User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 16

Derry
Hi Snowded, I started a discussion on the talk page of the Derry article. I'm not sure that any of the sources provided in the "Name" section actually state that Derry is the more common name. Stu  ’Bout ye!  11:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The part written about emergence is worded incorrectly. "This characteristic of every system is called emergence and is true of any system, not just complex ones[citation needed]"

it should be written

"Emergence

One of the key concepts in complex systems is that of emergence. Emergence is the idea that group behaviour reflects the social conditions within which it occurs. In essence emergence acknowledges that outcomes cannot be predicted by examining the component pieces. Stevens and Cox argue that two teams of interdisciplinary child protection workers made up of the same numbers of specialists looking after the same number of children and covering the same area in terms of population will feel and act in very different ways. This occurs because each team of child protection workers emerges within its own complex system. For complex systems to be effective, efforts should be diverted away from attempting to control emergence, in favour of facilitating the emergence of safe conditions for children (Stevens & Cox, 2007, p.1326).

Despite coming from a systems based perspective, Munro argues that in instances where the death of a child is assigned to human error the recommendations invariably tend towards automating procedures (Munro, 2005, p.533). The effect of these recommendations is the de-skilling of child protection workers who become less aware of the systems within which they are working. When the automated procedures in place fail the child protection workers have less awareness of what is going wrong and therefore less ability intervene. Munro’s observation in the context of emergence indicates that in the attempt to control predictability, by automating procedures, there is a negative effect on the emergence of safer conditions for children. The attempt to control the emergence of child protection professionals facilitates the emergence of more automated procedures and less skilled child protection workers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Royston Molineux (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war
I have posted a comment on the talk page explaining why I believe there is a difference (I also put the same explanation in the edit summery). I would also point out that you have also not discussed your edits either, nor have you ever explained why you believe that a statement about them dropping the case is the same as a statement saying that the membership will agree to the new constitution. I also had reworded the text to make this difference clear. I would also refer you to the 1RR discussion above, it is related.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have discussed any controversial edit and abided by WP:BRD. I have no idea how this is related to the 1RR discussion.  I will reply to any point you have made on the talk page, but with a disputed edit the original text should stand.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * " would also argue that as the so called repetition was about the likely hood of the membership accepting the new constitution and not about the reasons why the BNP backed down it is also new material" was what I was referring to. I made the point that the so called repetition was not in fact about why the BNP backed down, but the likely hood that the membership would accept the new constitution, a related but different question. A point you are still to respond to.Slatersteven (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry that is not logical. The reason they say they backed down is the reason they gave to the members an the reason they say the members will accept the change.  Its all the same point.  And its an excuse, they were guilty, had to pay costs and no change of winning.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagre. It is true that the reason given for both things is the same, money. what they are giving it as an excuse for is not. One if the backing down over the court case, the other is the selling of the new constitution to the membership of the BNP (which I would argue is interesting and important in and off itslef). Are you susgesting that how the BNP are selloing this to their membership (and the fact they seem certain that this argument will win the day) is ot inprotant to the discusion about the BNP changing its constitution?Slatersteven (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Then disagree on the talk page and respect the opinion of other editors. In effect you inserted the material three times without seeking agreement on the talk page.  My attempt at a compromise used the "persuading their members" as it obviously mattered to you, but removed it from the earlier paragraph as it only needs to be there once.   You have also inserted this crazy phrase about them getting once over the Commission!  IN effect you have inserted material three times without seeking agreement.  I've taken it to the talk page.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Scotland
(reply) ANI is only for obtaining the attention of administrators... But you've already got admin attention. :) I've already blocked Irvine22 for one week, and he will be on a very short leash after that.  For the article, it would be better if some other editor fixed the infobox, since you've already reverted once today.  Personally, I wouldn't block you for restoring the infobox to the consensus version, while including a clear link in the edit summary to the current talkpage thread that verifies the consensus. However, other admins might react differently, so it's probably best to be cautious. --Elonka 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you, Elonka, to think for a moment about the imagery evoked by the use of the phrase "he will be on a very short leash". It seems to me that the two possible images it calls to mind are 1) dog/owner or 2) slave/mistress. As the comment was clearly about me, a man of color, the latter seems more likely. It is surely inappropriate for a Wikipedia administrator to use language loaded with connotations of dominance and submission (which I suppose may also be sexual in nature) when referring to another editor. I suggest that, when you return from your break, you consider striking through the comment above, and refrain from using such ill-considered language in future. Irvine22 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got to hand it to you, Irvine. When it comes to trolling, you are pretty funny. Rockpock  e  t  20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think people should use language with due care and attention. Especially people who have attained the lofty status of administrator on Wikipedia. Irvine22 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd prefer the phrase "stop while you're ahead". This would be an excellent time to drop whatever personal issue you're having and return to editing.  If you have future concerns about idiomatic phrases, I'd suggest a dictionary as an appropriate place to start before making foolish remarks. Shell   babelfish 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "stop while you're ahead" certainly lacks the unfortunate (and no doubt unthinking)supremacist overtones of "he will be on a very short leash". But I can't say I like the phrase, which to my ear carries the connotation of playing-it-safe, reining in ambition, settling for modest returns. Sounds a bit loserish, really. Irvine22 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Irvine, you really need to show evidence of having learnt something from your block. Also this playing "I am offended by your phrases" trick is tired.  You played it once and created a lot of fuss at ANI to no good effect.  You are now you are trying it out again on a very common phrase which does not have either if the implications your list, it simply says you are trying everyone's patience to the limit.