User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 20

EDL
Heya, just checking - what is the rationale behind reverting this. I'm not sure that "contrary to the near-exclusively white attendance at its protests", removing data from sources & adding uncited/frivolous material does the article many favours :) Just checking - I don't want to rm it again if you had specific reasoning but I think it really needs discussing on the talk page prior to re-addition. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (I'm guessing it might be a mistake btw, sorry if that didn't come across) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was and thanks for spotting it! -- Snowded  TALK  18:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. The best one I managed was hitting rollback by accident on my iPhone on AN/I... that was fun... :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I came within an inch of using rollback by accident on a member of arbcom - maybe a new wikipedia article! -- Snowded  TALK  18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

request for clarification
I have made a request for clarification which mentions you. Please find the request here:. aprock (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that was premature before the ruling is issued -- Snowded TALK  19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Keeping promises
Thanks for keeping your promise to help keep my mischievious self, under control. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're correct though. Provacative editors (like LM) do tend to stur me into wanting to get under their skin. Sorry. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It takes a sinner to know a sinner -- Snowded TALK  20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Up until January 2010, I would've showed up at LM's page & asked where he was. I've improved some, since then. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True -- Snowded TALK  20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for not coming to my defence Snowded. I'll try not to do the same for you in future. Jack1297 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jack - what are you referring to? I've only been on briefly for the last couple of days so I may have missed something.   Where have you been attacked?  -- Snowded  TALK  22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ach! sorry Snowded if I've gone off on one. Take a look at my talk page. Jack1297 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, in case you are still monitoring, I really don't have any idea who you think Jamesinderbyshire is, and I haven't seen any evidence of disruptive behaviour. I don't think his edit summary was helpful, but I think he should be asked to explain it.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I was just trying to make a joke, but apologies all round if I've inadvertantly offended. I was referring to what looked like an indef block on Jack Forbes that was then reversed and the "sockpuppet" thing was perhaps a rather ill-advised witticism. I'm not "anyone else" as far as I know Jack and certainly not anyone you know, we've never met in Wiki-land before. I've been a long-time user of WP and kept up with development of it, but only been an editor for a year or so. Hope this helps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Teach by a positive example
Teach by a positive example, Snowded. Show me. You have no authority to tell anyone what to do here. There is plenty of serious, productive work to get down to. I suggest we focus on that rather than create more drama. Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Learn to live by the rules Triton. If you break WP:BRD then you create the drama.   If you persist in using people's real names rather than their IDs you break another rule (and you've been formally warned on that one).   You have no right to impose your material on a page when other editors oppose it,  you have to DISCUSS it, and you have to learn to work with others.   If you can't do that you are going to end up with an indefinite block. -- Snowded  TALK  07:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the facts speak for themselves - Snowded, long established editor, 15 and a half thousand edits since 2006 and no blocks, respected by quite a few other editors I think, including me, although we don't always agree on issues. Triton Rocker, 1100 edits since March, 5 blocks and counting and annoying lots of editors. You need to find a blog or something similar I suspect Triton, unless you can radically alter your approach to other editors. Strong opinions are one thing but repeated accusatory behaviour of this sort, quite another. We don't have to be admins to see that very clearly and to tell you so. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Terminology of the British Isles
Howdy Snowy. If TR wants to argue on talkpages or go overboard on civilty? I've no concerns. But his willingness to edit-war, is now intolerable (see ANI). GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he's been given enough chances -- Snowded TALK  20:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wagner
Thanks for your suggestion - but see my comments. Everyone 'has Jewsih friends'. W's were not key elements in his life and don't belong to a header summary in my opinion - that gives them a rather artificial high profile. --Smerus (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wales
I have put the Wales article forward for GA status. It just needs tweaking, and maybe a heavy-handed swipe from outside to get it in place. I am writing to those who are constant contributors and defenders of Wales and Welsh articles, to not scream at me for doing this, but to help get the article through. If we fail, we fail, there is nothing wrong with that; but Wales should be a Good Article at least and if it takes good intentioned amateurs to reach that then so be it. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the usual issues with HK
Hi Snowded, I wonder, if you have a minute could you take a look please at the latter half of the discussion with HK here on my talk page? I am interested in your view - do we have the start of a well-defined framework there, subject to HK's further clarifications? I am interested in seeing if notwithstanding the inevitable counter-arguments, we can between us come up with something we can consistently defend. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit distracted at the moment with two big contracts that need definition - will aim to have a look see Thursday -- Snowded TALK  21:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks a lot. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Democratic socialism
Please kindly do not leave messages on my User talk ever again, if you are going to falsely and maliciously accuse me of being an IP vandal (I have a username for a reason). Also, please get the vaguest of clues about political ideologies.--Autospark (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please grow up -- Snowded TALK  20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker & Irvine22
Hmm, you've got me wondering. The TR account is acting quite similiar to how the Irvine account behaved. In effect using the 'pedia & those within it as play things for his amusement. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Remember Irvine's parting shot at Wikipedia & Jimbo? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Time zones s/he edits on are the same as well. Not sure if there is enough for a SPI but I am thinking of it.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how often Triton is blocked, one wonders if an SPI is necessary. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The latest comment posted at ANI is classic Irvine22, maybe an SPI is not a bad idea -- Snowded  TALK  08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, an SPI result will end any suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE templates
I think the issues you raised have been addressed, and currently you're the only dissenting voice (well, your support is conditional). Are you satisfied with the template as it is now?

