User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 17

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is to discuss?
I'm pretty much interest in fixing this article up to a higher standard, copyediting it, finding correct sources from books and other places, making sure its neutral and so. You don't seem to have shown such interest in putting efforts into the article, apart from the sudden swathe of reverts of referenced material. Where somehow, you construed using a source from a participant in the Welling riot and high profile member of Rock Against Racism, who explicitly mentions Militant and SWP as organising it (both groups of a Trotskyite tendancy) as somehow part of a personal crusade against said ideology. By all means raise specific elements with me that you think may be wrong and I'll discuss and work on it with you, no beauracracy and grinding of progress though please. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know its controversial. The various anti-facist movements included trotskyites, but also Labour Party members, Liberals and others.  Your use of phrases like "Native white christians" etc is a nonsense.  Given that you were not prepared to discuss this I have done the work to split out the obviously POV/OR stuff from legitimate edits.  Please read WP:BRD and try and abide by it.  If you split the edits which improve the article from those you know will be controversial, and discuss the latter before making the changes then life will be easier for everyone.  The good work you do is what persuaded many of us to argue for you to come off what would have been a permanent ban.  But please realise the limits and use the talk page when in doubt. -- Snowded  TALK  05:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to provide evidence that the Labour Party and Lib Dems were specifically involved in the Welling riot. They weren't, they were involved in a peaceful protest in central London, the group of people who hurled paving stones at the police was organised by Militant and SWP, mentioned specifically in that source by somebody on the left themselves, a participant. The term "anti-fascist" is inherently POV when we have a reference naming the specific groups (who were Trotskyite tendancy), it seems like an attempt to glorify them, name names, as is your blanking of the headline in the Mail on Sunday.


 * The referemced information you blanked which details the led up to the Dewsbury incident, is also essential to the article and the presentation of events. "Native Christian parents"— ie, English parents of Christian families in Dewsbury attempted to remove their children from schools in Savile Town which had experienced extensive immigration of specifically Muslims from Pakistan and India. A religious and ethnic conflict. As a result the BNP launched a "Rights for Whites" campaign to support them. It is inherently POV for you to remove this reference information, because otherwise it looks like the BNP just showed up and started instigating trouble with no lead up or background of the conflict. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * DISCUSS controversial changes Yorkshirian. There is a common problem across all far right articles where some editors want to brand Searchlight, and anti-facist movements Trotskyite or Marxist. So you know that if you want to do that it will be challenged and you should discuss it first on the talk page. The other issue is seeking to explain away BNP actions.  A reference to attempted withdrawal of children is OK, but the elaborate explanations smacked of BNP propaganda.   -- Snowded  TALK  05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Welling riot isn't about Searchlight, the reference says Militant and SWP specifically (the riot was condemed in Parliament and it didn't have any sort of backing from LibLabCon). If I must I'll just put the names of those two organisations instead of Trotskyite, though I don't see what difference it makes, since the reader can just click on their names to see their politics. How would you suggest the parents withdrawl of children be worded so the reader gets a sense of the background of the ethno-religious conflict in Dewsbury, if not how it was already put? There is no need to "explain away" anything, we just present balanced information. Wikipedia is based on neutrality, this extends to all articles including the one on the BNP. Even if the BNP were marching down the street in jackboots, swazticas and summarily executing trade unionists, we'd still have to write about them from a neutral, not a hostile POV according to policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was making a general point about all Far-Right articles hence the reference to Searchlight. The numbers involved exceeded the membership of those parties and the existing material makes it clear that the motivation was not "resentment" per your edit.  The organisers were the anti-facist league and that had a lot more support than just the SWP.  Denton's blog is not enough of a source there.  As I say you should draft something with the sources and put it on the talk page for discussion.  On the withdrawal of the children I followed through the reference and it just took me to a wikipedia page.  We need a reliable source there to determine the wording.  Oh, and if they were marching down the street in the manner you describe I can assure you that I would have better things to do than edit wikipedia.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethan
Please take a look at the debate on the Talk on Wendy Doniger. Goethan keeps on removing the criticism section. I agree that the current criticism section is not NPOV so I have revised it with counteropposing views. I tried to make it NPOV but it keeps on getting reverted. Please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added it to the watch list ad will have a look at the weekend - traveling and in client sessions most of today -- Snowded  TALK  04:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dave Snowden


The article Dave Snowden has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * BLP unsourced since its creation in February 2007

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pendantry
Don't be pendantic Snowded. You know the deal, I know the deal. Hanging around the article, trying to halt progress of the article policial reasons (pretty much vandalism) and then you being undone is not "edit waring". You obviously can't be bothered to sort the article out, while I can. After the talk discussion, two other users have agreed that it must be shorter and in a summary style including an admin. Cop on and work on something constructive instead. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to learn to get agreement first. Its not pedantry and it will go direct to ANI if you don't seek agreement first -- Snowded  TALK  07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you will see on the talk discussion I entered. An admin and another user agreed that is MUST be summary style, consensus has been reached on that specific issue. If you, as a non constributor to the article, see something SPECIFIC in the article which you want to challenge, then by all means, start a section on the talk and I will discuss it. Otherwise it looks completely like politically motivated vandalism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an agreement it should be shorted, but not an consensus as to the way you want to shorten it. I will check before posting to ANI if you have self reverted so you have around five minutes -- Snowded  TALK  08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have started a thread about you trying to halt article progress. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry
I have filed a request for an investigation of "Can I touch it?" which I believe may be a sockpuppet account based on similar editing styles at Classical liberalism. Since you are familiar with the editing styles of the accounts named in the investigation, your comments there would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
And you aren't? You know very well that the words British Isles in Five Peaks Challenge are quite acceptable, but you sneaked their removal a while ago. I can't understand why. It's not as if using the term is erroneous. Mister Flash (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the talk page - all bar you were happy to remove BI. I implemented consensus so try and avoid pejorative and inaccurate terms.  As per my warning on you talk page I suggest you self revert.-- Snowded  TALK  18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to self revert on this occasion. There is no real consensus, just a few of the usual suspects railing against use of British Isles for no good reason. As for 1RR, I'm not sure where we stand on this. I suspect it doesn't apply but maybe you have some further information? Mister Flash (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations do not use BI, with the exception of yourself all agree its not necessary. IRR still stands on BI related issues.  Your call, your funeral.  I will implement the consensus position when I have time tomorrow.  If you revert again then I will raise the issue with the last admin who blocked you. Just seen the edit war, I have asked the admin who blocked you last time to take a look at this  -- Snowded  TALK  21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs a pic
Hiya Snowie!