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was offended, and indeed I am not. I'm just encouraging Elonka to think about the stock phrases she reaches for (as do we all), and to consider whether a more thoughtful (and original) manner of expression may be 1) less pejorative and 2) more effective. Irvine22 (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the helpful innocent gambit, I wonder what next. -- Snowded  TALK  05:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Helpful - I try to be. Innocent - I haven't been in a long while. Irvine22 (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (reply) As I said, I'm not inclined to block since the consensus is fairly obvious. However, I can't speak for other admins.  As for the edit summary, just saying "consensus on the talkpage" is pretty much a null term. It's very routine for edit warriors to say something like "rv per consensus" or "no consensus for change", even though the talkpage may have nothing of the kind, so administrators tend to ignore when someone just says "rv per consensus", as a potentially bad faith edit summary.  However, when someone actually includes a link to a specific talkpage thread which has a clear and obvious consensus, that's (usually) fairly safe.  This is one of those areas though where reasonable administrators may differ on the best way to deal with a situation. To be completely safe, you might want to self-revert and let someone else make the fix.  Or, keep editing the article (especially if you can add something positive and sourced) to show that you're not just engaging in an endless revert-revert-revert edit war.  Or, add a small null edit to update the edit summary to point to the talkpage thread. Up to you! --Elonka 19:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK good advise, I played safe. Given I'm getting my RFA together at the moment (duties across multiple articles) it makes sense.  Thanks.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted back to the consensus version, though I'm afraid I omitted from the edit summary the link to the consensus. Can I ask when the edit restrictions began on the Scotland article? Jack forbes (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its "emerged" just assume its 1RR on all British and Irish articles to play safe. Irvine22 is obviously targeting Scotland so its worth looking at their edit history on Irish articles to get a sense of what is coming.  Hopefully next time it will be a longer block.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No edit restrictions on Scotland that I can remember then one editor arrives and causes havoc. That one editor can cause this is very sad to say the least. Jack forbes (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC on whether the Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles
Following from a discussion you were a participant in on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom, a (limited) RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll forgive Matt for his assumptions of me. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do need to be careful you know, some admins might take a poor view -- Snowded TALK  22:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what's wrong with my comment. It's best I keep out of the Taskforce/Channel Islands. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was provocative, trying to close down an open discussion -- Snowded TALK  23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to close down anything, but merely explaining why I was endorsing RA's statement (I thought Matt was owed that). IMHO, Matt lost his temper over my siding with RA. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, advice from a friend, you often come across as deliberately provocative in many an edit, you go to people's talk pages to get them involved when you know they will stir things up. You change your mind on a subject during discussion for no apparent reason.  Now I have pushed it a bit here, those of us who know you are comfortable with it, just push back from time to time.  However some editors will find it difficult to handle.  its your call.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stay away from the Taskforce/Channel Islands & chalk that experience up to being a 'mis-understanding' between he & I. Thanks for your time Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your comment
I feel your comments are mistaken, please explain exactly and show me the edits in question. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This was not a tweak, it was a clear revert to an earlier version with additional material. Your comments that the page is a "vomit pit" indicate that you are loosing a sense of proportion over this article.  I suggest you calm down a bit and attempt to achieve a NPOV position. -- Snowded  TALK  22:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made two edits to this article in the last four days, both of them good faith small rewrites, there was a feeling on the talkpage that the womans comments were being misrepresented by the choosing only certain comments, I removed the problem by expanding, I am quite prepared to get an opinion over this as I really do feel I have not infringed any policy at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The feeling was from you and Slaterstephen. You are not addressing the issue that your edit summary was misleading, it was a major edit restoring (albeit with variations) and earlier edit.  Its probably a good idea for you to get an opinion, an even better idea for you to get a mentor.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you have noticed but you recent edits were a bit messy and have been reverted. I expanded an edit from the source, it was never previously there, to my knowledge, it was as I described it, a tweak, not a revert, not really an addition as such, a basic improvement imo adding and directing the comment closer to the source. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FormerIP spotted a mistake on my part (wrong paragraph), I've now amended that. In effect you restored Slaterstephen's original edit (which had too much quotation)m with a minor variant.  Sorry I think your edit summary was misleading.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is too much quotation is just your opinion, I would point out that it was you replaced edit that former IP chose to remove. You seem to be making a big mess here. You have reverted again, being confused is not an excuse to violate policy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually its wikipedia standards, suggest you check it out. Otherwise hey I made a mistake on the paragraph in question. Given the mess of edits that preceded it, then its easily done and easily corrected.  No policy violation that I can see, but you do have a history of making accusations ....-- Snowded  TALK  23:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Please take a step back back, imo you are totally at fault here and I totally am available for independent administrator assessment on that .Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't be bothered with this nonsense from you (and its not the first time). Your restored an excessive level of quotation.  Even if it wasn't excessive then the edit summary was clearly misleading.  Tweak indeed.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scratch another one
Can't say this is a surprise really. --HighKing (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pity, he was doing a good job. Will have to think about this one.  -- Snowded  TALK  00:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking on as a bit of an outsider I think someone has to take on the mantle of arbitrator of all things BI's related. Black Kite leaving, as you say, is no surprise. I say someone but I think it is too much for one admin to deal with. Jack forbes (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am thinking about proposing a review panel as one way forward, but need to sleep on it (well need to sleep full stop, should not check wikipedia when returning home late at night from airport) -- Snowded TALK  00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was unfortunate timing, what with MBM exposed too. For a minute, I thought we'd make progress...  G'night all. --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's is a pity. I didn't have much dealings but he did seem good as far as they go.
 * Snowded, what is your idea of a "review panel"? I know I was skeptical when you commented to me about it before but I'm now warming to the idea. I think the idea of outside admins "curing" British-Irish affairs has failed. I firmly believe that the only way forward is for British-Irish editors to cure ourselves.