Reason I ask is, I'm not necessarily planning on formally closing the poll: if a new issue arises and there's obvious support for the template I'll recommend we give it a test drive. TFOWR 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No objections -- Snowded TALK  16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland
Thank you Snowded your support on this issue is always welcome, I seem to be incurring a backlash for my somewhat passionate response!--NorthernCounties (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please revert this edit for the following reasons :
 * I have made proposals  4  Weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples
 * The tagging was not drive by, I discussed my intention at User talk:TFOWR before tagging it.
 * I posted to both the Talk page and Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 * the tag says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", as it has not been resolved it should not be removed.


 * Codf1977 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of withdrawing it. Your are editing in a provocative manner and inserting pointless tags on a stable article.  You have made no case for a POV tag.  Prior proposals for insertion of BI have been discussed within the community of editors on those articles and there is no consensus for insertion.  You may not like that, but your recourse is to raise proposals and discuss changes on the talk page.  You also badly need to get a sense of proportion, the use of a minor geographical label while it may have tokenistic significance for you is hardly enough to challenge the POV of the article.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me the British Isles is mentioned at Great Britain. Therefore, the term should be mentioned at Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then he can make a case for its use, todate proposals have not achieved consensus.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather exclusion, then pipelinking. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your abusive behaviour
Please don't leave hypocritical warnings and offensive comments on my talk page in future. Such behaviour is abusive bullying and will not be tolerated. Afterwriting (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you edit war, refuse to follow WP:BRD and now fail to abide by WP:CIVIL then you will get warnings and eventually more blocks -- Snowded  TALK  13:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism
I have offered a compromise text to the one currently being warred over, would you consider giving your thoughts on it? I think a section on influential libertarian`s a good idea and that Michael Otsuka also be included as an influential proponent of left-libertarianism, what do you think? mark nutley (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are happy with the result, at least in principle. The Otsuka article looks to be a stub, but I have no objection to that as an addition.  Thanks for attempting to explain BRD to BlueRobe,  It think it will take a few more attempts to get it through however.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE & waiting periods
Howdy Snowded. Yep, 3 months is acceptable. Also, I've informed LB that his proposed additon to Great Britain & Ireland, must also be proposed for Channel Islands & Isle of Mann. If we're considering adding BI? it's gotta be consistant. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on time - for BI, its worthy of note somewhere on all four articles but its not significant enough to be in the lede on any -- Snowded TALK  17:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been brought to my attention (by Dai), British Isles was added to the article Isle of Man, without any apparent consensus. I don't recall the article-in-question becomeing a BISE case, ether. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sneaky, that is breaking the rules. I have reverted it -- Snowded  TALK  17:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From now on any proposal of additon/deletion of British Isles from 1 of the 4 articles (GB/I/IoM/CI) should be for all 4. Afterall, those 4 places are the bases for the argument that Britain and Ireland isn't an accurate alternative to British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Acts of Union
I've been working on the Law section of the Wales article and noticed Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 looked odd. The Acts always seem to be referred to as having been passed in 1536 and 1543 (John Davies and Gwenllian Lansdown for example). Although the full texts from the UK Statute Law Database (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517920&versionNumber=1 here) and (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1518015&versionNumber=1 here) and the article title refer to 1535 and 1542. Any idea why? Daicaregos (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting one that. The Encyclopedia of Wales talks about the Acts of  "Union" of 1536 and 1543 and has some interesting stuff about the abolition of the Council of Wales and the Marches in 1689 which finally integrated fully with the English system of circuits.  Everything was still up in the air until 1769 (and the Great Sessions were not abolished until 1830).  Monmouth sent its cases to London which is another factor in that old chestnut.

So I think 1536 and 1543 is it as we have three third party sources. DIfference might be Royal Assent? Best to post all the above on the talk page and ask. I note that Wales is described as a country in the act ... -- Snowded TALK  17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a guess - Old Style and New Style dates ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could be, whatever it seems we should go with the Third Party sources? -- Snowded  TALK  17:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm right, a parallel might be Bristol Channel floods, 1607 - contemporary records gave the date as 1606, because the new year started on March 25 rather than Jan 1 - but nowadays they are referred to as taking place in 1607. It's quite possible that different sources are confused because they haven't all taken the calendar change into account.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably right here. However we have the Encyclopedia of Wales and John Davies (bows head in awe) using 1536 and 1543 and I think (If I am not confused) that means they probably took the shift into account. -- Snowded  TALK  17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or.. I could be wrong. This British Library document (p.8) says: "Although Wales was incorporated into England by the Statute of Wales 1284 (12 Edw.1 Stat. Wallie), it was another two-and-a-half centuries before it received parliamentary representation. This was effected by the Laws in Wales act 1535 (27 Hen.8, cap.20), actually passed in 1536 and otherwise called the Union with Wales act...."  There are othr sources (maybe less reliable) which say it was passed in 1535 but not enacted until 1536 - but they may be confused as well.  And, to confuse you even more, see footnote 74 here.  Not much help am I?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats closer to my original speculation - enacted rather than royal assent but same principle. Either way, third party sources!  Regardless of the reason do you agree with the change?-- Snowded  TALK  17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many more Google hits for <"Laws in Wales" 1535 1542> than there are for <"Laws in Wales" 1536 1543>.  I'm not claiming that should be definitive, but we do need to bear in mind what readers are most likely to look for.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer authoritative sources to google hits. Also a redirect handles the search?-- Snowded  TALK  17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was all discussed on the article talk page back in 2005. We should go back and look at that, and propose any further changes there, IMHO.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense - 2005 was before my time here! -- Snowded  TALK  18:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of summarising the discussion when you copied it across. Feel free to delete it if you'd rather - whichever is clearer.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, this seems to give the official answer - the Laws in Wales Act 1535 and the Laws in Wales Act 1542. End of story, I think - there can't be anything more authoritative than the Chronological Table of Statutes, where those titles come from, can there?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary not secondary source. Not so sure -- Snowded  TALK  21:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think primary sources were ruled out if they provide an authoritative answer. What's needed is some explanation of why there is confusion over the dates, which we haven't pinned down.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well so far its either the calendar or enactment -- Snowded  TALK  21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you support removing the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy from the libertarianism article?
i see you point about it being a collection of essays. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to view it as a source which needs backup. Some of the essays are good, some obviously partisan so any reliance on it is a bit iffy.  Given its nature I would expect to find supporting material in one of the major Philosophical encyclopedia's or dictionaries-- Snowded  TALK  09:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case
Hello, Snowded! While you're certainly not a suspect, your name has been mentioned in a sock puppetry case. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/LevenBoy for more. Thank you :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I paranoid? Yesterday, a day-old account comments at the SPI & today, an IP account (not used in 4 months) suddenly dives into the BI stuff. Again, am I paranoid? GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No you're not, we have 2/3 sock farms in operation at the moment -- Snowded TALK  14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They're only hurting their cause. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, they're also hurting the encyclopaedia ... Fmph (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- Snowded TALK  15:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruption continues


