User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 21

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party (GB)
I saw you made this edit, and i would encourage you not to wp:bite the newcomer. They have made an honest effort to allow the addition of information to be to be verified, obviously you are unhappy about the source, and I think you should explain to this editor what they have done wrong, with reference to wp:rs rather than straight reverting, otherwise the cycle will continue, and the wikipedia project may lose a well meaning new contributor. 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you check the history you will see that we have had multiple attempts by IPs to make this change all of whom have failed to make any attempt to discuss. Looking at their talk page they have already attracted warnings for disruptive editing, so hardly a newbe  -- Snowded  TALK  16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing to this users talk page. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Clearly been agreed"
Not. Collect (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it has, the three of you just don't like it and keep saying no without reason -- Snowded TALK  03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! When people do NOT agree, it is newspeak to say that there has been "agreement"!  Thanks for the most interesting comment of the week. Collect (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Collect, but you are simply naysaying not taking part in a proper discussion, then you edit war. Its not acceptable try and learn -- Snowded  TALK  12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wales
Discussion has moved on a little here - I'd welcome your input. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA
You are being discussed at WP:WQA Collect (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another way to avoid addressing the content issues I see -- Snowded TALK  18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas
Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration, such as being subjected to a community ban. In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

Thought I'd kindly remind you of the wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Not entirely sure that two possible instances of stark disagreement can be perceived at patterns of hostility. I won't reply for the moment bed is calling me. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pleased you are aware of it. I have responded politely per the guideline to your attack by simply deleting your comment.   You need to pay attention to that policy as well as WP:BRD  and WP:WEIGHT.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

edit warring
You appear to be edit warring on the Unite Against Fascism article, in particular by multiple reverts of RS sourced material (see WP:RS/N for the current discussion). You may wish to self-revert at this point. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * lol the main edit warring was against the stable text without consensus in which you have been an active player.  You seem to think that you can ignore WP:Weight and the arguments of other editors.   I've put a compromise in place, if you are not happy with that it should go back to the stable version of several weeks ago until agreement can be reached.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a "consensus of one" at best. I think you should be well aware of why WP:V exists, and that fighting it does not work. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you look at the prior discussion its a 7-7 vote so you are being a little disingenuous to say the least. WP:V exists as does WP:WEIGHT which you conveniently ignore.  As to fighting, well just look at your edit history on the article -- Snowded  TALK  16:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BISE review
Hi Snowded I've been looking through a number of old ArbCom cases and other things as regards your suggestion of a 1RR on the topic. Most suggestions of this type were not implemented, the only exception to this I can find being at the Macedonia RfAr. My advice is this, go ahead with your planned reform of WP:BISE with out the 1 RR on topic. If problems start again let me or another sysop know. At that point we'll see whether a topic wide restriction is necessary or if one for certain accounts is more applicable. My reasoning being that as there is no current issue it would be very difficult to find support for a 'preemptive remedy' however logical it might be-- Cailil  talk 18:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I will draft something. Have been somewhat occupied with a few political articles the last week but that is hopefully coming to an end. -- Snowded  TALK  22:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

johnsy88

 * Snowded, please abstain from making any further comments on my user page or to myself. I am taking this matter further with regards to the way in which you correspond with myself and what i consider to be the abusive manner in which you ignore my attempts to talk on disccusion pages and make consistent accusations against myself claiming many things including that i am the arbitrator of edit wars and Non NPOV. This issue will now be passed on and you should be contacted shortly as i am no longer willing to discuss matters when you appear to not act in a civil manner Johnsy88 (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you fail to abide by WP:BRD and edit war then expect comments on your talk page. I've gone out of my way to engage with you on talk pages despite your refusal to answer inconvenient questions  -- Snowded  TALK  12:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded, just happened upon Long-term abuse/-Snowded and thought it should be brought to your attention, in case you are unaware. RashersTierney (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rashers. I've seen it, waiting to see if the editor actually does something with it, otherwise its noise.  Thanks for keeping your eyes open though!  -- Snowded  TALK  18:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom
I thought the argument was for keeping Welsh in the regional section of the infobox. Now that I know the argument is over the infobox's title? I'm flabbergasted. Are yas really trying to convince folks, the UK has 2 official languages? GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Flabber your gast as much as you want, but yes it does (although there is an argument that only Welsh is official, English is de facto but I think that is unfair). -- Snowded  TALK  19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * English is the only official language of the UK. It's the only language the Queen uses in her Throne speech & the only language I've ever heard the UK Prime Minister use. If you guys are trying to push Welsh as a co-official language (sources or not), then I shall depart the discussion with no further comment. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that the the Queen and current Prime Minister only use English. That has nothing to do with the fact that Welsh is an official language within the UK.  Please note the arguments and evidence on the talk page.  You were simply wrong to edit the article directly and you know it.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, I wasn't aware that was the argument being had (I didn't check the page's history). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You made contributions to the debate on the talk page yesterday and today. I assume those were not random?  -- Snowded  TALK  19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They weren't as I assumed the discussion was about keeping the regional language section of the infobox & which languages to keep in it. I hadn't noticed until today, that Welsh was erroneusly in the infobox's heading & figured it a no-brainer to delete it. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Best to read discussions rather than to make assumptions :-)  -- Snowded  TALK  19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon we've got nothing more to discuss on that topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * May I have an example of the 'all languages drop down' proposal? GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your compromise is acceptable. PS- Please, don't use the you snooze, you loose approach at those articles again. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not aware that anyone did GoodDay, as another editor has pointed out its a well watched article and after a month then that is enough. PS Please address content issues in future not your assumptions about the motivations of other editors.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, ya'll make it difficult to AGF. Thus the nature of the articles, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