 * A 'mini mediation-cabal' (again I'm unsure about a "council", but "panel" is good) might be a good part of that. I also still think that expressions of leadership from the community of British-Irish editors, like the idea of a voluntary code that I was floating, would need to be another necessary part. Otherwise, without an impetus to change the culture of British-Irish editorship, a "panel" may simply be another theatre for drama. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually "cruel and unusual" self-inflicted punishment by most outside admins getting involved. But there's really two types of behaviour that need to be addressed, each one as bad as the other in terms of disruption.  There's the civility issue, and then there's the stonewalling issue.  I urged BK to take a strict line on civility issues and that just didn't happen.  A lack of respect and common courtesy results in harboured ill-feelings and one-upmanship - the exact opposite of a collaborative project.  I firmly believe that a strict policy on civility would do wonders, with a series of escalating blocks to enforce this.  Stonewalling is related to civility - most of the time, people use personal comments as a form of not commenting on the content, not finding/discussing sources and references, etc.  One is related to the other.  If we got both of those related behaviours under some kind of control, we'd be left with the real issues at hand, with both parties in a dispute presenting their respective sources and references to the table for discussion in a clear and logical way.  Just my 2c.  --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with High King. This ongoing War Between the Editors has got to be resolved. A panel sounds pretty good to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we could eliminate the stone walling and incivility, if could engendered a genuine sense of collaboration, then I think navigating the "real issues" would be a pleasurable (and postiviely challenging) expereince for most interested in these matters. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, I'll put a proposal up for comment this evening -- Snowded  TALK  11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

HighKing
Thank you for your advice. Would you like to comment on HighKing's current, as we speak, activity? With Black Kite gone he's returned to mass removal of British Isles. Should I revert all his changes and ask that he discusses them first? LevenBoy (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just went through the changes. (i) I put a request on HK's talk page to use the taskforce page (ii) its hardly a mass set of changes and he has picked off some fairly self-evident misueses o BI and (iii) Can we try and use BKs withdrawal to move away from change and revert?  If you could bring yourself to accept that in some cases BI is the wrong term to use it would help.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do accept it. What I don't accept is an editor such as HighKing removing it for the wrong reasons. He removes British Isles because he doesn't like it, rather than because it's wrong. Far better to let the usual editors of a page correct any mistakes. I have to say this, HighKing has not got the best of motives in his work. LevenBoy (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Lets try and break the action/reaction cycle shall we?  I promise to revert any removal of BI for its own sake by High King or anyone else and will push for discussion first. If I don;t spot a change tell me here.  At the same time would you go through the various proposals and see if there are any removals that you would support?  -- Snowded  TALK  18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you guys think that may be a workable solution? It is feasible to note on an article talk page that the use of 'British Isles' may be wrong. If the editors agree - fine. If they don't - well, so be it. Daicaregos (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the centralised area is the right approach. A lot of these articles have few active editors if any and before the centralised page we simply had revert wars.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair play. I guess I was just grasping at straws. Oh well, back to the drawing board ;) Daicaregos (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put up a proposal tonight, hoping I can persuade you to take on some duties. -- Snowded  TALK  18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you done em yet? Mister Flash (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ran out of time last night - client work, will do it this evening or early tomorrow -- Snowded TALK  18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I have created a draft here for comment. I will be away for the rest of the day, hopefully to witness Cardiff defeat Toulouse, back this evening. I have some ideas of editors (and admins) who might take on the task, but whoever would need to be agreed by their respective communities. -- Snowded TALK  11:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't think of any improvements - to User talk:Snowded/To BI or not to BI or to Cardiff v Toulouse :) Best, Daicaregos (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we could have stopped them getting a loosing bonus point! Anyway the flights I booked to Toulouse next saturday are no longer wasted.  Thanks for the comment, I am going to leave it open for more comments today then post it to the space in revised format tomorrow morning or maybe Tuesday.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What a win for Leinster though? Eh?  Who would have thought.  Really sets up the London Irish away game as probably being the all-or-nothing game.  --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject
I have made a proposal to establish a WikiProject for British-Irish Collaboration. A number of proposals are currently being made around initiates to improve collaboration between British and Irish editors on topics of mutual interest. A number of initiates have been adapted in the past, with varying degrees of success, but all positive in their intent to resolve these issues. A centralised WikiProject for British-Irish collaboration could act as a focus for initiatives to improve collaboration on these topics.

As an editor that has recently taken part in discussions around initiates like these, please comment on the proposal to establish a WikiProject for this purpose. Please also circulate this notice to other editors you feel may be interested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created a basic page at WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration with some starting ideas and marked the page with a brainstorming template. As someone who replied to the proposal, please contribute some ideas or comments on the page. Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * p.s. I've moved my "code of conduct" to within the WikiProject, and linked to your "2BIr!2BI" page. Maybe your proposal would be a good place to start the WikiProject. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

HighKing
Alright, I give up. Over the top? Yes, I have been, but the guy takes no prisoners. I've had it with this and I'll leave it up to others to deal with the situation. I'll be back in a few months, when no doubt the BI count will be down by another hundred or two. As for guidelines, there's no need. There's no need for anything other than banning editors whose motive is really just political. British Isles, its presence or otherwise in an article, can be effectively handled by editors who don't have a political axe to grind. HighKing is an Irishman who objects to the term British Isles and he sees Wikipedia as a tool for furthering his agenda, but you know that anyway. It's amazing he's got away with it for so long. So goodbye - from British Isles, though not from Wikipedia, frustrating place that it is at times. I'm off to Scotland where I'll no doubt find just as many "issues". Mister Flash (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scotland? nooooooo. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Armchair
I can feel your tension from here Snowded. :) Jack forbes (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well someone has got to deal with him! -- Snowded TALK  06:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's just a wind up merchant, refusing to format properly and babbling without any sources. Not sure if an admin would block a user for that. Jack forbes (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He has been blocked several times for that and other things. Its only a matter of time before it happens again.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case he seems ready for another one. Jack forbes (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, but its a a good test of WP:AGF dealing with him -- Snowded TALK  06:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried my best, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF
Please assume good faith. Izzedine 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking you to follow due process. If you can't cope with that fine.  Good faith follows good practice, I suggest you try it.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been 100 times more polite and constructive than User:Satt 2. Izzedine 14:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked him/her to participate in the talk page as well - check out his/her talk page. -- Snowded  TALK  14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Izzedine 15:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA
Just to let you know, I was about to drop a line here this evening asking if you had ever considered running for adminship. Before I did it crossed my mind to check if you ever had. Pity events co-incided the way they did but when it comes off hold again drop a line on my talk page, you'd make a good one. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - as it happens I agreed to accept a nomination some time ago, but didn't expect it to go up until I had prepared a statement and talked to the arbcom member involved in the Ayn Rand affair. When I saw it was actually up I asked for it to be pulled while I sorted that out. I have the support of said arbcom member (who has been reminding me about getting the nomination activated off an on for several months).  I plan to go for it over Christmas.  Thanks for the encouragement-- Snowded  TALK  23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good man. I had the wind taken out of me in a former life, but I definitely think you'd be an addition. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I was considering officially closing Requests for adminship/Snowded since you're considering running again. Frankly, this rfa has 8 opposes - it's better to start with a clean rfa than try to recover from 8 opposes.  How 'bout it?  - F ASTILY  ( T ALK ) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It started before I had anything in place so yes, please close it off. I can then draft the answers etc. for a new one  -- Snowded  TALK  21:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Racism in the Celts article
Interested to see you are Proud to Be Welsh. Do you consider yourself Celtic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BullBreaker (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One RR claim
H, where can I find support for your claim here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its anything to do with the Troubles, and they mean anything it was (You will remember) extended to BNP and other pages. I think you were wise to advise Flash to exercise caution.-- Snowded  TALK  17:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes he was sinking on his own, there is no One revert in place on the English football team at all. there may be for you but not for editors that are not named as part of the troubles. If you disagree with that position please tell me where I can assertain if your claim is correct. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The condition was applied to the BNP article and a template was added, there is no such condition in place on the English football team article, if there is as you claim please explain why there is no template and why you are claiming this condition at this article. Who has applied this condition to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Now what
@Snowded, I've just noticed that Mister Flash has been on a revert spree. Looks like he's made a decision to ignore discussions and blindly revert, inflame nationalistic passions, etc. What's the best next step? --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The best next step would be to stop altering these long term descriptions of places and attempt to bring the discussion to a wider audience to see if there really is a claim of consensus for your actions, as it is this is better than starting edit war in multiple locations, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Off2riorob - you're newly involved in this which is great because we need new and fresh opinions. Perhaps we've all gotten stale, who knows.  The British Isles task force was set up to discuss usage of British Isles over Wikipedia and to help establish common sense guidelines for usage.  Unfortunately, there's a handful of politically-inclined editors that refuse to discuss, go on edit wars, breach civility policy, and inflame nationalistic passions just to push a political agenda.  Most of us try to discuss the topics in a rational and open minded way.