Edits like this do not seem to indicate that 2 days of grace will be worthwhile. Your thoughts? BigK HeX (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to see that hat consumed!  I've given him some advise as promised, lets see what happens.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With this edit coming after the sound advice you attempted to give, it looks like you'll have your headgear entertainment... BigK HeX (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I did my best to fulfill the contract. -- Snowded TALK  09:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Labour
I see Ed won, i seem to recall you saying you supported him? Congrats. That was soooo close lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes was pleased about that one, got it on the iPhone on the way to see Faust at the ENO so multiple metaphors -- Snowded TALK  09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting all the stuff on BBC R4 this morning hinting at his "non-Christian-ness" - lots of subtle and not so subtle points about Labour losing it's "christian socialist roots" etc. I think we can expect more of the same. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
I'm wondering on what basis you say, in regard to Ayn Rand, "There is a debate about whether she is even a philosopher given that she doesn't appear in any of the major dictionaries and encyclopedias and just has the odd reference in Universities receiving grants from Objectivist institutions." And, under the hat, "I made the point early that the editors of all the major philosophical directories and encyclopedia do not include here [sic] in any way."

I provided the link to the SEP.

Here's the IEP, and here's what we say about it.

Most importantly, here's Routledge.

I'm certainly not accusing you of trolling! I am suggesting you are mistaken. --Yopienso (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comments earlier on this talk page about the SEP. The IEP suffers from similar issues and reading the entry seems more dubious.  "major intellectual" in particular;  she doesn't appear in the Oxford overview of American Literature for instance.   I'd need to see the text on Routledge to form an opinion.   When this was being debated we went through most of the major encyclopedia/directories at the time there was nothing in anything European produced/edited and little or nothing in American ones.   I don't include Objectivism per se here which has some respectable Philosophers.  Ssome of them such as Nozick are critical of her as a philosopher.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The SEP is a peer-reviewed encyclopedia published by one of America's leading institutions.


 * As to Rand's being a "major intellectual," certainly she was; this doesn't mean she was rigorous or correct. The Ayn Rand Society itself is "a professional society affiliated with the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division."


 * If you want to know what Routledge says, just click on the link I provided! :)
 * Here's Oxford's article on Rand as a writer.


 * As Dave Snowden, private citizen, proud Welshman, independent thinker, you are of course free to disagree with peer-reviewed articles written by experts and to ignore Routledge and Oxford and form your own opinion. As Wikipedian Snowded, however, you are obliged to acknowledge what the RSs say. --Yopienso (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware there is no current content issue to which this exchange relates, although you seem to feel free to deliver short homilies from somewhat shaking foundations
 * SEP has been questioned by several editors here (and elsewhere) it is patchy in quality. Supporters of Rand tend to seize on it as it appears to give her some credibility
 * Your link to Routledge simply directs to a page from which I might be able to buy it, not to any specific material on her
 * She is not a major intellectual, she is only acknowledged in a very limited constituency. The affiliation of the Ayn Rand Society does not establish that she is or isn't an intellectual let alone say anything about her quality or lack of.   The issue with reliable sources is that few philosophers take her seriously so little or nothing is written on her.  The few who have note (to take one example) that she either did not read or did not understand Kant given the general ignorance of her comments.
 * If it is really necessary I might be prepared to go back to all the various evidence that was assembled on Her, if it wasn't the Oxford one it was another where we would have expected to find her listed.
 * I note you did not respond on Nozick
 * A degree of rigor and not being blatantly incorrect would be in my definition of a "major intellectual"