10 December 2010
Hey Snowded, just to inform you that it takes two to edit war and another editor is doing the same stuff (and worse) too. Str1977 (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See talk page, there was a brief discussion as to which structure to take and my impression is we settled on Catherine's. You either contest that structure on the talk page, and appeal as you see fit if you do not get agreement, or you work within the structure at a more detailed level as I suggested.  I am happy to go through items one by one, but these mass changes cannot be countenanced. -- Snowded  TALK  07:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What? I surely contested that structure on the talk page. The only editors agreeing on Catherine's structure is yourself and Catherine herself. That's hardly consensus. I have explained all my edits before. Str1977 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is never a solution Str1977 and I put the warning in place so that a 3rr report can be made if you do it again. You need to properly contest the structure on the talk page, not just make some general comments and then put your position back in play at the end of the day.  Please take issues to do with the article to that talk page.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you appreciate my comments on talk. Let's hope Catherine will eventually respond contructively as well. Str1977 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

johnsy88 3rr
Thank you for taking the time to bring this to my attention. i look forward to the resolution of this issue

Johnsy88 (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an obligation to advise an editor when you report them for breaking Wikipedia rules. I followed that.  You still have time to self-revert and might in consequence avoid a sanction  -- Snowded  TALK  12:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BISE
I believe my statement on my talkpage, concerning 2 particular accounts, may have scared'em off. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not me. It's just that nothing's happening with British Isles deletions at the moment, and long may that continue, but I guess it won't. LemonMonday    Talk   17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly know how to wake up the dead. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've a sneaking feeling you've just wakened them up at BISE. And here's me thinking you'd given up on it. LemonMonday    Talk   17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you know if any BI related deletions were taking place? You've not been checking the contributions of the opposition again? Fmph (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The EDL and "every newspaper".
I'm not going to post this on NPOV/N, as it's an aside, but you are aware that the Star famously posted a pro-EDL story last year? Its sister paper the Express, and the Mail, both do the tacit "support them but make it look like we don't" thing.

Also, if we didn't need sources, I think it would be fair to say the UAF are left-wing. They are run by the SWP and Ken Livingstone, after all. And at least at the local level (in Leeds), the UAF do sit squarely on the left of the political spectrum (and actually do have opposition from some people in the centre). That said, sourcing is key on Wikipedia, so... Sceptre (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical of the tabloids! Its that sort of publishing which prevents them being reliable sources.   I think its fair to say that most activists in the UAF are left wing, and I did try and find a source on that as it would have been a way forward.  However I couldn't find one.  I also supported the idea of a section on the SWP and UAF if you check out the talk page.  However they still have support from the Right, and participation does not determine ideology and the RS material is clear.   On all of these Right Wing related disputes keeping to RS is about the only way of making progress.  As you say sourcing is key -- Snowded  TALK  05:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is interesting too. Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of that probably needs to go in the article. -- Snowded TALK  21:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your support - I was having a fractious day! Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is as much me to thank you as the other way round. I think we both had a build up of long term frustration there.  Hopefully it will modify behaviour.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's something about Canadians, I think - see also User:Varlaam and other mutual "friends". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya got to learn to be calm, like we Canucks. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't Canadians sometimes referred to as America's quiet neighbours? Anyroad, they are rather sedate when compared to the raucous Americans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are being calm GoodDay, despite the provocations -- Snowded TALK  16:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson and related articles
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK will look at it later and comment -- Snowded TALK  16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom
I fixed up the 2nd sub-heading of your evidence idea, at that languages discussion. It's more clearer & accurate now. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How's the evidence being presented? via postings of interpretation of references (as I did) or just listing of references to let others analize them? GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Both sides are interpreting the same references in different ways GoodDay, no references have been foound which clarify that issue so its a matter of policy -- Snowded TALK  16:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find (and I did look for) evidence of Welsh being an official language in Northern Ireland, Scotland & England. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect to find it GoodDay, you are missing the point -- Snowded TALK  16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, actually. It's obvious, we're are not in sinc, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No GoodDay, the point is that we have two different ways of interpreting the same source. You are repeating your interpretation ad nausiam,  I am trying to acknowledge the difference without judgement and get some decision on policy from the wider community.  Spend a little time reading and thinking, less time reacting and repeating and we might get somewhere. -- Snowded  TALK  17:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do read. Your interpratation is based on Wales being in the United Kingdom, which is an incorrect basis. Anyways, we'll let others commence with ironing things out. Obviously, we aren't budging from our stances. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, then perhaps instead of repeating your position on the talk page you would support the initiative I have proposed -- Snowded TALK  17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The compromise? it isn't my primary choice. That's alot of langauge versions added to the infobox heading, just to get one added. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is issue 2, PLEASE READ -- Snowded  TALK  17:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then its a problem of comprehension, you have my sympathy. Now please leave my talk page alone unless you have something new to say. -- Snowded  TALK  17:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Describing Wales as a constituent country of the UK? You're gonna give Dai a trauma, if ya do that too often. GoodDay (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well agree to the proposal rather than edit warring, I went out of my way to use neutral language.-- Snowded TALK  07:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your request "asking for evidence or withdrawal"
...on the UK talk page. I think it's probably irrelevant to the topic and so if you wish to continue that particular discussion it would be more appropriate to do so here. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a behaviour issue relating to the language you are using on the article so I have responded there. If it needs to move to another forum then that is not my talk page.  However as I write this I have seen the fifth Australian wicket fall so I am in a good mood -- Snowded  TALK  06:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely you aren't cheering for - omg - gasp - inger-land??? Snowded! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you check James you will find it is the England and WALES cricket board, its one of the occasions on which we have a joint team. The fact that many of the English are unaware of this and fly the flag of St George etc. just illustrates the problems of dealing with the remnants of any imperial power fallen on hard times -- Snowded  TALK  10:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahah, didn't know that! Explanation accepted by this much-declined imperialist and placed on the appropriately decaying mental shelf. I love Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its understandable as "England" is constantly used as a short hand even by the ECB. There are some interesting stories of Welsh players on overseas tours during the six nations having problems with their colleagues in the English team.  Mind you the one time Wales played England we won (and I was there) so we can be forgiving about the transgression in this case.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wales played England again the following year. But England won that time. I may be wrong, but choosing the best Welsh players to play for "England" may have had a bearing on the result. Plus ça change. and I was there too. Daicaregos (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't count that one as it was Wales remnants against England and Wales -- Snowded  TALK  11:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I think about it, I probably do dimly recall it being the English & Welsh, but as you say, it's hardly publicised. I suspect that sadly you are right and this is an example of typical English arrogance working out in culture and institutions. Shame really. I have to confess that in my ignorance I wasn't even really aware that there was a "Wales" cricket team. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't really. But there is an England and Wales Cricket Board - usually known as the ECB, and whose team is known as England. Daicaregos (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did they call it "Wales" when they had the England-vs-Wales match? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, although in effect it was Glamorgan. Worthy of note that a lot of good Glamorgan players have been ignored (Maynard being a prime example) because they didn't play for the fashionable counties.  Mind you that is also true of several English counties.   The Wales national cricket team has a list and come other comments.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

