide.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @NativeForeigner: I haven't supplied any "evidence" because:
 * 1) Admin Rschen7754 stated above that a checkuser request would be declined, so given such a level of pre-judgement, what would be the point?
 * 2) The Rambling Man has stated a desire to exact "subsequent humiliation of a number of editors" should a checkuser judgement go a certain way. I believe The Rambling Man is blowing this up out of proportion purely because he wants to get a pound of flesh; I note that on your talk page he stated that I have "asserted that [I am] convinced [The Rambling Man] is running a sock factory", whereas the truth is nothing like that. Please read this thread and note my approach has not been to assert anything like such a definite approach.
 * 3) I no longer have any faith in the validity of the whole process; it's not transparent. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, this passive aggressive behavior needs to stop. You have three options:

It's as simple as that. --Rschen7754 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File a SPI.
 * Retract all your accusations.
 * Be blocked for personal attacks.


 * (edit conflict) Get over it. I want those who accused me of sockpuppetry to apologise.  I may have used inflammatory tones to express that, but I'm sick of you sitting here doing nothing after your bare-faced and baseless accusation that, after nearly eight years, I'm running sock puppets.  So, in answer to your points above... (1) it would be declined if you have no additional evidence (which you claimed you were collating). (2) I just want justice, I want you to you accept that your hanging accusation is a smear on me and without resolution of the unpleasantness you've created, this will roll on. (3) This is irrelevant, you've accused me, I've asked you directly for evidence, I've asked you to follow you accusation up with action, not inaction, what "transparency" are you looking for?  Conclusion: if you aren't going to do anything about this accusation, remove it, redact it, apologise, and then we can move on.  Otherwise you are clearly in breach of WP:NPA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to interpose here that User:PaleCloudedWhite has quite a long history of being one of the gentlest, most humane editors in wikipedia, and that these attacks on him are so savage that I can only imagine that he is extremely upset and hardly able to function as an editor here, much less to navigate the complex SPI procedure. This is very upsetting to me also, as someone who has come across this battle as a result of my watch list. We have tried hard to combat vandalism in wikipedia, but this response that "you can't use the word checkuser or you will be drawn, quartered, and fried" reveals that the effort to learn how to combat vandalism has been an utterly pointless exercise all along. You admins are behaving inhumanely. I'll be rather surprised if PCW manages to summon the determination to edit anything ever again, and I will now take a long break and perhaps give up entirely. Wikipedia has been called a social site, but it isn't, it is an antisocial, pathological site. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He accused someone of sockpuppeting, which is a bannable offense. If you want inhumane, how's that? --Rschen7754 23:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a completely inhumane policy. After seeing very real sockpuppets (of User:SoniaMurilloPerales), to suddenly find that one isn't allowed to imagine any such thing is a big surprise to me. As I said above, heartless admins are not conducive to anyone risking their mental health by trying to improve wikipedia. That's all for me, signing off (perhaps permanently). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss the point completely. You need to have proof that someone is socking before you make such an accusation. It's like accusing someone of sexual harassment - if you're wrong about such an accusation, you can wreck someone's career and family life. --Rschen7754 23:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be an inhumane policy, if it existed.. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI
I've closed the ANI as there appears to be more heat than light there. The emotions are running high, and I don't think anything is to be gained by continuing with what looks like the start of a drama fest. I do suggest paring back (and perhaps apologizing for) the unfounded claims, and just stepping back a day or two. I'm sure everyone else's skin is thick enough to let this slide if this doesn't become an ongoing issue. As for SPI, there are a number of people, all diverse (myself included) who help out there, so there is no singular mind-set. I've offered directions if you still have doubts when filing. In short, we need to all take a deep breath and have a tea. When emotions have subsided, focusing on the merits of the content is best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. It feels to me like you are the first Wikipedia 'power person' who has shown me some kindness and understanding on this whole affair. I shall do as you suggest. Thankyou. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You would be very shocked at how little "power" we admin really have. The tools are handy, but we get strung up by the community if we use them improperly.  The down side is that during a regular discussion on content, people often treat us differently, which cuts both ways.  And any comment that is a little rude, thus would get overlooked if we were a regular editor, can get blown up into a big ANI deal.  I've been an admin for a year now, and I can tell you from experience that I have less power in many areas due to the higher accountability.  I understand it looks like a cabal at times, but admin are just as diverse as non-admin, I can assure you.  Admin argue with each other (usually in a polite manner or offwiki) all the time.  I still suggest taking a little break, read a book, and come back refreshed. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 20:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Having been out for several hours today, I have just read the ANI and both of Admin Dennis Brown's comments. I am glad that you may now be able to put the matter to rest. With my kindest regards, Gareth – Gareth Griffith-Jones   – The Welsh  Buzzard  – 21:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good evening PCW,
 * Not completely to rest, but to rest for the night. There may be an apology or two to dish out once the emotion is lifted, and I would encourage that.  All we have here is our reputation and relationship.  We bruise them sometimes, we are human, so it happens, but our character is defined not by our mistakes, but how we correct them.  But first, everyone needs to just step back a little. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree; I would hesitate to apologize as well, had I been the target of such ferocious attacks by admins trying to intimidate me into submission, as this user was. Although I can understand that keeping one's reputation in good standing is important, especially for admins, being a bully does NOT help, and I myself don't think anyone should apologize to bullies. That's all I wanted to say. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me too Dennis Brown. It's good to meet you. (Interesting that admin is a mass noun, I didn't know that. Mass nouns are cool.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement
Copied from User talk:The Rambling Man:

Hello The Rambling Man. Although it isn't possible to be 100% certain of anything in this strange and virtual world, I have thought hard and reflected long on recent events and have decided that I choose to believe you. My recent ANI posting resulted in my being given space in which to think, plus comments by several other users have provided more background information. Most importantly however, there have been just a few comments which you yourself have made - some on my talk page, some elsewhere - which, although nearly buried beneath a lot of other less clear material, have convinced me sufficiently that you are telling the truth. With that in mind, I am informing you that I shall rescind my previous statements and strike through my initial statement on the M4 motorway talk page. I apologise for any distress which my actions may have caused. I shall copy this paragraph to the appropriate thread on my own talk page, so others may read it in context there. I feel I must add however that it may be beneficial for future reference for you to note, that the tone and approach of many of your postings on my talk page resulted in my being much more inclined to believe you were guilty, and if instead you had been able to step outside of your emotions a little and conduct yourself in a manner more befitting of your role here, perhaps things would have been resolved much quicker. I hope that this is sufficient to draw a line underneath recent events. Sincerely, PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Courage, mon ami
Courage, PCW. I'm sorry to see that the resolution of the above comes with the statement "I'll never forgive you" from the person that you tried to placate (on their talk page). That at least makes it clear that there can't be anything that anyone can do except move on and away. The number of people who have seen this exchange and are likely to be developing very cold shoulders as a result must be quite large. I now think that retiring isn't the right approach; that lets the bullies win too easily. I'll stick around. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "One can survive everything, nowadays, except death, and live down everything except a good reputation." - 'Old gay socks'. But I quite concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some "rare botanicals" for you. Best wishes, a leading celebrity chat show host. (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Colorful spring garden.jpg
 * Why thankyou, Alan, it's been such a long time since we spoke at the Jodrell Gate, when you were not nearly so famous, and I was - as you say - "Nobbut a lad", that I'm really quite touched (allegedly!) to receive such a kindly given gift. I return the sentiment with warmest regards. I must say that I do rather like flowers - they smell so much sweeter than asshats alternative Easter decorations. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ee, oop, Percy, me lad. "light of laughing flowers along the grass is spread" Yours, Edward Kemp.
 * 'ere Sandy, I do 'ope you're not just "playing with words and larking around" again! Strike a light. Your close friend, Julian.
 * I thought I was Julian? It's not fair - I wanted to be Julian! Just because I started warbling on about "puppets", I don't see why that has to make me Sandy! (cackle! cackle!)
 * Now, now, Sandy. Anyone would think we were a right pair of "dolly palones", but you're fooling no-one. I'm sure there's still plenty to keep Interpol busy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lyscombe Hill
Please help me understand your recent edit at Lyscombe Hill. The prominence of a hill is an objective fact and you can arrange the hills in the list in order of prominence. Lyscombe ranks as the 12th most prominent hill in Dorset, with a drop of 100 m. Ball Hill is not far behind (19th, 74 m). They are the 2 most prominent in the immediate area. The next nearest "prominent" hills are Bulbarrow (5th, 141 m), about 4 km NE of Lyscombe, and Watts Hill (20th, 69 m) about 5 km W of Ball Hill.