Basically we have someone who wrote a few books, generally panned by critics, who failed to gain any significant recognition as a philosopher in her own time or subsequently. She did however gather a cult following in some parts of the USA. If it wasn't for that and the funding of various Rand orientated institutions (to the University of Texas for example) then you could delete "significant" from the above. Now I generally hold open house on my talk page, but I am not sure where you are trying to go with this exchange. -- Snowded TALK  18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but...
...I confess I laughed at this. I know it's not funny, but... Reverted, anyway! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some improvement on originality over his last attempts - Womble would have been a compliment, I always liked Orinoco -- Snowded TALK  20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "baldie" edits were beneath me to comment on, or raise again on this talk page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK by me, happened just after pubity (mothers genes and all that), excellent for getting into pubs at an early age .....-- Snowded TALK  20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you got to put it to good use. As for "your" page, it seems like you may be under tripod attack - I wonder if it should be protected or something? I won't speculate as to which of the recently banned "editors" is spawning the joke accounts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Normal culprit I think with maybe a new one. And you are really getting into tacky SciFi now! My. First iPhone edit by the way-- Snowded  TALK  21:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It can never be too tacky for my taste. Probably why I have Blackberry, not iphone. I did try doing an edit from Blackberry, but it took about 45 mins to load the diff. Shame it can't all be handled via Wapedia, so much quicker. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere ya look, there's comedians. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF
I would ask that you assume good faith per WP:Civility in light of this post by you at the talk page of the British Empire. As far as I am concerned, I do not think and RfC is an appropriate way to move forward as I have always worked within WP policies as I know them. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have a particular concern that you would like to address with me. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think you are being disruptive. Raising the status of the article was a clear bit of game playing and that is before we move onto your lobbying of other editors who you thought might favour your perspective.  I have my own issues with the article, including the fact that I think it needs to deal more with some of the "sins of both omission and commission" of the British Empire.  However you are not going about this is the right way.   I will also address issues on the talk page of the article, as I have already done. -- Snowded  TALK  06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain
Hello there. I just sent my first message to another editor and now I am sending almost the same point to you. I hope this is helpful. As a bit of a history buff, I think it is just plain wrong to call the state created in 1707 the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. The original Treaty and the two Acts that ratifies it make clear that the new state was to be called 'Great Britain'. If we wish to describe this state in a more detailed way, the Scottish Act of Union as well as the original Treaty both refer to great Britain as the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' - the English Act alone referes to the 'united Kingdom of Great Britain', with a small 'u'. I do not believe it appropriate to ignore the weight of original evidence that 'United Kingdom' was the intended description of the new state of Great Britain.

Kindest regards, 86.156.2.149 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Then make the case on the talk page of the article concerned -- Snowded TALK  06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not an admirer of mine
See Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had runins with him as well - time to sort this one out I think -- Snowded TALK  12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably the best thing to do is sort out these and any related articles, then see what reaction, if any, there is. Maybe there won't be any reaction. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's not just him, see this recent edit . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The odd US romantic as well who wants there to be a noble house of Wales, Saunders Lewis all over again.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC
It would be nice indeed of the process was respected, you just did a blind revert did`nt you? Your disruptive behaviour on this RFC is appalling, i have had to reset the whole thing due to three editors not knowing how this process works. mark nutley (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are an involved editor, its very simple really -- Snowded TALK  20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i am, now go look at the bottom of the talk page at the reset RFC, tell me what you see please mark nutley (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC
 * I've added a comment - you are forum shopping, Tediously raising a resolved point yet again.  Strong POV editing on multiple articles Mark.  You need to reflect on it a bit or your block log will have some more additions.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusations of forum shopping are a PA, this is not what i am doing. Now that you looked i am hoping you saw the bit Argument For - (would an involved editor please put arguments for here thanks) This is for an involved editor to make an argument for inclusion. This is how an RFC works. Now please tell me, were exactly is this against policy? You think they belong in the article? Make your argument and the RFC can launch mark nutley (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark you are attempting to keep raising the same issue again and again, and you are also editing from a strong POV on several articles. I'm not the only one to tell you that and sooner or later you are going to have to pay attention and either change your behaviour or end up with a long term block.  Three editors now (of whom I am one) have challenged you on the legitimacy of this RfC.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the RFC, there is a spot for one of you guys to make an argument for inclusion of the group. This is how i was shown to do an RFC be a highly experienced editor. Why will one of you not make your argument for? mark nutley (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User Snowed I suggest you stop threatening good contributors with allegations that they will be long term blocked. We are short of quality contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Short of quality contributors agreed but while Mark has that potential his behaviour on Libertarianism and also the wars list is disruptive.  I'm not threatening, I'm giving advise.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowed tell me why you will not just add a comment to Argument For - (would an involved editor please put arguments for here thanks) it would quite simply stop all this crap. Why is this so hard for you to get? mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to take part in a disruptive and unnecessary process Mark. You are playing games and wasting time all round.  You might want to close off the argument and delete it before you make a fool of yourself -- Snowded  TALK  21:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * user snowed You are so far from neutral to be unable to give advice to Mark, ow watch out you will be long term blocked is not advice it is a empty partisan threat. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was advice pure and simple Off2rio, Mark can listen to it or ignore it as he sees fit.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to tell you what I think but policy restricts me. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowed, the disruption was caused by you and two others messing with the first RFC a clear breach of talk page guidelines i might add. Tell me why you moved my comments from the first one? mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Off2rio - nice to know you accept some restrictions and if you check it out you will find I am far from the first person to give similar advise to Mark. Mark, you need to read the various comments on the talk page. -- Snowded  TALK  04:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Plaid Cymru‎
Just edited this one also, removing the OR there.
 * Looking like a crusade really, added that one to the watch list -- Snowded TALK  12:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned in an ANI
Your behavior at Talk:Libertarianism has been mentioned at this ANI: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (as of right now, it's the last comment in that section). --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How many of your feet to you intend to assault with a shotgun? -- Snowded TALK  18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India...
Glad someone else sees the huge problems with this article after Zuggernaut's additions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's got one source that he is obsessed with. All help appreciated! -- Snowded  TALK  12:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking out loud
Wonder if this applies to any articles, or just the one (and for how long). Daicaregos (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India
Per your recommendation, I am now discussing the content that's been taken out on the talk pages. Please participate in the discussion at:

Zuggernaut (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd George
Hello. The reason I used a tag rather than editing was because I couldn't tell what the proper edit should be. The tag appears to have served its purpose; the article is now improved. You believe that our general readers, many of whom are not English, will know what be not heard means? I don't. It would be good if you could give a very brief explanation. It is well for you to believe that disestablishment is important but is it necessary to say it twice as happens now; section 'Member of Parliament' now says in paragraph one "he sat with an informal grouping of Welsh Liberal members with a programme of disestablishing and disendowing the Church of England" and in paragraph three "Lloyd George campaigned in Parliament largely on Welsh issues and in particular for disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England." But, y'know, whatever you think best... I'm not going to argue. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a note to look over the whole thing when you had finished editing -- Snowded TALK  16:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF? Disruption?
Hi, I am curious about what you're referring to in this comment, presumably in reference to my comment here.


 * "Born2Cycle, that is an over the top reaction and your metaphor a clear failure to assume good faith."

My metaphor about barring windows because of vandals is a clear failure to assume AGF? Like WP does not have vandals? Is acknowledging the existence of WP vandals now a violation of AGF? I made a very general statement which did not apply to anyone in particular, which is what AGF addresses.


 * "I can't see any disruptive behavior above."

I can't see any disruptive behavior in that discussion either, and made no reference to any. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, then why talk about vandals? -- Snowded  TALK  05:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I used "vandal" in the metaphor because of the double-entendre effect (vandals break into homes and disrupt WP). While the need for security bars on windows is against vandals, the alleged need for change in this case is not necessarily against vandals, but the metaphor still worked because the remedy in both cases is still "unsightly" (bars on windows; a formal/highbrow term, "sovereign state", instead of a common name term, "country"), whether the name-change protection is against intentional (vandal) or unintentional behavior.   Please do not be so quick with the trigger.  In my opinion, this comment was also presumptuous and inappropriate. Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to think about how your statements would be read by other editors, I wasn't the only one. I promise not to be quick with a trigger if you think more carefully about if you are presenting a target. :-)   As to the other comment, I was responding to a clear attack on other editors. Better he learns than we end up with an ANI case which would be a storm in a teacup.  That editor also has a history of commenting on editors for whatever reason and it needs to stop.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't make any remarks about any specific people. You did, and, justified or not, that kind of thing is probably best handled 1:1 on the user's talk page, not on the article talk page, don't you think?  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually a general accusation is worse which is why I raised it. -- Snowded  TALK  06:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any policies or guidelines against making broad generalizations like he did (i.e., "the problem is intentional misunderstandings by nationalist POV pushers") about no one specifically. Do you? But even if it is worse, why raise the issue of a specific contributor's behavior on an article talk page instead of on that contributor's talk page?  Seems like most guidelines, like this one, encourage doing so on the user's talk page.  Do you think that's good advice?  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to pay more attention to ANI and other cases then. Making a broad statement about other editors motivations is in effect a broad based attack which then allows people to say "Oh I didn't mean you" as a way of trying to avoid a breech of AGF;  it rarely works.  Its not acceptable behaviour, editors need to deal with content issues.  In the context of that page most new editors would read it as a direct comment on the editors taking the view that there country cannot be used as a synonym for a sovereign state (per reliable sources).  He chose to make perjorative comments on the talk page concerned, he should expect people to point out that such an approach is not acceptable behaviour.  He can simply strike the comments then the problem goes away.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Countries of Europe
Thank you for your good offices at Template talk:Countries of Europe, which seemed to be getting out of hand. Although I found one comment unintentionally funny as, apparently, I am hiding behind a rational argument. If only all editors would do the same. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete BISE
I assume you've seen this? delete proposal for BI task force (and therefore BISE). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Zuggernaut has now chosen to ask for a topic ban against me at ANI for Famine in India. Not sure how deeply I should get involved given the extraordinary cheek of it! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a comment - the last thing you should do is to stop editing the article. You are making a great contribution.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's obviously an attempt to "drive me out" here, but I won't be bullied. The really wierd thing about all this is that I was actually speaking for some of Zuggernaut's points at British Empire and trying to get them addressed despite some hostility directed against Z from other editors, yet here I am being attacked - clearly Z doesn't like to be thwarted to the least degree. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He called me an imperialist! If he doesn't change his behaviour then he will end up at ANI -- Snowded  TALK  18:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to be fair, you obviously are an imperialist lacky and running-dog - I've been able to tell that from the first edit of yours that I saw and any reasonable admin would unhesitatingly draw the same conclusion from a study of your editing history. Next week: How Wikipedia Works in Another Reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE
It's probably a too late to fix now, but have ya noticed we've got that BISE backwards? The cases should be brought to BISE's mainpage, not its talkpage. Thus discussion about BISE, should be at its talkpage, not its mainpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It works no need to disturb things! -- Snowded TALK  15:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I get your consent
Hi, The quote I put in Nietsche's biography is true and I think the reader should know what he thought about his "Polishness".

What do you think of it?