Don't you think your Wikipedia article is just crying out for a pic of your good self? Perhaps posed as The Thinker? Come on now, don't be shy - license a pic and stick it on up there! (Or, if you are suddenly overcome with scruples about editing your own article, I'd be happy to put it up for you.)Irvine22 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think someone is working on it Irvine, but I am staying out of it. Thanks for the thought -- Snowded  TALK  06:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Adams family abuse controversy
Hello again! I see you re-inserted the sentence "there is no suggestion that Gerry Adams himself has been involved in child abuse" at this article. Do you have a reference for that? Doesn't seem verified as it stands.Irvine22 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for an alternative wording - but as it can be read as implying he was involved in child abuse. -- Snowded  TALK  20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

IP user on RoI
Snowded. Just as an FYI. The IP user you reverted on RoI is the notorious banned user Historian19. He comes on, and makes edits like that to pages all over Wikipedia, with his target being mainly European countries and mass GDP and related changes. They're not really changes, they're reverts back to a very old version of the articles. So if you see them in future, revert and report the IP. Cheers. Canterbury Tail  talk  13:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense - I should have recognised him from previous encounters -- Snowded  TALK  17:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We few at BI
I don't see any reason as to why we can't agree, to leave the articles as they currently are (i.e. don't add/don't delete British Isles). It's not the end of the world to come to such a mutual agreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay. Are you really suggesting that we don't care about accuracy at Wikipedia?  Or do you subscribe to the attitude that any use, in any context, is OK? Really!  --HighKing (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can atleast agree to a 1RR restriction on British Isles usage. MF & the fellow with the uniquly spelt moniker, have to be calmed down. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Dunc
Irvine's trolling comments are not helping matters in regards to persuading Big Dunc to come out of his retirement. For a while I thought Irvine wanted to reform. (Sigh). Hope springs eternal in the idealist...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Irving is a throughly nasty piece of work (well be may just be mischievous with no sense of moral responsibility) who only wants to cause trouble. He is back in his shell at the moment waiting for the heat to die down.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I just went to see The Wolfman. Thoroughly enjoyed it! Irvine22 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Irvine will end up getting Irvine blocked again. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wishin and hopin, planning and dreaming.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal
I'd modify the proposals to exclude my singling out. There's no reason to single me out in this way, and it's starting to get on my tits that this continues to happen. Snowded, I've asked you in the past to desist so I'm surprised that you have reverted to previous behaviour. What was wrong with the earlier proposal that stated *all* involved/notified editors continue the practice of posting proposed changes to the working group? I'd also add a section outlining the escalating sanctions, so that there's no doubt. I appreciate your involvement, greatly. Only for it, I'd have abandoned the SE and Task Force a while ago. But, please please please, stop painting me in the light of someone whose behaviour is problematic. If you've problems with something I've done, point it out. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to create something which has a chance of succeeding. I have pointed out repeatedly against the "a plague on both your houses" people that you have followed process etc.  However taking one side will not produce something acceptable. This is practical politics and I am not painting you as problematic (although I am acknowledging that you were in the past).  -- Snowded  TALK  14:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