EU norms
I'm looking forwards to the next time you use the "it's how all the other EU articles do it" argument. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand that one, but if I am giving you hope for the future then I will consider my life so far worthwhile :-) -- Snowded  TALK  22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referencing your noticeable past tendancy to draw on the argument that as something is official in the EU, or appears regularly in EU articles in Wikipedia, it must so follow in the UK. Apart from, evidently, infoboxes. I hope to learn more as we go along. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made no statement that Welsh is an official EU language James. I responded to a question with some information.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the fact that all the other infoboxes of EU national members use official language but you seem to be settling for a "compromise" of not having that for the UK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, its a compromise on a very minor issue -- Snowded TALK  04:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see it as minor, because surely it's confusing. When people look up at that top bit of a country infobox, surely they "assume" that those are the country official language variants? That's why it matters. I'm surprised really at you, because you normally seem to be against these sort of wooly wikicomproms and in favour of intellectual rigour. Isn't it important that it aligns with what the other national articles do? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A minor issue? You wouldn't have hung around the discussion this long, if it were a minor issue. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I assume we're not going to hear much more from you now Snowded, by way of proof that it's so minor? :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors not learning to live with compromises on minor issues is a major issue or at least one worthy of dealing with. I would prefer alignment Andrew which is why I said in the early days that it should really be English and Welsh and possibly Scots Gaelic. -- Snowded TALK  04:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It should be English only. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're getting more and more like British Watcher GoodDay, statements about what the things finds/unacceptable, at least he engages with the argument.  Have you taken up British nationalism as a hobby? -- Snowded  TALK  06:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken up independantism/anti-develutionism as a hobby. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What will you move on to next after this one GD? BTW, to maintain pedantry, it's d-e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded might be frustrated about the UK infobox heading. But, nowhere's near as frustrated as I am about the Canadian provinces & territories infobox headings. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the time I spend in Alberta,Nova Scotia and Montreal it may be time to turn some attention to Canadian articles ...-- Snowded TALK  17:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there another "in" or "for" argument to be had over there? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubt it, with the odd exception Canadians are polite, literate and able to appreciate subtlety. I emphasis "the odd exception"  -- Snowded  TALK  17:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wondered if there was something that required consistency and logic. GoodDay, what is the problem exactly? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Quebec & perhaps New Brunswick, the rest of the provinces & territories don't have official languages. Yet a French version of the names are on the infobox headings, 'cuz Canada's official languages are English & French. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strange that British Columbia has the French but Ontario doesn't. Has it been battled over much? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ontario is the same in French as in English. Yeah, these have been fought over before, where the names were different in each language. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a little confusing that where it's the same, eg, Canada/Canada, there is no word below the English one, as it hints that the official languages are not present - it would probably be better in the infobox design if the official language variants appeared in a different colour and were used even when spelt the same. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did suggest a smaller font for Welsh some time ago on the UK article -- Snowded TALK  18:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something to remember and take forward when we seek external discussion on this point. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The French version should be swept from those provincial/territorial infobox headings (in fact all 13, if I had my way). GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on earth, French is an official language in Canada, and without their support in 1812 you would be living in an American state I'll put them all on watch now -- Snowded  TALK  18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My chances of getting the French versions deleted, are as good as nailing jelly to a wall. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is the reverse to the Welsh in the UK one GD - French and English are official languages of Canada no controversy, so does that take them into the Provinces? What does Canadian law say about it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever I have been introduced in British Columbia or Alberta at Government events French has been used in the announcement and the literature -- Snowded TALK  18:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the argument my opposers have thrown at me, that the Canadian Constituion & Federal Government has the final say. PS: If we're crowding your talkpage with this Canuck stuff? feel free to transfer it to my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its fine GoodDay, I spend a lot of time in Canada and have good friends in provincial government in the Maritimes and the West. I even spend time with Alberta separatists ...-- Snowded  TALK  18:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of watchlists, I think I'm under Dai's radar. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know what Canadian law does say about use of French and English in each Province GD? Just wondering. Had another thought in this debate Snowded. If your position (not saying it is, but if) is that non-official or even all regional official languages should be infoboxed in list form, what will happen in national articles like China where the position is extremely complicated with dozens or hundreds of recognised languages? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Quebec, none of the other provinces or territories (to my knowlege) legislatures, passed laws proclaiming English/French as official languages. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I would use a drop down box there with sub-headings! -- Snowded  TALK  20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It gets pretty damn silly. I suspect this is one of the reasons why regional languages don't make it to national infoboxes. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you have to look at the number. South Africa has 11 if I remember aright, a drop down for that would make sense.  If you start to go into 100s its a different matter, but a well defined format would be far from silly -- Snowded  TALK  20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a drop-down of other languages for Quebec? GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom (part II)
I wish you to know. I'm not a bloke who's possessed with 'stirring the pot'. Common-sense has driven me towards my 'English version only' stance at that infobox heading discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You just added edit warring to pot stirring GoodDay, I am also coming to the conclusion that you have a real problem understanding a lot of the conversations.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand them perfectly, there are editors who prefer their personal choice over accuracy. If you choose to report me at ANI (or any other place required), I shall respect this course of action. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No real evidence of understanding GoodDay, your edit summary on your first insertion evidenced that.  You now seem to want to be a martyr - life getting boring for you again?  Is Wikipedia the only place you can get this sort of excitement?  -- Snowded  TALK  07:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Admit you're wrong on this infobox issue & my confidence in your judgement on these articles, will be restored. GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if I am wrong I am in good company given the other editors involved. At the moment you are the one removing material before consensus has been reached, and while a compromise is being discussed.  Ignorance at best, provocation at worst are the only explanations I have for your edit warring.  If there is another one let me know.  Otherwise I am sorry to disappoint you, but your confidence in my judgement is not really a motivating factor.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the issue of confidence & commenting on contributors (which we've correctly kept to our talkpages), I'm seeking the views of all involved at that infobox discussion, concerning my presence there. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a playpen for you isn't it? Edit warring was bad enough, now you're attention seeking.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more like a headache, posting in 3 places is exhausting. If you want me removed from the Infobox discussion? let me know at my talkpage, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, its why up front on my talk page I say "if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.", something else you didn't read -- Snowded TALK  08:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll let you have the last word, as we don't wanna put on a scene infront of the others. GoodDay (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria
Hi Snowded, you just said "Criteria for inclusion of other languages was that they had official status within a country or region" - which criteria are those? I can't see anything on that? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its somewhere in the thread. Basically its not official without Royal Assent to an act or resolution of Parliament or an Assembly.  With that we are very clear and there is no danger of creep -- Snowded  TALK  17:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you meant criteria for inbox official language, eg, Wikipedia country template criteria. The status of the assembly act isn't relevant as previously conclusively shown because it's only to enable it in Wales. Surprised you bring that one up again as I thought we'd resolved that. This goes to in-depth analysis of what the sources say, as you seem to be returning to trying to prove that Welsh is an official language of the UK, something I thought you'd accepted was not the case? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not bringing anything up again James. I am dealing with the argument that if Welsh is allowed then other editors will insist on Cornish etc.  I am making the point that the criteria is very clear, Royal Assent -- Snowded  TALK  17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody should doubt that the case of Welsh being official in Wales is now cast-iron. I don't think the status of any other minority language of the UK is anything like as clear-cut, but that would be a debate about the sources. The evidence that Welsh is now an official language of the UK is more limited, but I accept there is some and it is mixed. Hence perhaps we need a detailed table of sources and evaluation criteria and go through them more carefully. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its just a matter of sorting a compromise out James, before this whole thing gets out of hand -- Snowded TALK  17:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Something in the text of the languages section of the article that explains Welsh's officiality seems best. As you didn't originally push for the edit in question (the editor who did it is not one of the usual editors and apparently declines to answer as to why he/she did it - also did the original edit with no edit comment, somewhat suspiciously, as all their other edits carry comments) I can't see why it matters so much to you now to keep the translation up there in the official language slot, where it either isn't quite right for the UK, or else is completely in error. Is it that you sincerely think Welsh is now an official language of the UK and if so, shouldn't we draw out your evidence for that? "Compromise" is only needed if the evidence is on both sides. So far it doesn't seem to be, in which case, as in all things WP, we should stick to the facts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