 * You say to stop altering the long term descriptions and attempt to bring the discussion to a wider audience. That is the purpose of the SE page.  It task force has been advertised on the Ireland and British project pages for over a year.  You can see by the date stamps on many of the examples on the SE page that many of the discussions are old and either nobody objected to the suggestions or agreed with them.  We've a handful of over-the-top editors causing trouble.  Please take the time to read some of the examples and the discussions, read the Task Force guidelines to date.  And be aware that the vitriol is pretty one-sided and mostly ignored as it adds little to the discussions. --HighKing (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)The best next step is for you to desist! I take exception to being accused of inflaming nationalistic passions. I am merely intervening in your POV warrior antics which have been going on far too long now. Mister Flash (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked an admin to review the English Football team one to get a sense of what is sustainable and I am going to put up a revised proposal for conflict resolution after Christmas. -- Snowded  TALK  19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Have a peaceful Christmas.  --HighKing (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Five Peaks Challenge
Hi, Snowded. You may be right when you say some things should be resolved before the merge. I do though think that it should be merged whatever the outcome as it is plain to see it is only an extension of the Three Peaks Challenge. Could it not be resolved after the merge perhaps? After all, it will still be there for discussion when it is merged. Jack forbes (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an audit trail at the moment which is why I said "before" - it should also be an easy resolution, if you look at the arguments and also the comments here. Not sure what you take is on it at the moment.  Flash is claiming you as pro BI on this one. -- Snowded  TALK  14:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at my wording properly you will see I have made no mention of being pro-BI, only that if merged the information should not be lost. I made no statement saying BI should remain or even that it shouldn't. Jack forbes (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a further statement on the article talk page and hope that has cleared up my position. If not, then I haven't explained myself clearly enough (again). Jack forbes (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.
Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, Snowded. One of my new year's resolutions will be to read both The Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost. (And reread Anton Lavey-ha ha)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Snowded. Jack forbes (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy 2010 Snowded. Perhaps you'll reconsider Adminship this year? Best from RashersTierney (not at usual station thus the IP)78.152.203.38 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2 Sinn Feins?
If the founding dates in the Infobox are accurate, there's 2 Sinn Fein parties. The original party (1905 to present) & the newer party (1970 to present). I hope things can be straightened out over there. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that was my compromise, it avoids saying if they are two or one. Trying to think of a similar approach on the other issues -- Snowded  TALK  19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the article will end up getting split, but only after heated arguments. Oh well, I continue to watch. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, Sinn Féin split in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Féin was formed, with the remainder of the party carrying on as Official Sinn Féin. Official Sinn Féin then became Sinn Féin the Workers Party and is now simply the Workers Party, with Provisional Sinn Féin now known simply as Sinn Féin. Mooretwin (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded, I see you asked Domer (!) for some sources and were directed to one of his essays. Here's the sources listed on the Talk:Sinn Féin page - quoted directly, so no need to use the filter of Domer's interpretation:


 * Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
 * Traditionalists like Mac Stiofain saw the way things were going: taking about a third of the delegates with him, the Provisionals’ Chief of Staff departed, reassembled in a pre-booked hall for another meeting, formed what became Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) and announced publicly that a Provisional Army Council had been set up to reorganize the IRA.
 * Jonathan Bardon (2005), A History of Ulster. Blackstaff Press Ltd, p. 675
 * [Sean Mac Stiofain] led the coup that split the movement in December 1969. The breakaway group, as an interim arrangement, elected a provisional executive just before Christmas, with Mac Stiofain as chief of staff and Ruari O Bradaigh as president of Provisional Sinn Féin, its political counterpart. Ten months later they stated that this temporary period was over, but the names Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA remained with them ever since.
 * Brendan O'Brien (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA: From 1916 Onwards, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.75
 * In a pre-planned move they immediately went to a Dublin city venue to form a caretaker executive of a new (Provisional) Sinn Féin.
 * Ed Moloney (2007), A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books, p.72
 * Later that evening they met to set up an Executive for their own version of Sinn Féin and elected Ruari O Bradaigh as the first Provisional Sinn Féin president.
 * S. J. Connolly (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford University Press, p. 543
 * … the movement split in January 1970 into official and provisional Sinn Féin, mirroring the split within the IRA the previous month.
 * Thomas Hennessey (2005), Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles, Gill & Macmillan, p.358
 * And from this point there were two IRAs … matched by two parallel Sinn Féins – Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin.
 * Brian Feeney (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the Troubles, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.138
 * Chronology: 1970. January. Provisional Sinn Féin founded.
 * W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott (1994), Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1993, Gill & Macmillan Ltd, p. 284
 * Entry for PROVISIONAL SINN FÉIN: The political counterpart of PIRA which dates from January 1970, when the split occurred in the Republican movement.
 * CAIN Abstracts on Organisations
 * Entry for Sinn Féin (SF) [synonyms: Provisional Sinn Féin]: The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF.
 * BBC Fact Files.
 * The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein, although it derives its name from an organisation founded by Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith in 1905.
 * Agnes Maillot (2007), New Sinn Féin: Irish republicanism in the twenty-first century, Taylor & Francis, p.4
 * Under the leadership of Tomas Mac Giolla and Cathal Goulding in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, there was a shift towards the left. ... Marxist distinctions based on class replaced a more traditional vision based on geography and history. To aim to unite the working class was seen as a dangerous path by those who would eventually break away and regroup under the names Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Féin, since it was seen to undermine the fundamental dimension of the conflict: that of the colonial legacy which was maintained through partition and its institutions.
 * Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman (2007), Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, University of Pennsylvania Press, p.199
 * The Provisional IRA was created in December 1969 in full knowledge of these facts, its twin sister, Provisional Sinn Féin, shortly afterward.