7th July Bombings
Hi there, Snowded, hope you won't mind the message. I do not want to get in a reversion war but am really not happy with this part of the second sentence of the aforementioned article: "who were motivated by Britain's involvement in the Iraq War." Do you really think it is a fair reflection of news articles such as this, for instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206708.stm It seems to me that the Iraq War was but one of a menu of grievances, if you look at the bombers' own words. The over-arching idea was of there existing a war between 'Islam' and the 'West' (both terms as defined by them). I would label this ideology 'Islamism' but if that is problematic, we can discuss it (Qutbism? Wahabiism?). If you honestly think the Iraq War was the sole motivation for these attacks, and it isn't just a rhetorical point, that is fine, but it is something of a stretch to say that disputed interpretation of events is worthy of canonisation in a encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationOverlord (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can say Islamic Ideology as that does not reflect properly on Islam. I don't think the Iraq was the sole motivation either, but it was better than the replacement.  We really need to go to the trial reports or similar and get a third party source.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not editing in good faith at swiftboating
You are reverting at swiftboating without having investigate the cited source or discussing specifics of whether it supports the erroneous text and characterization which is in the article. Evidently, you think that all you have to do to be obstructionist is to fail to reach agreement and not conform to any other wikipedia standards. If you are just going to blindly support Xenophrenic and take turns reverting with him without doing your own checking, then you are acting as little more than his sockpuppet. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to gain consensus before edit warring. Both I and Xenophrenic have made the same point in different ways, but you don't like the answer.  I don't blindly support anyone, neither do we have to compromise the truth just because you don't like it.  Your comments above fail to assume good faith in the face of the evidence.  As far as I can see you are taking a position which seeks to compromise the simple fact that swiftboating involves the telling of a lie to achieve political effect, and that there was no evidence to support the accusations against Kerry's war record.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to forget that a consensus isn't needed when the sentence in question doesn't meet wikipedia standards, instead you should correct the sentence to properly reflect the citation. The proposed statement, which you are willing to justify goes way beyond the source, and is stated as fact, while the source is pure opinion essay.  --68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong and so do two other editors the last time I checked. -- Snowded  TALK  17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, one said they agreed with you, but the position he supported was mine, that such a statement shouldn't be in the article. So it is 2 to 2 as if that is relevant. You need a citation to support the statement, because the Manjoo book doesn't, or perhaps you should help me pressure that Xeno... guy to provide it, since you seem to be totally relying upon his assertions rather than making your own judgements.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of "I agree with Snowded" did you not understand? If you want some material then look at page 14 of Manjoo "The veterans lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims, yet they managed anyway, to plant a competing narrative, a kind of alternate version of reality..."  and there are others.  The Inspector General of the US Navy confirmed the military record and that could be added as citation.  You appear to be a single purpose IP account with a political agenda, something confirmed by an earlier statement you made about swiftboating being a positive act.  Well I am sorry, trying to spin a falsehood is so far getting you no where.  Please go away and stop wasting my time.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is "lack of compelling evidence" the same as "unsubstantiated". Manjoo was just expressing his opinion, there is no evidence in the book that he attempted to look for substantiation at all, and he didn't need to in an extended opinion essay.  Confirming a military record, is not "unsubstantiated" either.  Face it, if "lack of compelling evidence" were as strong and formally conclusive seeming as "unsubstantiated", then Xeno... would not have rejected my proposed compromise using that langugage.  Using Manjoo's book on change in the media culture and something off hand he stated about one of his examples is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Do you care about wikipedia at all?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I care enough about wikipedia to protect it from single purpose POV pushing IP accounts who seem incapable of reading or understanding other people's comments or the evidence. -- Snowded  TALK  20:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, isn't it embarrassing to have nothing but blind denialism at your disposal to defend your friend Xeno...'s use of that source? These small victories your clique has slipping their snarky POV into articles must be very satisfying.  Asserting that other sources are available, hardly justifies using one that doesn't support the proposition.  Xeno... was relying upon people assuming he was properly characterizing the source.  Perhaps all his edits should be reviewed given the way he has misused this source.  He obviously thinks he can slip things by with the help of unquestioning and trusting clique support.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you check back you will find I inserted the source. Now try and get over the fact that your little attempt at political editing has not gained support and move on - ideally somewhere a long way away from my talk page. -- Snowded  TALK  17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, So you are the one that mischaracterized that source, which doesn't support the statement? It is as much an opinion essay as the Op-ed you mentioned on the talk page. Three of us think the merits of the SBVT claims should not be at issue on this page. If you want to get opinion in anyway, explicitly attribute it to the opinion holder, and if you aren't going to actually quote it, at least properly characterize or summarize it.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you intend to continue edit warring at Swiftboating. If you do request semi-protect, will you be honest about your mischaracterization and mis-representation of the Manjoo's opinion, and the fact that you are going against the consensus that the merits of the SWBT claims should be on that page and not this one?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I request it, then the reason will be a POV pushing IP who is in a minority of one and is engaged in a slow edit war. -- Snowded TALK  12:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Prejudiced against IPs I see. Some IPs have enough wikipedia experience to know that you would not be any more likely to edit in good faith even if I logged in.  What would be the point?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And some IPs undoubtedly will see things differently. You're not a spokesperson for a lobby group, Lighten up. RashersTierney (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to be a spokesman for a clique, I just stick to merits.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of this section is contrary to the WP principle assume good faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've provided ample evidence that I assumed good faith. I've discussed the merits of the issues, and there wouldn't have been any point in doing that if I wasn't assuming good faith.  Those who revert without discussing or insist on edits that they can't support with the evidence are not demonstrating good faith.  After many failures to demonstrate good faith, the assumption of good faith is shown to be in vain.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility issues
I am sorry I called you communist instead of socialist, my fault. -TheG (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The point Gabagool was that you should not be calling another editor anything but addressing content issues. -- Snowded  TALK  05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well in all fairness, Snowded has described his position before as a "Marxist Catholic" [even though such a thing is a total contradiction. For instance even ultraliberal Karol Wojtyła condemed the liberation heresy so-called "Jesuits" in South America]. Marx afterall did write the Communist Manifesto not the Socialist Manifesto. When I see the word "socialist" in British contexts, I tend to think more Fabian Society than Marx. However as a Joseph de Maistre-esque reactionary, perhaps the nuance is lost on me? - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To be accurate Yorkshirian I have said that I took a Catholic Marxist position back in the 70s along with a whole bunch of people (including several Bishops) in the Liberation Theology days. Both the current and previous Popes always confused Liberation Theology with Eastern European state socialism and as a result undid a lot of good in South American, and allowed a lot of evil in.  That however is nothing to do with the above point.  (but always nice to hear from you) -- Snowded  TALK  06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So when did you become an ethnic nationalist? Irvine22 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yorkshirian, did you know that in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, De Maistre is described as having been a secret neo-Templar as well as a Freemason? In point of fact the Jesuits had some strange links with Freemasonry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the major mistakes of the Church was to remove the prescription on membership of the free masons, and as a one time postulant I don't believe the libel about the Js -- Snowded  TALK  07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't say that Jeanne! If De Maistre was one of them, then I won't be able to read Fr Denis Fahey's enlightening anti-masonic works anymore. :p I had heard of De Maistre's earlier involvement in Masonry, but he seems to have been rank and file, perhaps he was a liberal before he turned into a reactionary? Juan Donoso Cortés and Edmund Burke were liberals before they saw the light too.


 * As for the Jesuits, I think that order is just prone to infiltration. I'm more of a Dominican sympathiser than a Mollist myself. The "Enlightenment" Liberal types on the Continent back in the day were major hypocrites though, they used the Jesuit universities and then turned around and claimed the Church was keeping the world in a "Dark Age" (like Adam Weishaupt). - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC


 * Well the leader of the Catholic Marxist group in the UK was Fr Herbert McCabe OP ....-- Snowded TALK  09:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the leader of the Catholic Marxist group in the UK was Fr Herbert McCabe OP ....-- Snowded TALK  09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is interesting is that all of the major leaders of the French Revoltion were Freemasons, and the Grand Master was none other than Marie Antoinette's arch-enemy, the Duc d'Orléans. Napoleon was allegedly a Freemason as well. Nearly all the males on my mother's side of the family were Freemasons, which is why I've always been intersted in both Freemasonry and the Knights Templar. The Rosecrucians are allegedly the Templars under a different name. Both Dee and Bacon were supposedly Rosecrucians/Templars. De Maistre went to Germany to sow dissension among the Masons, probably because by the end of the 18th century they were plotting the overthrow of the monarchies of Europe. It's easy to see the connection when you realise that Benjamin Franklin and the US founding fathers were Freemasons, and who helped the colonists? The French, of course, led by the Marquis de Lafayette! Note the Masonic symbol on the American dollar?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is legitimate, to throw some light on the fact that you are strongly politically motivated in favor of the far-left, and at the same time in practice are a self-declared "administrator" on articles regarding the far-right. Usually a bad combination, which you clearly are no exception of. Its like if George W. Bush were to write the Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin. -TheG (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any far left sympathies on my part, or that I am a self-declared administrator or that I have made any edit that does not follow wikipedia rules. If you have any evidence of my acting improperly on the article do so.  Otherwise you should heed the warning, you comments were in breech of wikipedia rules.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the fact that I'm not exactly the first person to have raised this issues should be evidence enough. -TheG (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of people are unhappy when they don't get their way and lash out in any way they can think. Sorry accusations don't make for evidence as any basic study of history should teach you.  Try and come up with some facts or have the decency to withdraw.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, after all, the only thing that matters is if you get to cry yourself to get your way. -TheG (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The BNP's Economic Views
http://bnp.org.uk/policies/economy/ Reading that page I think this shows that the BNP have a centrist, perhaps even a centre-left standpoint as far as the economy is concerned. Stephen MUFC (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a third party source I'm afraid and your drawing a conclusion from it is OR so two errors one compounding another. Also why my talk page - use the article's.-- Snowded  TALK  06:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not a third party source but if you read the policies they're clearly not far-right on the economic scale, e.g. nationalisation of monopolies??? And I used your talk page since you were the only objector at that time. I'll gladly copy this into that article's talk page. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism in Ireland
Snowded, I would have thought that with all the whoha there's recently been on the British Isles front you might have refrained from removing the term from the above article without first discussing it at the article talk page. At the very least you could have posted the issue at your favoured forum of the special interest page. As with many of these cases it's not black and white, so discussion is surely in order - is it not? Anyone could be forgiven for considering your action to be provocative, given the current delicate state of affairs. Mister Flash (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The principle is clear - follow citation support, in this case the reference did not even mention Ireland, just the UK and specifically the UK of GB & NI.  To be honest I'm not even sure if the article is noteworthy although its a recent creation.  If it becomes contentious I will take it to the working group but I really don't see this one as such.  The citation is very very explicit.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am completely certain that this was a mistake on the church’s part, mistaking the United Kingdom of today with the UK of 1837. Anyway I have cleared the issue up on the page.Angrybeerman (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that and I'm happy with a verifiable source. Trouble is the one you gave is an internal document, hence the request for a pdf copy or full quote (I haven't tagged the item).  -- Snowded  TALK  11:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry
Hello Snowded. I happened upon Dave Snowden today and notice it A) is in a pretty shoddy state and B) is probably of borderline notability (I could see an argument either way). Anyway, given it is currently present and survived an AfD, I was thinking I may as well make it respectable. I'm happy to do that, but just wanted to check in with you first, especially as editing such articles seems have have become another front in many wiki-wars - obviously that isn't my intention. If you would just rather it just be left alone or would prefer it be AfD'd, I'm happy to do either also. Let me know (and feel free to remove this too, if you would rather keep it low-profile). Rockpock e  t  23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be eternally grateful if you would Rock, most of the stuff (Academy of Management awards) that would make it more notable are not there. It either needs to get up to the level of something like Peter Schwartz or deleted so it can't be used in edit wars.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll get on it, though it may take me a few days. Sense-making isn't something I'm overly familiar with (I'm sure many would say that much is obvious!), so if I misinterpret, or get anything wrong, just drop me a message or an email. Rockpock  e  t  18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that the Peter Schwartz article clearly declares what he is in the opening sentence: "author and futurist". The Snowden article needs that kind of initial clarity. There is far too much diffuse pseudo-academic jargon in the Snowden article as it stands. Irvine22 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

North-South divide (Wales)
Hi Snowded, it's been a long time since we discussed this, but there seemed to be a general consensus for a change of title. Unless anyone objects I'm going to make a bold move to Geography and identity in Wales and start making some radical changes along the lines we talked about many months ago.--Pondle (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it and if you need help shout -- Snowded TALK  10:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of life
I am hoping that the creation of Philosophy of life and its category will help greatly in organizing a lot of articles that are otherwise difficult to organize. I very much doubt that "philosophy of life" is not notable enough for WP.Greg Bard (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm open, but it will need some third party references (hence the tags). You may run into the new age guys (just by way of warning) -- Snowded  TALK  23:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this will help limit the new agers if done right. I still don't think the lede paragraph would be harmed by the distinction. It should be four paragraphs long. Greg Bard (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and find some time for it towards the end of the week but life is a bit frantic at the moment -- Snowded TALK  23:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will work on it also, but non-notability doesn't make any sense at all. Straight face test.Greg Bard (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything with no third party citations is by definition not-notable, you have to establish the name from a source other than your own opinion -- Snowded TALK  04:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave Snowden
Hiya Snowie! I see you reverted my edit to the Dave Snowden article. I think there needs to be a much clearer declarative statement of what precisely he is and does in the opening sentence of the article. It's not at all clear as it stands. Which descriptor did you object to: "British" or "complexicist"? Perhaps both?

Also, upon reflection you might conclude that describing good-faith edits as "vandalism" in edit summaries is not consistent with assumption of good faith. Irvine22 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Irvine, you are a troll -- Snowded TALK  20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you say, but what is Dave Snowden? Author? Academic? Businessman? Philosopher? The article seems strangely unclear on the question. Like the new pic, though. Irvine22 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that various people plan to tidy it up Irvine so your obvious thirst for knowledge will be satisfied at some stage -- Snowded TALK  22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it. Snowden seems like an interesting guy. Really fills out a black polo-neck and all. Irvine22 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