The Dorsetshire Gap is a natural gap that has been heavily transited and eroded by man to its present shape over centuries. Is that not historic? --Bermicourt (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Bermicourt. The matter in hand here is one of language and perception. "Prominence" has a very specific technical meaning within the jargon of people who study hills and mountains, but it also has a much more broadly defined meaning which, I would argue, is more widely used within the general population. As you know, the northern chalk downs in Dorset form an escarpment, the scarp slope of which faces roughly north and presents a long "wall" of hills of roughly similar height. It could be argued that, using the more generally used definition of prominence, none of the hills is particularly more prominent than all the others (particularly when viewed from a few miles away), and the ones which could be picked out may be done so because of their shape or vegetation, as well as the more technical aspects of absolute and/or relative height. That is why I altered the sentence. If the text is to use a word which usually has a general meaning but in this instance has a more specific one, I think it should be more explicitly stated.


 * On the question of the description of Dorsetshire Gap, again it's a matter of language and definitions. The Gap is a physical feature in the landscape - a small but noticeable 'notch' within the line of hills thereabouts. It is also a meeting place of several ancient trackways. The meeting point could perhaps be described as "historic" (though I think "ancient" is preferable), but the Gap where they meet is an existing landscape feature and in my view not really suited to such a description, particularly when only one word is being used to summarise the place. As a comparison for illustration, the Roman fort on Hod Hill could be described as historic, but to describe the hill itself as such seems a bit nonsensical, and I think to describe Dorsetshire Gap as historic is similarly awkward, and perhaps a bit misleading to readers, who may go there expecting to find rather more than there is (which when I last went there several years ago, comprised a pole with a wooden box on top, containing a visitors book).


 * I hope that explains my edit and at least makes my reasoning understandable, even if not agreeable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC) (P.S. I hope you're not finding it irritating that I'm seeming to be following you around Dorset, making little corrections - the truth is that I'm particularly interested in this subject matter, and recently you've been pinging a great number of articles on my watchlist. I actually find it quite exciting to have someone else interested in these things, and I'm jealous of your "List of..." article, which I think is fantastic.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi PCW. I do follow the logic and perhaps my descriptions were a little loose in my enthusiasm to create the article. In slower time I hope to revisit and flesh them out, making them a little more descriptive where I can reference sources. I also hope to visit these places in due course after I move back to Dorset in May, which will bring them alive and perhaps enable me to find some local information to beef up the articles.
 * It's actually good to have someone check and proof-read stuff - so thank you. And it's always better to work as a team too. Kind regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 17:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