UK page Undo
Hi snowded. Why exactly do my 2nd edits on the WP article uk subsection: Law and criminal justice not justify the addition of content. cheers Johnsy88 (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will reply in detail on Monday - on holiday this week. A quick response is per my edit summary.   One was a 2005 quote expressing concern which is really not enough.  The other was a report of a Peer in the HoL not a Lords resolution.  Neither is authoritative enough to justify inclusion -- Snowded  TALK  17:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah ok fair enough. Johnsy88 (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RHETI
Are you being unfair to the sources here RHETI? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the material in general was not supported by the references, several of which were dubious. The bulk of the article was a puff piece -- Snowded  TALK  22:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
NotifiedCptnono (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic Programming
The lead sentence of the paragraph is not attributed, and is worded as a statement of fact - ''The title of "neuro-linguistic programming" is simply a pretense to be a legitimate discipline such as neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. ''

The second sentence is properly quoted and cited Michael Corballis (1999) stated that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability",as it is attributed to Michael Corballis (although I'm not convinced of credibility - who is Michael Corballis?)

Surely the first sentence should either say, According to X, "The title of "neuro-linguistic programming" is simply a pretense to be a legitimate discipline..." if, indeed, these are someone's words. If they are not someone's words, rather an editor's unreferenced statement, then they should be deleted.

Tattooed Librarian (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A problem
which I see you've picked up also, thanks. If? hard to AGF some people. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my sense of duty gets stretched sometimes tracking down the material! -- Snowded  TALK  17:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi snowded just wondering if you could give me abit of advice. is there a way to archive my discussion page on my on WP page or can i just remove things from there because its really long and drawn out now? Johnsy88 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you edit this page you will see my archiving instruction which automates it - just copy it across and amend it for your user name - that is what I did! -- Snowded  TALK  21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thanks for that Johnsy88 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Adams
Would you mind reading the talk page and reverting your edit? It was quite unhelpful. Thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted to force an agreement on the talk page before changing the article. So no -- Snowded  TALK  20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no edit warring, and an ongoing discussion. Your edit was unnecessary and unhelpful.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why did you revert? You made the change without agreement, while you may think that is necessary its unhelpful -- Snowded  TALK  20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anuything. There are two seperate disupted words, with two seperate discussions on the talk page, you have bundled them together without checking.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Put the energy into the talk page. If you and your opposer agree that I have reverted something which is valid then I will self-revert those points -- Snowded  TALK  20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm tryiongto achieve here is to point out that you didn't bother checking the dispute. Please be more careful in future, your edit was sloppy, unhelpful and disruptive in itself.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm dealing with a process here and I doubt that is the first or the last time you have made that sort of accusation. -- Snowded  TALK  21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry buddy, you made the wrong call by not reading the history properly.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully aware that is your opinion, suggest you get on with reaching an agreement rather than delivering lectures.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you learn from it and don't go wading in again without being fully aware of what's going on. Could have made things a whole lot worse.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would probably do the same again in the same circumstances. Your history on republican/unionist issues does not instill much confidence on your neutrality I'm afraid. -- Snowded  TALK  21:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of bad faith is against editing rules. So if you did it again, you'd be being deliberately rather than carelessly disruptive.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, my disgraceful behaviour has been outed. Mea Culpa I will crawl on my knees to the station tomorrow in penance.  How could I have behaved so badly.-- Snowded  TALK  21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Random break
The edit.
 * The change to "to Dail Eireann" is quite reasonable
 * I object to the "and indicated his intention to also vacate his seat in the UK Parliament" change as it refers to 7 December 2010 and the indication was much earlier.
 * The change to "Speaker of the House of Commons" is quite reasonable
 * I object to the "Under British constitutional law however, MPs are not permitted to resign and may only leave parliament by death, disqualification or expulsion" change. While an MP cannot simply resign, it is quote obvious they can resign.
 * The "The normal method of leaving the Commons is to accept an "office of profit under the crown" thereby causing disqualification, and so his resignation letter was legally ineffectual" change is also pointless, and considering his resignation was processed based on the letter it was not "legally ineffectual"
 * I object to the removal of "Baron"[sic] of the Manor of Northstead", since that is the position David Cameron incorrectly (since he did not accept, and the position does not even exist) said Gerry Adams had accepted, and obviously I object to the removal of "incorrectly" as well
 * I have no objection to the "two token offices used to allow" change
 * The "before an election is called" wording is needless and potentially confusing, as the reader could think it refers to the subsequent by-election
 * The quote marks around "accepted" I am ambivalent about. I can see why they should be there, but I can also see why people might think differently. O Fenian (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than amend the existing "but this does not appear to have changed the official position that his resignation letter was interpreted as a request for appointment to be Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead and this request was granted." I would simply delete the entire part, since it appears to have been added by an IP and is redundant anyway.

All that said, I would still be in favour of what seems to be the consensus on the talk page, and just say he'd resigned. It would solve all the problems at once. O Fenian (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK its bedtime for me now as I have an 0600 train in the morning. WIll look thorugh tomorrow -- Snowded  TALK  22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rhythm
In case you are in need of some proper singing. We could do with a bit more of this spirit in WP. . BTW, I'm with you on the GD subject - I found his behaviour incredibly irritating in various important articles recently and the constant tedious half-baked jokes are well-past amusing and simply clog up the talk pages. I would determinedly support any action as I think the project could manage without. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur fully. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it may be time to assemble some material and raise an RfC? -- Snowded TALK  22:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. I have a list of recent ones in mind, including serial disregards for talk page consensuses in sequences of brainless edit trolls to bring forward. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very reassuring that the discussion has brought out the same complaints from everyone! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * and that he is throwing in the odd "clever" comment but otherwise refusing to listen -- Snowded TALK  21:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and the second comment here nicely reminds me of what I find so bloody annoying - a kind of wierd mix of triteishness and knowitall giving a snide little lecturette. I know we can all be annoying but perhaps when you've heard five or six hundred of them, you start to tire... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The normal suspects who find his disruption are not surfacing however. Trying to make it content issue.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