Kind regards, Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robveget (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should make your case on the talk page of the article -- Snowded TALK  16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

British people
I apologize, this may be a misunderstanding. It's already being discussed here, although no one's replied yet. As I mentioned later in the talk (which I posted first, before making any changes), I was being bold, updating the names with the changes in the collage. So far, no one has objected to the changes, but it's only been a day, and I'm eagerly awaiting some responses.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added back the changes to the caption. I'm not against your reversion, but the infobox needs to be consistent. It's just that, if you revert the caption, you need to revert the picture back first as well. If you're personally against the changes, or find my explanation above unconvincing, you're welcomed to revert again, just be sure to revert the picture along with the caption and not just the caption. --Hongkongresident (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't object to the changes, I think they are an improvement. However I would wait some days before implementing them and post a notice along the lines of "If no one objects in the next two days I will make the changes".   I'll leave it to you if you revert and do that or just wait and see what happens-- Snowded  TALK  08:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can these things be set up to periodically rotate from a pick-list or something? We have so many to choose from! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice idea but beyond my technical competence. Worth raising mind you -- Snowded  TALK  08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea, and some of the portals, like Portal:Video games, do implement their Featured Articles and Featured Pictures like that. As to how it is done, I'm not sure.--Hongkongresident (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We should probably carry this on at Talk:British people but it looks pretty complicated, involving timestamps and cache purges - I will take a closer look at it and try and figure out if it's difficult to run it on the picture blocks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are editors who love solving problems like this - maybe ask for help -- Snowded TALK  12:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, will have a poke around - I kind of might enjoy it myself, time is the usual problem for me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

MMN
Don't poke the bear. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was only saying don't block him on my account, he's a force of nature one just goes with the flow -- Snowded TALK  17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Complexity theory and organizations
An article that you have been involved in editing, Complexity theory and organizations, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India
I've addressed the concerns you have raised regarding Famine in India. Please let me know you are OK with the rephrased text and sources:

Zuggernaut (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE stuff
I need clarification. Am I allowed to add/delete British Isles on an article & then report my actions to BISE? According to Bj, this can be done. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is as Fauna guideline, otherwise it should be proposed at BISE first - or at least that is my reading -- Snowded TALK  21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy
Hi. I would have thought that BRD now applies in two directions on this particular article in this particular stage of discussion. Discussion is now progressing, with 3 editors, concerning the original concerns of 271828182 which were to do with sourcing and how we decide who is in. Your new proposal that we delete the whole section has come after this, and is itself a bold minority proposal that has not yet really be talked through. Can you please discuss it also, just the same as we asked 271828182 to discuss?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * BRD means that it would be wrong for me (or TFD) to delete the list Andrew and I am discussing it not deleting it. If you ignore that as a more recent and radical proposal (which is fine) then the question of who should be included and their order is not agreed just because three editors have started a discussion.  The stable version should stand.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to be pushy, hence my apologies for the reversion, but please do understand that I had no idea that you were thinking those edits were controversial. The practical problem that arises is that several edits, which to me still seem quite uncontroversial (and you have not argued against them?) become hard to reconstruct if someone rolls back a days work. So it is up to you what you do but I would hope you'll be a little flexible. The situation seems to call for some flexibility for the time being. There seems to be less justification for any edits which delete than for edits which add, because we are I think all aiming to build something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the list needs to be objective and balanced, so I specifically did not vote on the names. There is no drama in leaving the original list while a new one is worked out on the talk page.  The minute people start editing the main space when discussion is active problems happen.  You were right to revert TFD, you were wrong to amend the list.  My request for you to self-revert stands.   If you check the talk page, you will see I have started the process of ting to get to an objective list.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Rolling back a day's work of fairly minor edits by several editors, who did not know they had anyone who would disagree is not a simple revert for practical reasons, and if we can live without it then that will be more practical. Most of the edits were minor. You've explained no reason why Husserl should not be mentioned, whereas there is now strong sourcing given. I'll delete Rorty for now though. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You really are not addressing the issue of individual v comparison sourcing. -- Snowded  TALK  09:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I was. Can you explain further on the article talk page. I have been taking you to say that ideally, a source with a list would be best. We don't have one yet. On the other hand, I also understand your biggest concern would be going to individual sources about specific individuals. Such sources have a vested interest in calling their subject major, but encyclopedic ones have the opposite incentive, and so they seem a reasonable solution?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends how Encyclopedias are written. Those which are a series of essays suffer from the same problem as individual sources (and were used to support Rand as a philosopher by the way).  Histories are the only safe source -- Snowded  TALK  09:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India
Zuggernaut (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

no such "talk page agreement" exists
To delete 80% of the Communist terrorism article. Collect (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Its clear as far as I am concerned, if you disagree raise it on the talk page or use other remedies -- Snowded TALK  14:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Metaphysical naturalism
Hi, in the §Definition paragraphs, I recall one sentence that struck me as a creationist polemic, perhaps there were more in the quotes? I see the editor's contributions were recently removed from Naturalism, so it doesn't seem entirely right to delete them from Metaphysical naturalism because they were about Naturalism in general. (Some of the quotes about Americans requiring creation-friendly science were rather annoying). Anyway, I think the definitions clearly need more work, (especially the parts about the supernatural) but the article wasn't exactly a shining example of good philosophy to begin with... all in all, it seems that material, at least, could be improved rather than removed—of the two articles, I'd think the metaphysical one might be the better choice having read the talk page discussion, (which is a bit too animated for me) ...or maybe not, what would you say?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm open to some going back in. If you hadn't made some changes I might have done a full revert.  In haste as have early morning flight to US tomorrow so no time to review fully -- Snowded  TALK  23:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Having caught up on some of the context, I think you clearly made the right call.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Anglophobia
You re-added unsourced text. WP:V any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. FYI, WP:V is official policy, BRD is only an essay. WP:Stable is a long abandoned project. Your reversion has no grounds whatever in WP policy.