An "unusual turn"...
At this time of year, thoughts turn to that well-known adage about the merrie olde month of March: "March - in like a penguin, out like a polar bear...". Or something like that. PaleColdAndWhite
 * I think you'll find Ye Olde Dorset version is "In like a rambler, out like a tramp." yours, Worzel Gummidge
 * Out like a tramp? "How very dare you!" Aunt Sally
 * "Grockle thee not, thou wambling gaberlunzie, t'will soon be a-time for the "Dali Buds of May"'! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You're both enjoying this, I can see, but I'm not a "tramp" nor am I a "liar"; but I wanted to just quickly say that I'm sorry if I've over-reacted to all the previous issues, it was unprofessional of me and I regret it enormously. I should not let my real life issues cloud my on-wiki editing. I'll go back and remove anything inflammatory or incorrect, just point the way. There seems to be little chance of a checkuser being run on me (or my "socks") at the moment, but I'm working on getting a solution to that. It may be a joke to you both but I'm deeply saddened that after nearly eight years someone thought I'd suddenly create a sock (or more than one) just to promote a position on the M4 article. Yes, Martin, you "joke" that I have complained too much ("The non-lady doth protest too much, methinks."), thereby implying guilt, but I just wanted to clear this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am indeed deeply saddened that a sudden attack of good sense and reasonableness seems to have robbed you of that shrill tone of indignation that we had both come to love so much. I have taken up own my position on a random bridge over the M4 (complete with heavy brick) in case our paths do indeed ever_cross_again! As you know, I'm not the kind of person who would suggest that someone should join the Rambling Association just to be able to knit-their-own-leg-warmers. Even Lady Macbeth had her off days, especially with that pesky dog. I hope that's all quite clear. Yours, "Dun-insane", Iago or Mine? (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again The Rambling Man. Yes, guilty as charged - a little making of impudent merriment, to help the wounds heal. Myself and Martin have always played with words and larked about, I'm afraid - it's one way to add just a little bit of pleasure to the day. But joshing aside, I am genuinely glad that you have decided to approach without any detectable hostility - perhaps there is hope for an even-tempered exchange? Here are some of my thoughts on the whole matter:
 * 1) Although you have been on Wikipedia for nearly 8 years, at the time when I aired my M4 suspicion, I'd previously had no dealings with you, and thus had built up no picture of you as an editor. You were just a name. Our reputations on here have to start afresh with each editor we meet anew.
 * 2) I now think the whole sock-finding process on Wikipedia is rather flawed - it reminds me of the Witchsmeller Pursuivant. It's not very scientific, nor even necessarily impartial, and I regret that previously I had bought into the whole quasi-judicial set-up. Even the checkuser function cannot be considered definitive in many instances. With this in mind, it's perhaps not surprising if people get a bit twitchy about it all.
 * 3) Although of course it's impossible to be 100% sure of anything on here, I have already stated that I believe you are telling the truth. I decided a long time ago that the SPI and checkuser routes weren't going to be entirely conclusive, plus seeing as yourself and another admin were bashing me about the face a bit, I ceased trusting it. I would have just withdrawn from it all, but you wouldn't let me. So instead I tried to gauge the truth of the situation based on an analysis of your words and online 'voice', which is what led to my previous statement (pompous though it may have sounded to you). I had hoped that my just believing you might be preferable to having to be 'proved' by a kind of fallible search. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand. The only real problem I had was that you publicly accused me first, then said you were preparing a body of evidence, and then just stopped.  I know the Checkuser cannot provide absolute answers but it would have been very simple to have asked the SPI clerk to have recused himself from the check.  I have nothing to do with Checkuser (on this Wikipedia) whatsoever, so I would have had no input to any results.  It seemed a real shame for you, in one breath to suggest I was running one or more socks and you'd be preparing evidence, and only a few days later state the whole Checkuser process to be flawed and withdraw, leaving the accusation hanging.  Anyway, what's done is done, but I'd like to reiterate my apology for my emotional behaviour.   The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I shouldn't have made the public accusation/suspicion - that was an error on my part. A result of naiveté/ignorance and a kind of excessive honesty, resulting in an ill-conceived action. A case of learning as one goes along. I'd also like to reiterate my apology for any distress caused. I understand that your initial reaction was fuelled by circumstances in your offline life. I empathise. I have spent a great portion of my own life feeling "down and out", for one reason or another. As someone once said, "life is difficult". (But not all the time, hopefully!). No-one knows the real lives behind all these funny usernames. Who knows, in real life you might actually find me quite likeable, haha! I thank you for your more recent kindness. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)@
 * I'm certain I would. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes it all worthwhile
Dear PCW, You were (with Martin) my two first friends in this strange yet wonderful Wikipedia World. Your kindness and understanding then will always remain a lasting comfort when unpleasantnesses invariably occur and one wonders why is one bothering to spend valuable time on this project and it is such as you two that it still all makes it worthwhile ... and enjoyable. Sincerely –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 22:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Gareth. I've replied "at yours". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Poundbury
Hello PaleCloudedWhite, Just wanted to make you aware that a unregistered IP address is again trying to change, without reason, the Poundbury reference to windows. This seems to crop-up every few months and appears to be in the Southampton and Isle of Wight areas of the UK. I have left a message on the appropiate Talk page asking them to not make edits without a valid reason and will keep watching the Poundbury article. With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello David J Johnson. Yes, I had noticed the 'window tax campaigner' was back, and would have reverted straightaway but for inexplicably not being able to find the webpage which I used as a supporting ref in my previous edit summary (I think I typed the wrong address). Having now found that page, I've just now added it as a ref in the article, which hopefully should make the position clearer to the IP editor. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. To be honest, I could have added the reference - but was so incensed that the unregistered "window tax campaigner" had re-appeared and started deleted again without reason!! Anyway I'll keep watch on the article. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you have again had to revert the deletion of the Poundbury windows reference. Once again, the unregistered user appears to come from the Hampshire coast area.  I really see no reason, and none is stated, for this constant obsession for deleting sourced content. I have left a note on the Talk page.  If this carries on perhaps we should ask for Page Protection? With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In an earlier edit summary they stated that "Bricked windows were frequently used to create a balanced facade. It is mistaken to believe all bricked up windows were only the result of the window tax.", so it appears their beef is that the article gives the impression that the window tax was the only reason for bricking up windows. They may be right, but the source doesn't offer any other reasons, so we can't just make it up. If the editor becomes really persistent I think page protection might be an option, though at the moment having to revert every few days isn't too onerous. (Alternatively, we could travel down to the Hampshire coast, use geolocate to find out where they live, then in the night, brick up all their windows and leave a friendly note, because as they say, "It is mistaken to believe all bricked up windows were only the result of the window tax." haha....! ) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea!!! Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Simply divine, darhling"
Does this mean you now have sound?! Arh, fresh air and sunshine - makes you feel ten years younger.." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk Page Stalker Alert! If you didn’t already know, you don’t need sound for youtube, as they have a highly accurate translate function. That opening quote is rendered thusly: ..image and sunshine a tainted Mexican ten years younger installing anjali picket.  Adds a whole new layer.  Hillbillyholiday talk 09:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no sound, not a squeak, nor even a pip, alas. If I can manage to stop working so much, maybe I'll find time to look into buying a new pc. Then a whole new world will be opened up for me, and I'll have an even better excuse for not washing the dishes.... The truth is that I videotaped The Divine David's series when it first appeared on Channel 4 in the late 90s; I watched the tapes so many times (until my TV broke down), I can still remember a lot of the lines. Thus when I found some clips on youtube last night, apart from being surprised that they hadn't been blocked on copyright grounds, I found myself watching the images and filling in the lines myself. And quite amusing myself, surprisingly. I think the words "get", "out" and "more" could probably be interjected effectively here... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your ol' Darzett chum Whole-hill-of-beatbox-beanz-iday could get you wired up in no time. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite 'wired up' enough already, even without help from dear Billy Whizz! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Jung, Gifted and off-White" as Bob and Marcia would have it, no doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ba-doom tshh! Hadn’t heard of this divinity before, she is quite the rare species indeed, wahnderful.. Hillbillyholiday talk 03:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [Alky breaks down]
 * [Tea-drinker tuts sweetly]— (spot on - my last relationship in a nutshell