 * Jonathan Tonge (2006), Northern Ireland, Polity, pp.132-133
 *  Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) formed in 1970 pledged allegiance to the First Dail, having split from what became known as Official IRA and Official Sinn Féin, because it had voted to enter a 'partitionist parliament'.
 * Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W. White (2000), Self, Identity, and Social Movements, University of Minnesota Press, p.330
 * In January 1970, the political wing of the Republican movement, Sinn Féin, also split. Those who rejected constitutional politics walked out of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis and formed Provisional Sinn Féin. Those who supported the Official IRA were then referred to as Official Sinn Féin.
 * John Plowright (2006), The Routledge Dictionary of Modern British History, Routledge, p.276
 *  The modern party dates from 1970, when Provisional Sinn Féin split from Official Sinn Féin.
 * Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan, p.96
 * MacStiofain and his supporters had prevented the constitutional change but they were in a minority. They quickly departed to form a new organisation that would shortly come to represent the traditional republican doctrines and a majority within the militant republican constituency on the island. The new movement pledged its 'allegiance to the 32-County Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 ... etc.
 * After the split in the republican movement in 1969-70, Adams sided with the newly established Provisional movement. (p.9)
 * ... nobody, and no party, has a monopoly on the legacy of 1905. (p.18) Mooretwin (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Filters are an interesting thing Mooretwin, we always assume the other side of an argument are wearing them. Thanks for the above.  Some of it establishes that there was a split in 1070 which is not disputed.  The question is if that breaks continuity which is more questionable.  I think we are going to find some citations on both sides of this one, and some which are ambiguous.  Something grows, then splits and one of the branches more or less dies out.  Does the identity change?  I think its a bit more straight forward than the Ship of Theseus but it is going to require some attention to the weight and nature of the sources.-- Snowded  TALK  00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All I meant by filter was that Domer didn't supply the text of the sources, but rather an essay explaining his interpretation of the sources. I've just provided quotations from the sources, with no interpretation. The question of continuity is a matter of opinion, but the fact of the split is not. To write an article based on an opinion about continuity would be POV. The only way to adhere to NPOV is to have both SF and Workers Party articles begin in 1970. That's how WP already does it with IRA. Mooretwin (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there are two positions in the literature, one has continuity the other not. So to adopt one of those cannot be NPOV.  We need a both/and not an either/or solution if we can find one.  -- Snowded  TALK  00:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which literature says that the current SF has the singular continuity with the pre-split party? Mooretwin (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I say "singular" Mooretwin? -- Snowded  TALK  11:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You appeared to imply it. But if you didn't, and you accept that the current SF does not have singular continuity, then you must accept that the Workers Party also has continuity, and therefore to side with the SF continuity rather than the Workers Party continuity would be to side with one particular version of history over another. That's why the only solution is to side with neither, and begin both SF and Workers Party articles in 1970, with another article dealing with the party up to the split. Mooretwin (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a little more complex than that. There was a split in the 70's and there is no question of the WOrker's Party ancestry, but neither is there, as far as I can see any question that the inheritor not just of the name, but also of the role in Irish Politics is the current party.  There are other precedents on this sort of think in the history of political parties other than in Ireland and in religious movements.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion - others will disagree. Many would say Republican SF now fulfils that particular role in Irish politics. But, anyway, unsourced opinions are no basis for articles in Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleased to see that you have realised the need for properly supported citations. -- Snowded  TALK  00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No consensus? Five editors favour the edit, and only the usual suspects Dunc 'n' Domer are opposed. An uninvolved admin has said that there is consensus for the change. Mooretwin (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of them keeps telling you not to assume they agree with you and Elonka offered an opinion not a judgement. You need to learn to use the talk page properly.   Say something like "I think the consensus is to ...." along with "If no one objects in the next few days I will make the change".  You should not just jump into making the edit.  The fact that those two edits were a proxy battle for the 1905 start debate does not help either.  5-2 or 5-3 (I am opposed while the wider issue is unresolved) is not a concensus-- Snowded  TALK  00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How can it be resolved? You know Dunc 'n' Domer will never agree to any change, so are they to be allowed to own the article, completely disregarding the sources? There was no consensus for Domer48's edit of 3 November, yet you supported him - why the apparent double standard? Mooretwin (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I deal with what I see and November was busy at work so I was that active. That said I do have sympathy for the view that there is continuity as you know.  I will raise something on the talk page. but I think if you want a change to stick it would be better if one of the more neutral editors did it.  You have a similar reputation to Dunc&DOmer but on the other side of the sectarian divide. -- Snowded  TALK  06:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an outrageous accusation to make. Ironically coming from someone who admits here that he has "sympathy" for a view not backed up by any reliable sources. Mooretwin (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty mild really given your editing history. And the problem Mooretwin is that there are reliable sources on both sides of this one.  I think the issue of continuity is an interesting one.  For example the split in the labour party at the time of the national government is as extreme but no one questions the history of the current labout party.  This is a classic sectarian by proxy debate which is why the sources are mixed.-- Snowded  TALK  12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And where has my editing history shown me to be on any side of a sectarian divide? Opposing those seeking a nationalist POV does not mean that one is pushing another POV: it means one is seeking NPOV. Kindly keep your personal attacks and accusations to yourself. And claiming that there are reliable sources on both sides while failing to cite any that contradict the 1970 formation is a completely untenable position. Finally, what on earth has a debate within republicanism got to do with a "classic sectarian" debate? Mooretwin (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, you constantly accuse editors who disagree with you of various forms of nationalist bias. Your own edit history is, in my humble opinion one in which anti-nationalism and unionism are more or less indistinguishable.   You chose to come to my talk page with a series of personal attacks on other editors so I suggest you attempt to rearrange the words Pot, Kettle and Black before getting on a soap box to proclaim your innocence.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't constantly accuse editors who disagree with me of various forms of nationalist bias. I occasionally accuse editors seeking to impose nationalist bias into articles of nationalist bias. WIkipedia must be written according to NPOV and therefore I make no excuse for seeking to remove bias - whether that be nationalist or any other kind. I challenge you to provide evidence for your allegation that my edit history is "anti-nationalism" or "pro-unionism". Otherwise, please do not make such allegations again. I also challenge you to provide these mysterious sources that refute SF formation in 1970. Mooretwin (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Comment