I'm within rights to revert you straight away. But since you so badly want this text, I'll give you a week to find a source which establishes its relevance. If not, it goes. If you keep going, I'll get the admins' opinion. BillMasen (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I restored material that has been there for some time, I did not restore the sentence which had a fact tag on it. Please stop issuing childish ultimata and empty threats.  You have always had far to combative a style on this article -- Snowded  TALK  01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So what? Because it has been unsourced for ages it gets to stay there? Ridiculous. The fact it has been unsourced for so long means it is more important to find a source, not less. See the discussion on the talk page.BillMasen (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence was unsourced and I agree with the deletion. The other material is relevant and easy for people to verify -- Snowded  TALK  03:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Signature block
Further to your comments on my User talk page, there is an error in your signature block. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checked it and all the links work -- Snowded TALK  13:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst the links may or may not work, your signature seems to be miscolored and misshaped. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, its called a font Justus and I like the colour. Yours is doomed to be red until you follow the advice given.  Its stands out like a sore thumb if you look at an edit history.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point, isn't it? You were complaining you couldn't find my posts. By now openly admitting that my name "stands out like a sore thumb", you are in fact contradicting yourself. Besides, your signature does seem to be not only deformed but also positively off color. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do wonder about your ability to comprehend English from time to time (well with increasing frequency would be more accurate).  I have not complained about not being able to find your posts, to be honest I wish I could stop finding them.  You need to create a user page or pipelink it, basic WIkipedia process, but then you ignore guidelines on OR & Synth so I suppose you will ignore that.  As to taste in fonts and colours, well as Tolkein said once "the praise of the praiseworthy is praise indeed", in this case the antithesis applies.  -- Snowded  TALK  15:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good try. However, if the antithesis applies to me, it surely applies to you first since you introduced the subject, right? Besides, as per your own admission, the color of my name does make it easier for you to spot my posts, an activity I note you have turned into your favorite pastime, not to say fixation. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It simply established that trying to help you is a waste of time. Your signature block has an error in it but you don't want to acknowledge it, your editing a little more than OR and SYNTH with the occasional reference through in mostly out of context.  Several of us tried to help but you don't want to know.  Definite Troll and a pretty immature one at that.   Now I have wasted enough time here  Go away and try to learn -- Snowded  TALK  02:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted that editor has just been blocked for a month for tendentious editing and personal attacks. -- Snowded TALK  02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Nations
I am having second thoughts about removing the flags for the article Celtic Nations, the reason in the first place for the removal was because there was no flag for Ireland as a whole, but Ireland is also the name for the Republic so it would actually be suitable to have the Tricolour representing Ireland as the Celtic nation.Sheodred (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the argument but I think you will have opposition as the flag did not predate independence -- Snowded TALK  11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lemon Boy"
Are you trying to make a point with your references to "Lemon Boy", or are you confusing "Leven Boy" and "Lemon Monday"? It certainly confuses me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A freudian slip, although I could almost wish I had thought of it at a conscious level -- Snowded TALK  11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Howabout 'LevenMonday'? GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Snowded - I think your last edit on the BI talk page was too hurried - you need to amend the last sentence to make sense :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of doing it for him. His intention was clear so no need to waste time waiting for a self correction. LemonMonday    Talk   21:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I had to do a double take on that, hahaha. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One should never edit when badly jet lagged! Thanks -- Snowded  TALK  23:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I only wish I could suffer from jet lag! (sigh......) Despite the rigours of that physical state, it surely beats the tedious routine of boredom!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't think so if you sent over 150 days a year (240 last) in the air and slept on planes at least once a week.  One hotel and airport lounge are much alike.  OK you get the odd chance to make a side trip but most of the time its a lot less romantic.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments
At 05:44, 17 November 2010 I made the Merger proposal entirely clear even for those too lazy to look at the topic. (As per previous deletion discussion. Reduce and merge with Terminology of the British Isles).

At 11:21, 17 November 2010 you left a couple of fairly supercilious comments. "I'm not going hunting over your myriad contributions as an SPA on this subject ... Oppose for the moment until Lemon Monday/LevinBoy gets their act together".

Since 03:30, 16 November 2010, the merger had been entirely clear for anyone that actually looked at the article.