College at Lancaster? Of interest to current and former students. LevenBoy (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * County College - were you there then? -- Snowded TALK  12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but my son is now - in Fylde College. LevenBoy (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, in my day that was the centre of the Monday Club,  Bowland was Communist, Carmel IMG, Lonsdale Rugby Club and Gay Soc, Pendle Anarchist.  All changed now, hope he is enjoying it.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes he is, and it's costing us a fortune! Apart from the usual expense of university these days, Fylde would seem to have a very active social life. LevenBoy (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have one at Sussex and another hopefully starting at Bristol so I know what you mean. -- Snowded TALK  13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How do ya know so much about that David Snowden character? GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * satiable curtiosity but I have no plans to visit the great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever-trees . I do appreciate all the efforts however.  -- Snowded'  TALK  16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No riddles, please. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kipling. Don't mind him GD, he's just showin' off again ; - ) RashersTierney (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It never occurred to me that someone with GDs education would not have read all of those stories ....-- Snowded TALK  16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya ask a question & ya get treated like dirt. Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now now, you're not allowed to sulk. Look at it this way, you now have a chance to discover a great work of literature.  I'll happily buy a copy for you if you email your address -- Snowded  TALK  16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded, you're spooning. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Offering to education, remotely without physical contact (well I'll buy you a drink next time I am in Halifax but that is the limit) -- Snowded TALK  16:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never read Kipling either. It was not exactly required reading where I went to high school. BTW, who's Kipling, man, some kinda poet or sh..? (Said with laid-back very, very west Los Angeles smog-slurred accent)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was bed time reading when I was five, and David Davies read it wonderfully on Children's Hour. It really is a wonderful sequence of stories and works for all ages - strongly recommended -- Snowded  TALK  16:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My mother always read me bedtime stories. Alas, she would have to give them all happy endings otherwise I'd cry; therefore the three little pigs all made it safely to the brick house and the big, bad wolf was constrained to go away hungry. On hindsight it wasn't good for her to have sugarcoated reality. Children need to know that in real life people typically do not live happily ever after, but rather plod on, wearily existing in whatever situation they have found themselves until the day they die. Fairy tales are nice escapist fantasies, but one needs have the kids learn the subliminal messages contained within the magic words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF. Ya mean the little piggies didn't get away and go on to study civil engineering, veterinary medicine and psychology at Trinity college with a view to designing better dwellings and rehabilitating the poor misguided wolfie (who had in the mean-time pursued a successful musical career on the trombone)? What kind of revisionist version are you spinning here Jeanne? RashersTierney (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ever read Politically correct Bedtime Stories? -- Snowded TALK  17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't (shudder). My favourite fairy tale The Snow Queen is ostensibly a lovely tale of high adventure in exotic locales and undying, faithful love; however the real message within is that men are basically faithless, easily seduced by glamourous women who make their girlfriends and wives appear ugly in their eyes. These rejected females will even pursue their cheating menfolk to the ends of the world to get them back. Another Andersen tale The Tinder Box gives the message that with heavies on your side, you can do and get away with anything. Even cute little nursery rhymes were once bawdy ditties sung inside taverns and inns.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nilges
Trust me when I say we don't want him back. I've never come across a more persistently insulting, abusive, arrogant user here--ever. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But he does do good work at the same time, researches well. I've known a lot of professors like that and its worth putting up with the bad stuff.  However he is not going to get back until he changes - something I and others have told him on and off line-- Snowded  TALK  06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's too invested in his own prejudices, inflated self-image, and victim complex for that to ever happen. I suspect he'd sooner explode. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts?
Do the contributions on various pages by User:Nestorius Auranites remind you of anyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The german language game? Yes familiar, watching the editing pattern to see if its disruptive -- Snowded  TALK  21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Brain.wilson
I agree with you that this new account is clearly suspicious - note how he started editing Martin Heidegger as soon as BraunemSchmutz was blocked. A sockpuppet investigation would be a good idea. I'd do it myself, but I don't know the procedure. UserVOBO (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've set one up a couple of times - I have a paper to finish today, but will aim to get something up tonight. Its a slightly different pattern from the other socks however.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That may mean only that he is pursuing a different strategy this time. UserVOBO (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True, in this case he started as an editor on the talk page 17-19 Feb then went silent until the 28th other than a piece of vandalism on Elizabeth Cheney . So he had an ID in place before the sock outbreak.  Now that maybe using a sock to support a position, then activating it for editing later.  Its grounds enough for a sock report.  However a sock report which is unproven can strengthen the hand of a disruptive editor.  I'm inclined to wait until this evening and see what happens.  If he is following the pages then he will know that a range block would stop him permanently so he may back off.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, when you have no response to one's arguments, your approach is to simply accuse people of nefarious behavior. You might consider simply engaging in discussion, rather than working the refs, hoping that they can be conned into censoring those arguments for which you have no response. Why won't you engage in substantive discussion?


 * And, by the way, my edit of Elizabeth Cheney's page was not vandalism. What I wrote is verifiably true. If you would like to discuss it, I would be happy to.Brain.wilson (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits to Elizabeth Cheney were vandalism, and you will be blocked if you insist on repeating them. Talk page trolling will also not be tolerated. UserVOBO (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
I've not filed an SPI before and not sure how to go about gathering evidence, but without mentioning names, in your opinion, do you believe that there's any connection between our old vociferous editor and a recently returned one? Enough to file a report I mean. --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs a longer pattern of editing really. Happy to do one if the evidence builds, pending that keep your nose clean!  -- Snowded  TALK  10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The SE page is a success, as it's accomplishing things. It's because of its success, that MBM, MF, LvB are so angry (along with the fact, they're the minority there). GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, their whole strategy is to try and stop any changes -- Snowded TALK  22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If yas are still looking for an administrator(s) to monitor the SE page. Elonka and/or Sandstein would be the 2 to get. They're tough & everlasting. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Remark
I've removed some material from the Lleyn entry, because the spelling is used on current OS maps (e.g. multimap), which are a powerful source, all would agree. The spelling is in widespread use amongst Anglos (check Google and Yahoo), and it has a long history. Notability is not temporary, and "Lleyn" is notable. It's a no brainer. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I made a compromise! -- Snowded TALK  12:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers, but it would be sufficient to validate the alternative usage spelling, without introducing the relative phonetic merits of Welsh versus English. It is interpreted as chauvanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion, being authentic to the language of the place itself is not to my mind chauvinism-- Snowded TALK  18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Hi, thanks for starting the SPI, I was just about to do the same.  Them From  Space  19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleasure, hopefully a range block will follow -- Snowded TALK  19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your article
Hi, Snowded. I've just read your wikipedia article and very interesting it is too. Shouldn't they mention your passion for Welsh rugby? :). Remind me never to get involved in a conversation with you on Knowledge management, sensemaking, tacit knowledge, etc. If you ever want to talk about football or rugby give me a shout but, I think I'll pass on the rest of it thanks. :) Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Always happy to talk about Rugby Jack! -- Snowded TALK  21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wales pinching the game against 13 man Scotland was one of my big downers of the year, and I'm predominantly a celtic supporting football fan who have had a few downers this season. In saying that, who would have thought Scotland could have played so well. Let's not mention the Italy game, eh! Jack forbes (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fate, and I was behind the posts where all the tries were scored - and if you don't want to play with 13 men then don't spend the whole game spoiling! Mind you,  I really want you to beat the English next week.  Will be in Singapore in a bar with the ex pat community ....  -- Snowded  TALK  22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not sure we spent the whole game spoiling. We did play some terrific football for a while but in the end I don't think they really believed they could do it, hence the spoiling later in the game. We'll have to be at the top of our game to beat the English even though they are not exactly world beaters at the moment. It should be fun sitting with the ex pats. Will they go to their separate bars or congregate together? Jack forbes (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are playing Gold or Sailing at the moment and giving other teams a 17 point advantage just to make the game more interesting. You guys should never have closed the borders region-- Snowded  TALK  22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah,here's where my knowledge of rugby union rather falls down I'm afraid. What do you mean by closing the borders region? Any relation to the fact that Scottish players come from the Glasgow and Edinburgh clubs? Jack forbes (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The heart of Scottish Rugby was always the Borders and there used to be three regional clubs - now only two -- Snowded TALK  22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, home of rugby sevens I believe. Oh for the days of J.P.R Williams, Phil Bennett and Gareth Edwards. They were always a joy to watch and any interest I got from the game probably came from the likes of them. Jack forbes (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow.
I didn't know there was an article about you. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found it by accident after I started editing! Its a two edged sword, but other editors have been very good in getting in sorted out - realised how many friends you make in Wikipedia if you get involved.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, you are one of the most respected and articulate editors around Wikipedia, even if our politics and views on the monarchy happen to differ. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) -- Snowded TALK  10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya big suke, Jeanne! ;) I've always said I would vote support if he runs for admin but if you get him really big headed I may have to reconsider. :) Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Jack, I'm not trying to curry favour with Snowded by showering him with compliments before he's made an Admin. Anyroad, somehow I don't think flattery would faze him in the least as he edits without bias, and I think he would see right through anybody attempting to do a Sgt. O'Neill act.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha^^. Also, it feels like I should adress you as "Sir"!! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At the University of Pretoria you'd be calling him "Professor". :)
 * Anyway, maximum respek for all your achievements. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just be careful if you edit your own BLP article, Snowded. Ya don't need accusations of COI, being thrown at ya. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, and the Pretoria title is far more interesting, a liternal translation of extra ordinem. I've been careful GoodDay, but COI charges seem to be a standard method on some pages to try and remove editors, I've been through two so far and I don't think I'm likely to make that mistake.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more).  I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:


 * User:Peter Damian (old)
 * User:HistorianofLogic
 * User:Logicist
 * User:Here today, gone tomorrow
 * User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll put it on watch, but you know what will happen the minute your ID is flagged up. -- Snowded  TALK  10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Laval
Hey Snowded, I was interested in getting this article to GA or FA status, and was wondering if you'd be interested in helping out, or know anyone who would? It seems to have stagnated for a while. Thanks! TallNapoleon (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put in on watch and will try and have a look. Its not my area of expertise however.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy versus reality
Many folks stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear the truth, preferring to reject reality so that they can remain in their fantasy world. It is usually harmless, like the insistence that the tooth-fairy exists or that the earth is flat, but the endless circular arguments they devise can grow tiresome nonetheless. When it rises to the level of disruption, steps should be taken to put an end to the silliness. I'd be willing to do the paperwork, but which venue do you think would be most appropriate? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to find the US navy reference citation (the one on the military record page is broken) and add that in, tighen up the wording etc.  Then I think its an ANI report with a request for help - its not only this page after all.  When they started to cite their own propaganda I gave up all hope.  Its almost as bad as the UK Far right articles (such as the BNP) where there is a constant struggle against this "even handed" argument, when one side is a primary source and the other a reliable secondary one-- Snowded  TALK  22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Navy Inspector General declined to play the swifties games, writing a memo basically telling them Kerry's awards were valid and to go away and bother someone else. The full contents of the memo can probably be found online somewhere. This source, that I mentioned before, also notes Kerry's record was similarly smeared during his 1996 campaign, with the Navy again affirming that his medals were proper and legit. Complete debunking of many of the swifties claims can also be found by Googling factcheck+swift+boat. All of this, however, is mostly irrelevent to the Swiftboating article. If editors want to re-open the debate about the validity of the SBVT claims, they are welcome to do so at the appropriate articles - not this one.  "Swiftboating" = smearing, according to all reliable sources and everyone else except those doing the smearing. I'll continue to watch the article. (Note: I actually preferred the word "unsubstantiated" instead of the much harsher "completely fact-free" wording, but certain editors demanded actual words from the source, so that is what they got.  Reliable sources for the "unsubstantiated" do exist, however.) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After a week of inactivity, I had high hopes that the disruption had subsided. Now it appears to be starting up again.  I've followed the suggestion above and submitted this request for assistance. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there some reliable source somewhere that indicates "Swiftboating is a campaign of unsubstantiated charges" is just someone's opinion, and not a statement of fact - and I'm just missing it? The talk of flagrant NPOV violations at the ANI post has me baffled now... Xenophrenic (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Flagrant was nonsense and given some time I'll check back on the edit histories to try and understand. I am off wiki today with work, will try and look tomorrow -- Snowded  TALK  06:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BNP
I only made 1 Revert! I think you may have mistook Bloodofox's reverting as mine but I am trying to reach consensus. Seems like you can't even insert a comma on that page without someone reverting it. DharmaDreamer (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 on the 6th and 1 on the 7th makes 3 (and there was one on the 4th)  remember 3 is not a right, its the point at which a block is more or less automatic-- Snowded  TALK  15:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the 4of of march I made the original edit, not a revert. on the 6th I made another edit on the page not relation to the Extreme argument, Later on the 6th four deuces hadn't responded for over a day so i removed the word extreme, that was quickly reverted without discussion so I reverted that revert, So only 1 revert or 2 if you want to be picky DharmaDreamer (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you know you should get consensus for such a change on the talk page. -- Snowded  TALK  15:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