Studland
Bill Bryson on Studland

Quote: "What, they only attack cripples?"


 * "They call it style". (I can't imagine what he was referring to - the local Conservative Party office?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! No Sway, both me and my brother perform our own weird kind of music which I labelled "Cripplestyle" in honour of that obscure hamlet.  If we duet we go by the name: The Everly Sedated Brothers.  I used to have O.S. maps for the whole of the South cut-up and used as wallpaper, which is how I noticed it.. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Knowing the informant, a Mr Michael Mersh, mi'lud, this revelation has a disturbing ring of truth to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When I performed in a band at school (well, "performed" is somewhat hyperbolic - we didn't really get beyond the garage rehearsals), we went by the name of "Lotat Hits", which is an anagram for, er, something.... (it wasn't my idea, it was the guitarist's - but then he was a transvestite, so what can you expect from such a reprobate....?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, there's nowt wrong with tranny guitarists.. Luckily you don't have sound PCW, the visuals are quite enough.. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for the chilling veracity of style and delivery, alas. In the course of that performance I actually adopted several African orphans. This is kind of sick "social-media pandering" that has ruined this project! Whatever next, one asks, Abo music in some obscure Northern town??!! yours, in disgust, Nora Virus
 * "You've got your mother in a whirl, she's not sure if you're a boy or a girl". Or Mickey Mouse even.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"How very peninsular of you, darling!"
And who says local government can't afford copyeditors....?
 * Arr, y'murrians bain't be vrum Darzet zezz I, yer girt zamzoodled milkydashel, zat be owze it be zpoken round by ere.. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 17:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Captain Cyril Diver might well disagree with you, my dear chap. I knew his senior sibling, Major Muff, by Jove. eco-warrior
 * Yib! Yib! K-woo! K-woo! -- Oscar Wild