I appreciate that you may have been suffering from Jet lag as you say above but you would either explain to me what is in anyway unclear about the tag and "Reduce and merge with Terminology of the British Isles)", or apologise and strike out your comments. Thanks. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but "reduce and merge" is far too general a proposition, you need to be specific. So I'm happy to explain it but not apologise or strike (and this is about the limit of the explanation.  Its a dead subject anyway  and I really think you need to edit in other fields to avoid this SPA obsession with BI -- Snowded  TALK  16:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick to ask not so quick to give one. I'm still waiting..... Bjmullan (talk 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Failure of logic BJmullan. You placed a false comment in the wrong place trolling a RFC policy discussion. I gave you notification and asked you to move it. You ignored me showing bad faith. I moved the question to the concurrent RFC where it belonged and answered it politely there. There is nothing for me to apologise for. I did your work for you. That's three bad strikes against you and three good ones for me.
 * With Snowded, the context is different. Recently, he has consistently been layering on insults against me; "tedious ... tendentious ... paranoid" etc and now "obsessed". His response to the clearly marked merger was fairly insulting, the timestamps showed it was clearly marked. --LevenBoy (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, apart from something to do in airport lounges and when you are on your own in hotel rooms, what do you get out of this British Isles thing? What is it all about for you? --LevenBoy (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Very revealing question LemonBoy, says a lot about how you view motivation -- Snowded TALK  13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then why not just answer it instead of avoiding answering it? --LevenBoy (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I always answer valid questions LevenMonday -- Snowded TALK  23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You meant LevenBoy, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh of course, silly me getting them confused like that -- Snowded TALK  06:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you are doing it on purpose and request that you don't do it again. Thanks. LemonMonday    Talk   18:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an appropriate Jedward-like portmanteau to me 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Its so easy to confuse the pair of you Lemon/Levin; the same style of names, the same editing patterns on the same pages, the same behavioral change at the same time ...    -- Snowded  TALK  22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Leven. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded please don't do this - it's not helpful and not civil. I understand how difficult it is to deal with single-purpose accounts but please try to avoid comments like the above directed at LemonMonday and LevenBoy-- Cailil  talk 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Snowded raises a very good point - the miraculous behavioural change on both these accounts at the same time - and the AN/I report was archived with no actions even though some admins were going to take an action. All very strange the way some disruption is allowed to continue...and then everyone wonders why the BISE area is under a constant barrage of complaints...  --HighKing (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To clear all doubts, have an SPI on them. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We had an SPI, and the admins/clerks agreed that the behavioural evidence was pretty convincing. But there's a tactic whereby "friends" of the accused fill the SPI (or AN/I, etc) with off-topic rantings (usually by going off on a "British Isles" or anti-HighKing rant) which appears to successfully make the admins lose interest and wander off.  Even the recent AN/I was just at the point of taking action until more anti-HighKing commentary resulted in the whole thing petering out.  Why don't you file an SPI this time - perhaps your mileage will be better than mine?  --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant Snowded get an SPI going. I don't know how to do those things & if I did, it would be for LM & LB's sake. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * HK seriously drop it. This is thoroughly inappropriate use of the talk-space. Talk-pages are not for the expression of opinions about others. Either open a full and proper CU again or don't. But either way drop it on talk-pages-- Cailil  talk 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Snowded for cluttering up his Talk page (that's the inappropriate use). But I'm not "expressing" my opinion of others, I'm simply repeating what has already been stated at the SPI and the AN/I.  If anything, I'm expressing my surprise/disgust at the manner in which, time and time again, SPI and AN/I notices are hijacked by friends of the accused  .... and then nothing happens.  I'd love to open a CU again ... but seriously, what's the point?  All that would happen is that the accused would go to ground, and get away with any behavioural transgressions - free to repeat again in the future.  It is not a breach of any policy to discuss this lack of action, and repeating the opinions expressed by admins, as it is the only avenue we have of expressing our opinion and deciding on whether there's any point in the charade of filing any more CUs and AN/Is, since inevitably they are *allowed* to be turned into a "British Isles" discussion or an anti-HighKing discussion.  And if I sound frustrated ... well ... look at the past week from where I'm standing.  We've gone from an editor reverting my correct and consensus-agreed edit on a resolved BISE topic, in breach of agreements and BISE procedures to DISCUSS before editing and reverting, all the way to a review of BISE and my wikireputation dragged thought the mud.  Again!  Enabled by ...?  With the threat (?!?) of a topic ban and going to Arbcom being casually mentioned along the way.  I simply don't understand, and it doesn't seem right.  --HighKing (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Response Sorry not have responded earlier, but I have been largely in transit for the past few days. Some comments: OK, now back to some real work -- Snowded TALK  08:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cailil, I think you are trying to do a good job on civility under very difficult circumstances and need support so for that reason and that reason alone I'll back off
 * That said if an SPA turns up on my talk page with nonsensical questions about motivation I don't think my response was unreasonable, on the talk page of an article less so
 * Personally I think the behavioral evidence (and stylistic evidence) or the names is enough. We have two SPAs editing in identical ways, and in the same manner as other established socks.
 * We have a history of Unionist socks avoiding using the same IP address.  Some like Irvine took over a year to trap, and then we had the gloating as to how they had fooled the community
 * In the case of these two XxxxxYyyyy named editors they do go to ground singly for extended periods if they start to get exposed.
 * Having put up with more than my fair share of abuse from these (included the now regular vandalism from Stauners) I don't think my reaction here was excessive
 * HighKing is right to say that every time an attempt to resolve this we get a storm of posts along the theme of "its all HighKing" including the abusive comments from Mick who looks likely to escape community sanction yet again (see the ArbCom request where I fully support Sandstein). OK past behaviour and a tendency to run to ANI too soon makes HighKing vulnerable to this charge but the simple fact is that HighKing has for the best part of two years complied with process and being civil.
 * Until we deal with SPAs who abuse Wikipedia process it is going to very difficult to make progress. It is all getting very similar to the Climate Change and other areas.  Maybe it needs a similar solution.  I'm happy to work with others to assembled material and make comment, but I am too involved to lead that
 * The only thing which has kept me from walking away from BI related matters over the last six months is the knowledge that the tactic of the SPAs is to drive any half way neutral editor away.
 * I understand and sympathize Snowded, but I sincerly recommend ignoring single purpose accounts who make disruptive comments - WP:DNFTT. There is nothing appropriate about accounts speculating on your motives and it is noted that that was done. Both of the accounts in question 'have their cards marked' so to speak. However the problem with goading them is that you'll loose other people who are not being troublesome but who agree with the content arguments of these accounts. That causes a problem for the topic by polarizing it and plays into the hands of those trying to disrupt it. If anyone comes here speculating on motives again tell me or another sysop-- Cailil  talk 15:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)