English Defence League
I am nothing to do with the English Defence League, nor do I wish to have any association with them in fact I just live in a town where it is well known that they are going to march through tomorrow. Do not dismiss my edit as "event planning" as it is nothing of the kind. Anyone who lives within the UK and has watched the TV knows that this organisation is going to march through Luton tomorrow. I even included citations. Please WP:AGF next time. UKWikiGuy (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have had a series of editors attempt to insert future demonstrations into that page and a brief check would have shown you that. Future events on pressure group sites are used to advertise those events so you really shouldn't be surprised if  your edits are reversed if you follow such a pattern.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact is I linked to a reputable source, i.e the BBC. It has also been notable because of the massive police presence in the town centre leading up to the event, even before the actual protest so the effect of it was already being felt before the edit I made which made it relevant, this was nothing to do with planning: just adding encyclopedic information UKWikiGuy (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A certain user
I'm sorry, I'm not going to make an apology. His unacceptability is equal to mine, and his comments on the talk page for the EDL are ridiculous and unhelpful. I think the most helpful thing he's done so far is removing a repeated line. Apart from that, and it's there to see on his user page, he thinks the EDL are the scum of the earth, and whilst this may be his opinion it hardly seems like he's going to want to contribute helpful articles? I've read the rules of talk page usage, and in just about every comment he makes he breaches a guideline. I've had enough of the personal abuse on the EDL talk page, and the complete dismissal of views. Thank you for your understanding, and if you wish to make a complaint then that's your right. However I will do the same to him. He is inexperienced, only edits EDL page, and has no agenda but to ruin that article. These are more or less identifiable facts. The fact that the keeps calling my a sock as well is highly irritating and non-factual/ It&#39;s not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is fully entitled on his talk page to say that the EDL are the scum of the earth, he is not allowed to say you are. He didn't call you a sock and from my perspective you seem to have about the same level of experience.  Its your call if you ignore the warning, any more of that I will raise it.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

He's called me a sock on multiple occasions, just read the last one. + and never once did I say he couldn't say that on his talk page. I made it very clear I was talking about the EDL page. These comments have been largely innappriate. And, yes I am more experienced. I am at least aware of the rules, and have written two articles, whehter I choose to abide by them fully is a different matter. He's about 17 years old, and has not edited anything that doesn't have the word "fascist" attached to it, and only join a couple of months ago. I've been here since 2009. thanks It&#39;s not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then behave in such a way as to indicate you do have that experience. The last few entries have been silly name calling -- Snowded  TALK  21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

English defence league
You'd better avoid this page today, sorry. Too many reverts, you know. I'll post to his talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Two reverts Doug and that is the most I ever allow myself. My third edit was to give him another source which is reasonable.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A wise man. I try to do the same. Should this go to RSN? I've posted on his talk page that it should either be on the article talk page or RSN. I haven't yet gotten my head entirely around the issue, busy doing other things. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to look at it again tomorrow. As far as I can see the web site is the Searchlight equivalent of a newspaper web site so I am reluctant to let it go as it stands.  Mind you if you look at the other editor's history he is in effect "revert fodder" for more experienced right wing editors; Johnny does the work for them!
 * There you go again unable to be NPOV - if he is as you call him revert fodder what are you? I am not and never will be a right wing person and yet you attempt to brush off my thoughts and worries about your contributions by attempting to put me in some extreme camp, actually I am a middle of the road NPOV wikipedia editor that stumbled on a couple of article that you are involved in that are attacking the subjects, I attempted to help correct this for the benefit of NPOV and for the readers but you resisted any attempts to improve the articles, and you are an opponent of these groups and you control them and they are awful, completely attacking and anyone that comes along attempting to correct this clear problem, you attempt to label them as supporters of this or right wing that, you need to look in the mirror more to find the problem, please stop editing in this field, you are unable to edit in a beneficial way and with neutrality, if you voluntarily stop now you will imo allow that section of articles a chance to be educational and not attacking as written and supported by an opponent of those groups. Please consider stepping out of this area, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't had the pleasure yet of editing the far-right faction articles, but I was interested in this as your comments about Snowded seem fairly extreme Off2riorob, so I thought I would spend some time going back over your history in the EDL article. For someone who claims to be a "middle of the road NPOV editor" as you put it, you seem to have been pretty determined over the years to try to edit out (against considerable opposition from other long-standing editors) references in the EDL article to any mention of it being "far right". I could pick out quite a few diffs but here's an interesting example from 2009. Makes one think. Personally I think having looked at the history of that article that you are going to need a lot more than the above to convince that Snowded is anything other than a skilful NPOV editor taking great care to ensure that far-right activists don't dictate that one. I haven't even started looking yet at your history on other articles of a similar nature, but I will spend time on it. In the meantime, I would strongly urge Snowded not to "stop editing in this field" as you request. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Go over whatever you want, I am a middle of the road NPOV editor so look for that, suit yourself what you do, I am not prepared to be part of a puppet show. He likely will not stop his POV contributions in this field, he is a strong opponent of these groups and will I imagine want to continue attacking them through the vehicle of wikipedia, but as I said, let him know my feelings about his contributions in this area. User:Snowded's contributions in this field remind me of the climate change opinionated contributions and happily that has been addressed and I look forward to the time when the POV editing in this area is resolved also. Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting that he has opinions, as do I. I am expressing scepticism that you are the "middle of the road NPOV editor" that you claimed to be above and pointing out that anyone going back through your editing history might well come to another conclusion. Against that background, your "feelings" are not to be taken seriously. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As someone who often edits from a minority viewpoint in an attempt to get NPOV, I admire what Snowded has done and think he has behaved with commendable patience. I live in Leicester and the EDL have caused fear in people previously persecuted by Idi Amin and his thugs. We do need an article on them and it can be done.  JRPG (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I see it is that we all have our opinions, and if we just act in good faith as we are all capable of, we should avoid POV. Snowed is rarely impolite and is always willing to discuss things. So long as you have evidence to any sensible addition you wish to make on the article, no one will stop you. Alexandre8 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I take a day off and return to this! Firstly thanks to Alexenadre8, James and JRPG for weighing in. Off2riorob some simple points: So overall either put up or push off, evidence not accusations not just here but on the articles concerned please. Otherwise I am about to engage in two 25 hour flights for a two day DoD seminar so may not be on line as frequently as usual -- Snowded TALK  09:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You do good work on BLP articles and rightly have the respect of the community for that
 * On issues around nationalist/republican/Unionist and far right articles you manifest a very different personality which is far from "middle of the road", you consistently support a right wing perspective. Indeed in some of your comments verge on the pathological.
 * If you come here with broad accusations without any supporting evidence other than your own opinion then I will simply delete your comments as they fail to assume good faith and constitute WP:NPV personal attacks. If you provide direct evidence and examples then I am very happy to look at them
 * I have no intention for disengaging with these articles. As far as I can see when there has been a dispute I have generally been shown to be acting in line with consensus.  This was certainly true on the UAF article where I patently went through all the stages while we resolved this.  I realise this was frustrating to your "camp" but it does not justify the attacks you have made here and elsewhere.  I will work to prevent these sites becoming propaganda for the far right, but I will support any constructive edits that improve the articles.