Snowded, you left a comment on CT's page and I'm flabbergasted/disgusted at the tone and the implied negativity. In all my editing on Wikipedia, I always believed that reasonable and logical editors would see my editing as .. well ... reasonable and logical. Yes, I have focused a lot on usage of the term "British Isles", but to label Mister Flash as an anti-HighKing, after describing his behaviour as alternate extremist who is simply reverting any change, refusing to engage in any discussion, tars my editing with the same brush. Why have you done that? I am not an extremist, and I have *always* engaged in discussion. I'd also like to point out that you have seen first-hand the uncivil comments that have been directed at me for years, and the constant needling, harassment and provocation. I honestly don't believe that there are many (or any) other editors who have had to put up with such a stream of abuse over so long a time period, without responding in kind. But I keep plodding along. But to see your comments on CT's Talk page sets a new low. For you. I'm pretty disgusted.... --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're over reacting HighKing. If you notice I make the strong point that you are collaborating with a sensible process while Mister Flash is not.  I'd also defend my track record on saying that and trying get people to respond to that collaboration in kind.  Mister Flash has set himself him, rightly or wrongly as an anti-High King, its the whole tenor of his remarks is to reject anything you propose regardless of logic or argument.  Matter and anti-matter are not the same thing, but one destroys the other on contact.  I do stand by the "extreme" comment in that I think you go too far at times in wanting to get rid of the phrase but I do accept that over the last year you have done so in a reasonable fashion.  If I caused offense I am sorry but you have misread my intent.-- Snowded  TALK  15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I don't believe I'm over-reacting at all.  I understand your intent, but it causes offense since your comment firmly places me alongside editors like Master Flash and LevenBoy in terms of behaviour, and this is grossly unfair.  In early 2008 I was pretty zealous at times, but not extremist and we all learn and compromise - it's a process.  Don't you think that perhaps it's time to review your mental "extremist" tag if it's based on editing that occurred that long ago.  And I'd also give you a friendly challenge to find examples of this so-called extremist behavior - I think you'll find that most times you've merely disagreed and jumped to the assumption.  --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if it caused or causes offense you have my apologies and to make it clear I don't see your current behaviour as similar to Flash and Levin Boy.  Extreamist might be a bit much, I will concede it for your more accurate "zealous"!-- Snowded  TALK  16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for that. --HighKing (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded was right enough first time, apart from calling me an anti-HighKing, which I'm not. You gotta admit it Hike, you're as close to an SPA as it's possible to get (Happy New year, btw). Mister Flash (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered if you would turn up like the proverbial. Still waiting for you to behave reasonably rather than revert wars.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My country will take over those islands someday & re-name them the Canadian Isles, hahahah. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We in Britain would embrace such a move. After all, we sell off all our industry, and lot's more besides, to foreign countries. As for Ireland, you'd have the same old problem. Who was it - Churchill's father I think - who said (paraphrase), "Ah, the Irish problem, that will always be with us". HNY! Mister Flash (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There'd be no problems, for security the Canadian Isles would use British soccer fans. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ... So, you'd choose the fascist option GoodDay. Who'd have thought. Daicaregos (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fascist used British soccer fans? GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'British' 'soccer' fans who would be likely to fight (per your suggested purpose) are renowned BNP supporters. Don't you know everything about Britain then? Daicaregos (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get the connection: What's the BNP got to do with attempts at humour to cool down frustrations of the usage/non-usage of 'British Isles' on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "The fascist used British soccer fans?" (I assumed it was a question rather than a statement, as it had a question mark at the end). I explained. There is the connection. Simple. Daicaregos (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How did 'fascist' get into this discussion? GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are not able to follow the logic you will just have to stay in the dark. Daicaregos (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"..stay in the dark", I shall. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Other articles of interest
Two articles that could stand to use some treatment. Nietzsche and free will and also in relation libertarian free will. As the ages of men as progressions toward adsolute tyranny Vogelin, Joachim and the spirit of the age .LoveMonkey (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Spiral Dynamics
You have inserted the category "New Age" repeatedly over months, without providing a source. On WP:OR/N you were again asked to produce a source, and you did not answer. Instead you wrote that you would not reinstate the category. But you continue to attack me on my user page when I delete the unsourced category which is inserted now by your friends. Please stop your disruptive editing. --Pevos (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Get your facts straight. Your statement that I have repeatedly inserted the category is an outright and outrageous LIE.  I suggest you withdraw it.  On two occasions in over a year someone has removed the category and I have reverted.  On the first occasion the discussion petered out.  On the second and more recent occasion I suggested a different way forward.   On WP/OR I said that the sources related to Wilber, but that I was fed up with your petty minded refusal to discuss a compromise so I would aim to edit the article to remove the need for the category.  Two other editors have reverted your edit asking for you to await consensus for change, neither are my friends, one I have had a few disagreements with on other articles.  The imputation of your comment above is a disgrace.  Your refusal to follow WP:BRD, refusal to engage with discussion on compromises and your tag teaming to revert is disruptive.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded, I appreciate you intention to tag New Age what is New Age but in this case it is not appropiate and completely unsourced. I am sorry that I have to call your editing disruptive. In other cases we did aggree. But here... I cannot tolerate what you are doing. Would you mind to read DISRUPT --Pevos (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguing for WPLBRD and proposing compromises on the talk page is not disruptive Bernhard. The New Age sourcing links to WIlber and that discussion had only just started when you hit the revert button.  On the other hand, refusing to discuss compromise proposals, breaking WP:BRD and making false statements (see above) is.-- Snowded  TALK  17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You inserted the category 5 times in May 2009, and 4 times recently in January without providing any valid source. Sorry, but this fits the description of 'disruptive editing'. When I came in, the discussion had already had much space. Please let out the "compromise" proposal (it could end up at WP:OR too). And where exactly did I make false statements? - I am considering to list this at WP:ANI because you continue attacking me. --Pevos (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not insert it, I restored the stable version five times last May against edit waring without discussion by Goethean. I have similarly restored the stable version four times in January when you and Goethean falsely claimed a consensus based on your agreement with each other.   I am sorry but the assertion that I have repeatedly inserted the category is a lie, a false statement.  I attempted to open up a discussion about changes to the article that would remove the controversy and aside from a refusal to engage, you now suggest that if I made any such edits they would be OR.  Read WP:AGF.  If you want to make a fool of yourself at WP:ANI feel free, it will be a good example of forum shopping. -- Snowded  TALK  18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Owain Glyndŵr
A question for you Snowded: I notice you've removed an unreferenced sentence from a quite lengthy paragraph in the Modern legacy section of the Owain Glyndŵr article. Fine, the assertion was unreferenced, a reference was requested, none was forthcoming (although more time could perhaps have been given), so you were well within your rights to remove the sentence. The funny thing is though, not one other assertion in that paragraph, nor in the entire section, is referenced and yet that fact appears not to be a problem. Actually, just about the entire article is unreferenced. Why then are you so concerned about the sentence in question? Should you not be challenging every other unreferenced assertion in the article in as robust a manner as you have done with the assertion that just happens to contain the words "British Isles"? Do you have an explanation? Mister Flash (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out Flash, the sentence was wrong, this is an area where I have some expertise. -- Snowded  TALK  07:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is a troll?