one of those reverts was one you suggested I do, so I cant self revert or i might be accused of 5RRing, I've already suggested WP:DR DharmaDreamer (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, you have been reinserting the same text for days, you can easily revert and leave the one in place. Also using television programmes you have watched as a source is really not on.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it not acceptable to use television as a source? on the British National Party Article itself 2 radio shows are used as a reference, 11 unlinked newspaper articles and those are just as unverifiable surly? Things stateed on television are just dismissed are they? DharmaDreamer (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends a bit on the source. A documentary on the BNP for example would have more status than a throw away news interview.  One would normally expect a journal or main stream newspaper to report anything notable enough as well.  Of course in this case the news interview did not support the wording anyway.-- Snowded  TALK  17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, I've proposed Mediation to resolve the BNP dispute, im not sure if that other guy earlier wanted to take the case on but he hasnt mentioned it on the mediation page, anyway before we start all parties have to agree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-03-09/British_National_Party If you're willing to take part in mediation just edit the page stating you've agreed DharmaDreamer (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see you are isolated on this one and I think mediation is premature -- Snowded  TALK  21:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made a response on the mediation proposal page. I don't see why everytime I try to help build consensus you discard the idea DharmaDreamer (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are using bad sources, making edits not even supported by those sources, edit waring,  pushing a POV and you are isolated.   There is no case for mediation, you are just forum shopping.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Refusing to share a platofrm with a BNP supporter? ;) Whats the worst that could happen? Also please feel free to point out where i've been POV pushing DharmaDreamer (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a broach church and there are people with more reprehensible views than BNP supporters. I think this particular edit war (and the one you made on AFL) are examples.  Not off the scale, but worth paying attention to. -- Snowded  TALK  05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

EHRC
Why did you undo my addition of the jugdemnt about the BNP's membership rules? What is it you found so unacceptable that it requires discusion?Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unpicking the odd valid edit (I make no judgment here) from a series of edit wars without discussion was just too hard. Propose it on the talk page.  -- Snowded  TALK  01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explainiing your reasoning. I do not agree that such a massive revert was a good idea, there might have been a lot of usefull alterations made that will now have to be done again (if they exisit). I do find it odd that you did not revert to the first edit of the 12th, as this is when that edit war started. Especialy as my edit was the 5 and 6 on that day, harldey in the middle of an edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I went back one day as I recall, and the number of changes was so high, between two editors taking extreme positions (not you) that it seemed the only way. Picking and choosing would have been to engage in the battle.  Dharma has a serious issue with understanding evidence and NPOV and needs to learn to use the talk page.  We have had our disagreements, but you do understand the basics.  -- Snowded  TALK  02:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Restoring part of a reverted edit AJRG (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Know it and followed it in many a case However this type of extended edit war is in my opinion best handled by a reset.  If you do partial changes you get caught up in the edit war  -- Snowded  TALK  10:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be in such a hurry. Since when was it contentious to spell "Archbishops" correctly? AJRG (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading my earlier responses -- Snowded TALK  21:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. You were in too big a hurry to do a spellcheck... AJRG (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than get bogged down in this meta discussion, let's just concentrate on discussing improving the article at the article talk page, as snowed has suggested. Verbal chat  21:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a follow through from his editing on NLP related pages Verbal. -- Snowded  TALK  21:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the article itself. It's about the unintended consequences of very boldly reverting 50 edits at a time. AJRG (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are being really silly now, any valid changes in that edit war can easily be put in place (see the talk page). As I have said to you in another context you need to spend some time learning about how wikipedia works and gain some experience.  Your are either not reading my earlier responses or you are choosing not to listen.  Either way you are wasting your time in repeating the same point and not taking into account what has been said.  Oh, hang on, that was the problem on your NLP association as well on reliable sources wasn't it?  -- Snowded  TALK  23:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you were so boldy reverting, it would have been good practice for you to restore such valid changes yourself per WP:Restoring part of a reverted edit, but you were in too much of a hurry. AJRG (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Grow up -- Snowded TALK  23:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to very boldly revert 50 edits at a time (diff) and then expect everyone else to clear up after you? AJRG (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly reasonable to revert a mass of edit waring over a 24 hour period. If the correction of one spelling mistake is lost in the process then its not a tragedy.  I have now explained this to you more times than I used to have to explain adult behaviour to my children.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So if your children trashed the living room and left you to tidy it up, you'd consider that reasonable behaviour? AJRG (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

reverting 2 days worth of edits
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DharmaDreamer (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't vandalism, but it's unnecessarily hurried. Slow down... AJRG (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Learn to use the talk page and stop issuing nonsense threats -- Snowded TALK  01:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger article
Since you've shown an interest in the current state of the Martin Heidegger article, I'd like your opinion on the following as part of the lead section, particularly whether you think it might help to resolve the edit-war. I'd like to avoid adding to the mess on the article's talk page.

"However, Heidegger remains controversial due to his political views, and membership of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (abbrev. Nazi Party) from 1933 to 1945."