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

claims of repression of free speach
Heya, don’t quite understand what you mean, (not clear material is valid and even if it is needs proper referencing and wording), the section is information relating to free speech and has a reference to the Welsh broadcast which was censored in 2007, i added a censorship in relation to channel 5 in 2004 and channel 4 in 2010, proper referencing???, the wording was taken from the BBC source. What are your suggestions?
 * Take your proposals to the talk page and we can discuss it there. -- Snowded TALK  03:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing politics
I understand you're upset about the close. However, removal of a maintenance template is against policy, and is specifically fordidden in the language of the template. I have requested confirmation of the close from AN/I. I suggest you revert yourself pending the outcome. Lionel (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I raised an request for an admin to close it when I reverted. Sorry you improperly closed so best to restore the position and wait for an independent ADMIN to deal with it.  Oh and I am not upset it is not a major issue.  What matters to be is that this is done properly.  You have abrogated far too much authority and displayed a lack of judgement in your handling of this issue.-- Snowded  TALK  15:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

First Minister of Wales
Would you mind looking at the article Talkpage again please. The result of any decision made there should have an influence on many others, not least Wales. I would welcome your input. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your message
Hi Snowded. I received your message, and have spoken to GoodDay on my talk page, seeing as he left a comment below yours. I really hope this matter can be resolved as I am sadly distressed to see three editors whom I happen to like embroiled in this edit war. I think GoodDay feels under attack and is reacting very emotionally. I'll see what I can do to still the waters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I defended him for years, then got to breaking point. The ANI result showed that there are a broad range of editors in the same position including some notable moderates.  GoodDay's response has been vey defensive and he has been egged on by the odd editor who finds his disruption useful.  Before the ANI there was (and still is) and agreement between a broad group of editors to assemble the evidence for an RfC, although that takes time with low level disruption.  The best solution is for GoodDay to realise that he needs to change.  The actions on the page moves yesterday were really childish.  Anything you can do to help him would do everyone the world of good.  Realised I should have pinged you when I was in Naples in January by the way, will be in Rome this weekend -- Snowded  TALK  10:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I live in Sicily which is a good 7 hours drive away from Naples including the ferry journey across the Strait of Messina, but not the necessary stops along the way nor icy driving conditions in winter through the mountainous areas. GoodDay had turned over a new leaf last winter; in fact he made a serious effort at editing presidential articles with sterling results. I don't know why he's rocking the boat now especially after having declared not to venture near British/Irish articles. I'll try my best this afternoon as it's close to lunch time now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of getting the ferry to Sicily never having been there and having a fondness of Norman architecture and volcanos! Good luck and thanks -- Snowded  TALK  11:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks." From Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-21/Arbitration_report Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And that helps how exactly? Daicaregos (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well assuming Kitty is not referencing my mentioning a desire to go to Sicily, I think it relates to GoodDay's misuse of article talk pages. So if there is a RfC this is one of the rules referenced -- Snowded TALK  06:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Clunk (the sound of a penny dropping) . Daicaregos (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