Taken from What is a troll. "The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality." Snowded, you say GoodDay is not a troll and that he just enjoys stirring things up. What is a troll if it's not someone who is trying to stir things up? I won't hold my breath waiting for an admin with enough balls to tell him that. It seems if you make a few quips and amuse a few people you can get away with it. Do I want to be around a place that allows that to happen? I don't think so. Jack forbes (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should've read the history of that article's page, it was my blunder. Are we getting to a point where one must watch out for land mines at article talkpages? A simple response of "we've discussed this before (see archives) & the consensus was for the current title", would've been all that was required, Jack. I make mistakes, I'm capable of doing that, I'm a human being. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for defending Snowded, it's good to know that not everybody sees me as a monster. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think you should take the "stirring things up" message to heart though ... -- Snowded TALK  16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I must remain calm. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what we all need to do is be a wee bit slower on the trigger finger when we press save. I often reread my comments several times over before submitting them. Once you comment on something, you are committed and open yourself up to judgement. It's far better to reflect on what one is prepared to submit to eternal scrutiny by millions of unseen eyes all over the world.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm considering seeking mentorship. Snowded, Matt or yourself Jeanne, would be my personal preference. It's finally dawning on me, that there's something wrong with me. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I'm the last person you'd want as a mentor. You could very well wake up one fine day singing "God Save the Queen", and then checking out your daily horoscope. Besides, I'd convince you to buy (and WEAR) a black thong swimsuit were I your mentor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What a combination.  A few simple rules: (i) don;t seek out polemical editors and ask them whey they haven't upset anyone recently; (ii) don't keep changing you position and joining and leaving discussions (iii) before any comment ask "Will this help progress the discussion.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just need somebody to give me 'friendly advice' from time to time. For example at the O.G. talkpage, if somebody had pointed out to me 'at firsst', to not start that discussion & then 'delete' my post (or ask me to delete) & give a reason for it, that would help. At the momment, Daicaregos & Jack forbes hate me. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I pride myself in not hating anyone GoodDay. We all have our faults but it's recognizing them and doing something about it that's the important thing. Jack forbes (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus the reason I'm considering mentorship, perhaps a group mentoring/monitoring would do. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By definition GD your actions are that of a troll but GD I honestly don't think, that you think sometimes before you post and it does come across as Trolling and can be very annoying when you make flippant remarks, but I don't think that you have bad intentions. For example in a recent debate which I questioned you on, you said something should be changed (a name of an organisation) because you didn't understand it and just use a made up name. This type of comment is IMO very unhelpful. You have been around the articles related to The Troubles and you know that tempers are easily raised but yet you still make comments which are trollish and are not based on any coherent arguement. BigDunc  17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus my consideration of mentorship. Right/wrongly, I tend to assume that others will control their emotions, even after all these years. Perhaps, I'm being too blinded by AGF towards others, I don't know. What I do know is this, I've been getting more angry responses these last few months & that's not a coincidents. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Snowded, if you wish, this 'Troll' discussion can be moved to my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have copied this discussion here per request by GD. BigDunc  17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GoodDay is certainly not a troll. Irvine22 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Irvine sockpuppet case
Hi, Snowded. I notice in your original report you refer to Dick Stauner as Dick saunders. I don't normally like interfering in others posts so thought I would let you know. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hiya, Snowie! I have raised an issue involving you at ANI. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Elonka_on_a_fishing_expedition.3F
 * Irvine has requested that diffs be provided that show the circumstantial evidence linking him to Stauner. I think this is fair, and will help speed up the SPI.  Do you mind adding them to your statement?  Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * nvm, SPI is closed. Happy editing. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Extreamist
Policy says that "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears." we have multiple source the sentence. Moreover its made clear in the sentence that they are represented as extremist by these sources, not that they are extremist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC).
 * I think its overkill - the statements of the group make it very clear they are extremist and you avoid an edit war -- Snowded TALK  16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RS have accused them of being extreamist, we are reporting that (it is rather fundemental to the controversy surounding them). How is it overkill by the way, its one sentance?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything about their statements, the British Government action against them makes it very clear. its overkill to over elaborate.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its one snentace about an accusation made by a wide spectrum of the British media. The sentance does not mention the banning, nor the governwemtn. I would also have to say that you seem to be sailing very close to 3RR, better be carefull.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never broken 3RR in my life Slatersteven and don't plan to now. Its a trivial issue, the addition adds nothing to the article-- Snowded  TALK  16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not trival, the accusation is rather serious, even if unture (and you do not seem to think it is). As to not adding anything to the artciel, well it does go some one to explaining public reaction to them (not what they say, but how it has been represented). It also indicates that (perhpas) thier press coverage has been a bit hysterical. It makes the presses holstility to them clear, I think that (given then lack of positive coverage they have recived) very important.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opening remark was trivial not the subject, please ...  As to the rest I suggest you try and realise that readers are more than capable of understanding the nature of this nonsensical little group without the need for you to spell it out.  WIkipedia policy is also pretty clear here-- Snowded  TALK  17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My opening remark was pointing out that the text (as I edited it, we shall leave other conflicts asside for now) was not in breach of policty (as youe edit sumery claimes[]. Moreover Im am not speeling out what they are. The passage reports what others have said they are.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the policy, it doesn't make an exception for reported, it says its one of a few inadvisable terms. Also it really adds nothing that is not self evident form the other material  -- Snowded  TALK  17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the passage I claim is from policy is not?Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the Provisional IRA article, despite multiple reliable sources that will call them terrorist the word is avoided. The passage is there, but needs to be read in the wider context.  I really can't understand why you put so much energy into these issues.  The overall text makes it very clear that this is a very silly group which is taking an attention seeking position.  Just leave it -- Snowded  TALK  17:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The term terrorist is in use in the provo article (including in the lead). In the spirit of compromise I have move the contensus passage out of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look the label is avoided, the only reference is to a UK government list where it uses the language of the list. You need to get a little more sophisticated in your reading.  The move is probably OK, I won't remove it but others might -- Snowded  TALK  17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a compromise then, good.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Llangwnnadl Days