With the above in place, I feel it would be a moot point whether 'Nazi' and/or 'National Socialist' were then used elsewhere in the text. I don't believe that the edit-war will be resolved by range blocks, bans or by protecting articles. Subsequently, I'd like to find a compromise between the two warring factions that's nonetheless balanced and accurate. I'm familiar with a number of politically and socially controversial philosophers, and avoiding terms such as 'Nazi' for "emotive" reasons, which I think was the original justification given for its removal, is not a balanced or valid way of reporting them. I'll seek out additional views and, if once I've established their concerns and made progress, then make a suggestion on the article's talk page. Thanks! Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 19:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always been prepared to accept Nazi in the lede as the reason for his controversial nature. If you look back you will find I proposed that and it was accepted as a compromise.  However our dear sock farm was not prepared to accept that and started the edit war.  Given that I think a range block is needed. -- Snowded  TALK  22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know life is short, but if you ever get a chance, glance at Charles Bambach's book, Heidegger's Roots. It's a much more serious and scholarly work than the recent Faye book, and even for a long-term Heidegger scholar like myself the sheer weight of material on his involvement with Nazism which has become available over the last few years was eye-opening.  The Gesamtausgabe is still releasing texts from the key period.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * OK the amazon account got hit again! -- Snowded TALK  00:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Pity or irritation?
I had a wee laugh when you said it had gone from irritation to pity. I laughed because for me its gone from pity to irritation. Jack forbes (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its his only playpen I think and he came within a hair's breadth of a permanent ban over his Irish editing, so he has just changed the area. Eventually he will go away here then pop up somewhere else.  Sooner or later someone will get irritated enough to assembly the whole history at ANI and it will be over, then I suspect we will get the socks. -- Snowded  TALK  22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your right. Meanwhile he is an itch that can't quite be scratched. Jack forbes (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Chicken Pox, scratch it too much and you end up with scars -- Snowded TALK  23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chicken pox has an incubation period of about 3 weeks, I wonder where it'll break out next?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Cornwall
Not seeking to replace BritishWatcher are you?? I think I shall reduce the size of your image in protest! But seriously, I accept the specific point over refs. ;-)   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now now, I'm trying to be objective over this one -- Snowded TALK  14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just realised that what I wrote above sounds as though it was written by Misortie. Worrying....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well some unusual alliances on this one -- Snowded TALK  14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Native languages and how to eradicate them
Hi, Snowded. I've just been listening to one of your talks on you tube. You told the story of your grandmother and the how the education system attempted to eradicate the Welsh language. I've got to ask, were there no protests from the parents and the rest of the native population of South Wales? Jack forbes (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The same thing happened in Louisiana and Canada where French-descended children were forbidden to speak French in the classroom on pain of corporal punishment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In Scotland after the 45 the 'British' government attempted (they did a good job) to eradicate all things Gaelic, banning the bagpipes and tartan as well as trying to rid Scotland of the Gaelic language. Jack forbes (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All empires seek to eliminate other cultures - scary thing is that they thing they are doing good by doing so -- Snowded TALK  19:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I wonder how many of those American multinationals locate in Ireland because they are looking for a skilled Gaelic-speaking workforce? Irvine22 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Isle of Man, the language was lost in three generations. The 1870 Education Act, replacing Manx Language schooling with English, provided the stick (literally) and English tourists with money provided the carrot.  AJRG (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Were there protests in the streets when this was going on? As for them thinking they were doing good, well, perhaps those in the front line were delusional enough to think they were, but those at the top knew they were only doing it for the empires benefit and didn't care a jot for anyone else. If you make everyone the same why would they want an independent country? That's the kind of thinking that makes an empire. Jack forbes (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * D'you know, the lowland Scot had no love for the Gael but then again nor did the Highland chief who cleared the lands of his loyal clansmen and expelled them to the English-only speaking parts of Scotland. The antipathy of the lowlanders (and protestant highlanders) against the mainly Catholic/Episcopalian Gaels was proved by their numbers that fought against the Jacobites in the 45.  Then we got the Scottish MPs who forced a series of education acts through from 1872 onwards which were entirely anti-Gaelic language and designed to absorb the Gaels into a 'mainstream' English-language Scotland.  Bill Reid | (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The lowland Scot had no love for anyone but themselves at one time, in particular the borderers. As`for those Scottish MP's, I would choke on my words to call them Scots. The worst thing that ever happened to Scotland was the reformation which split the country into them and us. It actually made my blood boil to see the bust of John Knox in the Wallace monument. Scots, who's like us. Not too many I hope. Jack forbes (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Och, Jack. We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns. Irvine22 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the borderers were a race apart and those on both sides of the borders had more in common with each other than they had with the crowns of Scotland and England. The Scots MPs were British with a capital 'B' but were no different form any MP in the UK in the Victorian erra so legislated for what they saw as the interest of the 'common' people. The educations acts were enacted for the 'greater good'. East coast Scots speaking Lalans or Doric in school got hammered just as much as the Gael speaking Gaelic. Bill Reid | (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really "a race apart" though. The peoples of the British Isles - English, Scots, Irish and Welsh - are the same race, as DNA testing confirms. Irvine22 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it? What source are you quoting? AJRG (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, a very unreliable one indeed:

Genetic history of the British Isles Irvine22 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is badly out of date and needs a rewrite. There's some evidence of regional genetic variation across the British Isles though, in genetic terms, "race" is just a temporary clustering created by arbitrary (but visible) discontinuities.  I understood Bill Reid to be using the term colloquially. AJRG (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood him to be using it to suggest that there is a racial distinction between Lowland Scots and Highland Scots, which is obviously incorrect. Irvine22 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * R1b1c7 (R-M222+) varies from East to West, so genetic differences do exist. The cultural differences are probably more obvious. AJRG (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are "genetic differences" between siblings, doesn't mean they're from different races. Irvine22 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A single genetic difference that turned skin green would create a new "race", whereas major genetic differences that had no visible expression would not. AJRG (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can "Scottish Gaelic" truely be considered a "native" language? Its really just the result of Irish colonialism in the Highlands and the displacing of Pictish culture during the Middle Ages. I suppose the world at least knows what Scots and Imperial Erse sounds like, but Pictish is lost for all time. I began learning Gaelige once (curious of how my grandfather would have spoken) and then realised that it was pretty much a useless tokenist exercise. Besides most of the stuff worth reading is in Old Irish anyway and a lot of people who have learned the language are unfortunetly republicans, whom I'd rather not talk to. As a rule of thumb, its best to learn languages which count a plethora of attractive women among its speakers, all you need is French (they're too classy to learn English!), Spanish and Italian... maybe Arabic. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that Oppenheimer's work is controversial, its a 101 Anthropology mistake to confuse race with ethnicity. Especialy as culture is now regarded by a lot of biologists (Odling-Smee et al) as a form of exaptation. -- Snowded  TALK  19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@Irvine22. No, the point I was making was that the people of the Scottish and English Marches were basically the same people and nothing to do with ethnic differences between Highland and Lowland Scots.
 * Yes, and the point I was making is that the people of the British Isles are basically the same people. Irvine22 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We're all human... AJRG (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@Yorkshirian. I suppose Gaelic is as native to Scotland as English is to England. Same difference I would say. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gaelic is not native to Scotland; the language was brought there from Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you give talks on YouTube? Where? -- Evertype·✆ 17:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is one here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Miwb92eZaJg and others around it -- Snowded  TALK  19:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using Wikipedia as an advertising forum? AJRG (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Answering a question from an editor with a higher degree of maturity than you are displaying. -- Snowded TALK  06:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Playing the man instead of the ball? You're quick to upbraid others for advertising (diff), so it seems appropriate to point out when you do it yourself. AJRG (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you make content free contributions with no substantive intend or purpose then you must expect such a response. If someone asks me a reasonable question on my talk page I will answer it.  If you want to add gratuitous comments I will to a degree tolerate it (as I think you are just exhibiting juvenile foolishness rather than behaving with any malicious intent) but I reserve the right on my own talk page to respond as I see it.  If you ever find me advertising on an article talk page, or taking the initiative to promote any of material here then you might have a point.  As it is you don't.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. AJRG (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You really need to learn the basics of wikipedia and common etiquette for that matter. If you think you are right then raise a complaint if not shut up -- Snowded  TALK  13:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been rather rude if you hadn't answered the question. Jack forbes (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)