Talkback
Something wrong  with the TB link. The page you should have been linked to is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Gertrude
The plan is from her own book, the drawing is made by her hand. Jekyll, G. Colour in the flower garden (London: Country Life, 1908). Own the book. Hafspajen (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't own the book, unfortunately. I hadn't connected the file name to Jekyll's work - I had read it as just a generic title. Do you have any information about where the plan was for? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't know exactly which one, but the style is easy to recognize. You can find somemore here, on commons Category:Colour_in_the_Flower_Garden Nice picture you got here, Devon? Hafspajen (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Shame the files aren't labelled more specifically, as it would be nice to give a caption stating which garden a plan was for. The pic's Dorset, not Devon (actually I thought your original "noice picture" had more of a West Country ring to it, haha....). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * . Oh well, nobody is perfect. Hafspajen (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, I remember that scene now - I haven't watched that film for about 30 years! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oo arr, it be Darzet roight enuff.. Devon be thattaway Hillbillyholiday talk 17:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Get those caterpillars off your head, don't you know they're hazardous...?!! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hafspajen (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mummy, is that where his brain used to be? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he's got more than one - you know what they say about these artistic types, they have certain tendencies, as you saw yourself earlier today... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple personalities..?? I'm calling my lawyer -- Madonnabillyholiday
 * "Shucks. I'll get me coat." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a forbidden word on this page, as you well know, you "asshat".... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC) (apologies to TRM)
 * Oh cripes! what was I thinking!! if I drag you off to ANI really quickly, maybe no-one will notice der böse Wort, das kann nicht gesprochen?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, I see recently you've become quite familiar with speedy trips to ANI, but it wasn't as speedy as my recent appearance there, in big blockquote form if you please.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodness me. I must have missed that one. What a bunch of drama-queens. I think I'll resign in protest (again). Dire Critic Mark (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And talking of caterpillars...
 * It's only because caterpillars are fashionable these days... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cor blimey, guv'nor! Wearable sculptures!? Whateva next!? 'ere, mate, I 'ad that Tracey Emu in the back of me cab last week - an' she was wearing a sculpture that 'adn't been washed for months! Strike a light! Fag-ends and lager cans everwhere!! I reckon she done these ones, an' all:, , . yours, Xenokrates of Sicyon-on Thames
 * She ought to try working with one of these. "I've got a brand new combine Caterpillar, and I'll give you the key!" PupaCaterpillarWhite


 * Yay, Zummerzet's finest !! Eat ur Noo-Yoik heart out, Melony Shifter !!

Culpeper
Oh, what a nice addition to Artemisia absinthium! Thanks. I should have looked at Mabey, instead of wasting my time arguing with a Wikilawyer. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Peter, yes I was quite surprised to find Mabey referring to Culpeper and wormwood so explicitly and indeed emphatically ("The key to understanding the book, by Culpeper's own insistence, is wormwood"). In view of earlier comments made on the talk page, a quite delicious irony! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Backwardscopy
As you made this edit you may be interested in Talk:Charlotte Brontë -- PBS (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't quite work out what's being said at the talk page (I don't know what is meant by "without the copyright notices required by the copyleft licence"). Is there an alleged copyvio or not? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

At the bottom of page of every Wikipedia article is the licence and terms of use: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."

What is says is if you use this work (or any derivative of it), then you must include the licence and credit Wikiepdia (and any other author who Wikiepdia credits (attributes) (see terms of use 7.g). If they do not do that they are in breach of the copyleft agreement and therefore in breach of copyright. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've had time to poke around a bit more in the links you created on the talk page, and this time I found the text in question. I can confirm that yes they have copied Wikipedia text, including some of my additions. What happens now? Have you already checked whether they've included the license and credited Wikipedia? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have sent a message to Google books informing them of the problem, but I will not pursue it further (life is too short), however it ought to be pursued and I will do what I can if someone else wants to do it. The major use of this backwardscopy is that when a bot or a person throws up an accusation that the Wikipedia page is a copyvio of something plagiarised from Wikipedia, the ground work has already been done to show which way around the copy has been made.  -- PBS (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)