UK talk
I wanted to say good on you to remove those posts that were heading (deep) into Uncivil territory. Outback the koala (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I resolved to treat GoodDay as a behaviour modification project in the hope of avoiding an RfC or ANI case but I'm sure its not just pandering to an attention seeker and conflict junkie. However I had one success today, I finally got him to do something rather than tell other people they should.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

congratulations
We've managed to leave the BNP page alone for more than a week :). Have an invisible barnstar :P!! Take care Alexandre8 (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All the controversial articles have cycles - I think EDL will be next as there is new data from searchlight on origin and funding ... -- Snowded TALK  15:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Reading through the recent discussion on the talk page for the Catholic Church article, it seems that one of the editors may be a re-incarnation of Yorkshirian. Do you have any thoughts on this? TFD (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless Catholics have begun to believe in re-incarnation, it would have to be someone else :-) Cheers, (from TPS) Daicaregos (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but how does one go about becoming a TPS?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very droll. Daicaregos (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just couldn't resist asking.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know something we don't Dai? -- Snowded TALK  10:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I was only responding to TFD's suggestion that Yorkshirian may have been re-incarnated, and noting the relevant Talkpage. Daicaregos (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will have a look - have been away from the internet for three days -- Snowded TALK  08:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at it I don't think so. I think we may have an Anglican equivalent and I am a bit dubious about the Puerto Rican Jesuit but otherwise I don;t think so -- Snowded  TALK  10:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The account you mentioned is a possible. The two accounts have edited the same 18 pages.  Do you have any other reason to suggest they are the same?  At this point we cannot conduct checkuser and the editor may use a dynamic IP.  I recently filed an SPI for a similar editor.  TFD (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the name is very similar to a series of socks from another sock master which has had several people suspicious for a bit, but so far no bad behaviour.  It was when right wing issues got added to Unionist that I started to think we might have an issue and that it needs watching.  I don't think there is enough evidence for a SPI at the moment, but it deserves watching and there are at least three possible sock masters.  It might even be one of them trying to rehabilitate which does happen.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy
First of all can I ask you if you have practiced NLP and have you been trained? Second, it looks like you are trying to fit a square peg into a round whole, you are trying to justify your opinion by all means, supporting your views with loose references. The MIT had nothing to do with the development or practice NLP and I would leave MIT to do what they are go at i.e. scientific research, innovation, etc. NLP is not a thing, it's not a science, it's a collection of tools and an attitude about life that helps recognising excellence, or simply put: to find out what works and replicate it. I am not going to carry on with an exhaustive argument to support why NLP is not controversial. The onus is on you to prove that it is, and so far your references are weak. If you still want to insist on this point, please make it somewhere else, further down in the text. Otherwise the definition given at the beginning sounds opinionated and gives a false impression to first readers.

I am not asking you to remove the reference and statement, simply to move it further down the text. I hope that is an acceptable compromise. Also, I would suggest the wording "which some find controversial" otherwise the statement sounds like a truism when it actually does not reflect the everyone’s opinion. --Jeannmb (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not practiced NLP and I would not waste money on being trained. Ditto Spiral Dynamics and a dozen other self-improvement pseudo/psychological practices that have emerged over the last few decades. I regard such practices for good reason as encouraging self-deception at best and manipulative (in the unethical sense of the word) at best.  That view is based on the fact that  I have talked extensively with trained practitioners and am aware of the literature.  Now those are my opinions and I would not impose them on the article, neither should you as a practitioner attempt the contrary.  Controversial is a factual statement and it is evidentially (from the sources) seen as positive in some NLP circles. Accordingly I don't see how it is NPOV to say that.  We could make much stronger negative statements supported by sources in the lede.   You might like to look at this and this.


 * It is clearly identified as a pseudo-science in reliable sources and in some cases exhibits cult like qualities. I have provided one reference from an NLP source that says it is controversial and the extensive criticism later in the article makes that controversy clear and none of those references are weak.  Remember the lede summarises the article and that lede is already compromised enough.  We might want to put pseudo-science in the opening sentence and/or the MIT point as those are relevant to a new reader.  Your point about it being a collection of tools not a science is not supported by NLP's scientific claims in the original book and latter work including training.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Snowded, you just proved my point. If we had an argument about F1 engines and you have never touched, repaired, optimized an F1 engine and had no training nor experience in mechanics, engineering or F1 driving what is the point? Yes, many people watch F1 on Sundays, even go to Silverstone and might have even talked to drivers or their teams. But this does not make them knowledgeable. The same goes for disciplines like Karate or Aikido. You can talk to and read as much as you want, but unless you get yourself on to the training mat and try practice what you are talking about, you are offering empty words. Please do go and edit articles were you have actual experience and knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeannmb (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh please you are not trying that old chestnut are you? Do I have to attempt to convert straw into gold to reject alchemy?  What experience do I require to reject creationism?  Have you not read the references from people with deep knowledge of the field?   I think I have a damn sight more knowledge of this area that a partial practitioner.  Now please learn how wikipedia works.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Move
Per this edit summary, it was I that moved your illustration, not GoodDay. I apologise for missing the fact that another comment of yours referenced the location of your proposal. I merely wanted to separate it from the personal back-and-forth that was developing between you and GoodDay. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well I may have to apologise to him. I have taken on modification of his editing pattern (repeating comments, not doing research, likeing conflict, expecting others to do the work for him etc. ).  If that doesn't work it will be an RfC  -- Snowded  TALK  05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This explains the strange 'edit summary'. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Give a guy a chance to self revert!
Sorry about that, sweeping mouse across multiple on watch pages and the pad may be a little too sensitive -- Snowded TALK 04:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stay away from my talkpage - completely. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'll keep in on watch Off2riorob :-)  -- Snowded  TALK  05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)