In view of your admission that you whiled away your younger days in Llangwnnadl, could you have a look at Aberdaron when you get the chance and see if you can think of anything that needs adding or correcting. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Parents honeymooned there, used to go there for bread and the fisherman's boat to Bardsey - will do-- Snowded TALK  13:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

History of the formation of the United Kingdom
You say History of the formation of the United Kingdom should not be in the same category with the unification of Germany. It's true that it's not a reunification, like Germany or (potentially) China or Korea. But isn't it like the consolidation of Sweden or the creation of Yugoslavia? Don't all of these belong in Category:National unifications? Goustien (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did puzzle the Swedish case, but that is two tribes united. The UK is far more complex:  conquest (wales & Ireland), assimilation (scotland) then the republic leaves just leaving Norther Ireland.  Devolution pressure in Wales, Scotland and to a lesser extent Northern Ireland.  "unify" in any variation just seems the wrong word  -- Snowded  TALK  08:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Democracy in Labour and the Lib Dems
I fail to see how its not mentioned in the citation given. The professor states two main strands of thinking in the Labour Party and one of them is social democracy. And I'm sorry I couldn't find for you the entire discussion but this seems to be an accurate summation of the discussion. It seems to me that you're upset I found a reference and instead of accepting it, you chose to add an unfair caveat because of your own personal point of view. I apologize for our little edit war previously however. The reference may not break down how the professor came to his conclusions, although I wish it did, but the reference is made in good faith. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good faith aspects accepted, but its simply not a good enough reference. Social democracy is a phrase commonly used in continental europe and relates to a particular tradition.  The reference is not an article or a book, its a very brief reference to a strand in new labour thinking from 2001, and its in the context of Scottish Politics in the main which adds its own spin.  That is not enough to establish that it is a current ideology -- Snowded  TALK  11:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Social democracy is more than a common phrase used in Europe, it is an established ideology. I realize what the reference is and is not and already stated that it is done in good faith assuming a more detailed account occurred, but was either not recorded or was not included in this reference. It is true that it references it as part of New Labours ideology but that still stands as a strand of ideology within the whole of the Labour Party. The reference also only mentions the Scottish context towards the end of it and merely states the main opposition to Labour in the different countries. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one Education Professor making a statement at a conference a decade ago, and not fully reported at that? Its not a considered and written opinion.
 * Social democracy is an established ideology no question about that, the question is if it applies to the British Labour Party which comes out of a different tradition. Its not a common phrase or idea while democratic socialism is.  The report just not a good enough reference.  Get some books, articles published in reliable journals etc. and you might have a point.  The reference as quoted is all we can go on. -- Snowded  TALK  12:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found four fantastic references. Hope they meet your standards. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well a quick glance says that you are making the mistake of using a google search to link words. The use of social democracy as a catch all term from a group of European political parties from a US perspective does not really say that the ideology of the labour party is social democracy.  I'll look though them later however and propose a way forward.  At the moment this is an example of the information box being used, when the main body of the article is the place to reference these terms with proper context.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the last reference then I suggest you remove every reference from every European political party page that uses it, which I believe is the vast majority of them. It seems that you're finding reasons to oppose this seemingly obvious addition to everyone else in the world except you. Besides, who appointed you the guardian of all things that are added to this page? Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I will look at the references. Otherwise I suggest you calm down a bit.  An editor who opposes you is not claiming to be appointed a guardian of anything.  The claim that the whole world is on your side on this one is absurdist.  You are edit warring on Liberal Democrats as well.  Have a cup of tea, read up on WP:BRD and WP:RS then come back and have a conversation.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate being talked down to but you seem to revert whatever I edit even with what others might see as reliable sources instead of dogmatically opposing them. I am in fact perfectly calm, thank you. On the subject of the Lib Dems the polling suggests that people in the UK see the party as center-left while it seems that two people in just one of the many talk sections on ideology disagree with me but the majority of your country seem to agree with me. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk)
 * If you start to make wild accusations expect people to tell you to calm down. Your evidence was challenged on talk page with a reasoned argument.  Deal with that directly rather than breaking WP:BRD  -- Snowded  TALK  13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that it was challenged with a reasoned argument. I'm not sure you're seeing the point I'm making. The polls taken for use in this very article say that people in the UK see both Labour and the Lib Dems as being equally center-left. I apologize for coming off as rude but it tends to grate on ones nerves when they're quoted wiki policy and told patronizingly to "calm down." On a totally different note I'm of the opinion that wiki has become far too bogged down in bureaucracy and has moved too far from its roots with endless policy statements that sap the creative spirit originally intended for this project.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the point but I disagree with it, or at least on the evidence presented so far. "Calm Down" is pretty mild compared with your "Who appointed you Guardian" and "its obvious to everyone else in the world but you".  On your last point I am sympathetic, but overall WIkipedia is now too important to just be a free form set of text.  Some rules are good some are bad, but they can be changed.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that the British people are either wrong or have been mislead into believing the Lib Dems are on the center-left? Also, they have been listed as a solely center-left party for a while, until pretty recently. As I've said in the talk pages I don't think they're totally center-left either. Naming them as both is not only logical and reflects the two main currents within the party but is also a compromise solution to the dispute on the talk pages it seems to me. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that on the basis of the sources provided so far they are not center-left.  I make no claim to speak for the British people one way or the other, and I'm not sure what allows you to.  We have a general problem with people using labels on the parties and that was inevitable leading up to a General Election.  So lets keep it to reliable sources and use the talk page shall we. -- Snowded  TALK  14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What allows me to is the poll thats used as a reference on the Labour Party page to define that party as center-left. As I said before I don't think this need be cut and dry. I've stated over and over a possible compromise solution but no ones gone for it. Its what we did with the Democratic Party page. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a 2005 opinion poll and those things change every month, its not clear what it says either. You can't take that as a defining the view of the British People or as an authoritative source, it will need to be replaced on the Labour Party article.  It would be a real help if you followed WP:INDENT by the way -- Snowded  TALK  16:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi - grateful for any support - [this refers. You have been very kind in the past. [[User:Edward Ockham|Edward Ockham]] (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it won't be easy and I would imagine it would have to go to ANI. I'll argue (as before) that the quality of your overall contributions should outweigh any concerns about editing behaviour etc.  when far worse is tolerated.  I think you will have to confess sin and offer promises as to the future and possibly review etc. before its going to work.  Happy to help draft something there.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)