User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 22

Actually you did initiate the deletion of the Antenarrative page
Dave,

you just posted that you did not initiate the deletion.

This is the history of the deletion of the Antenarrative page. • 2:44, 1 March 2011 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted "Antenarrative" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) • 01:49, 5 February 2011 Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) deleted "Antenarrative" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenarrative (2nd nomination)) • 20:58, 29 December 2005 Howcheng (talk | contribs) deleted "Antenarrative" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenarrative) • A story concept being promoted by its inventor, Dboje (talk • contribs).Unsurprisingly most of the incoming links were added by Dboje: storytelling, story arc and Fabula and syuzhet. And the addition to Barbara Czarniawska was added by a sock puppet (but I hasten to say that I saw no evidence that it was a sock puppet of Dboje). Has anything changed since the AfD five years ago? — RHaworth (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)}} • * Delete. As noted, this is part of a walled garden of articles by User:Dboje about theories he himself has originated, with "references" that don't make it clear if any part of these theories is accepted by others, and the article itself is well-fortified with gibberish and evasion rather than a description of the thing named. Even assuming notability of this concept could be clearly shown, the article would need a complete rewrite, so the present text is superfluous in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

•  * Delete per nomination, without third party evidence of use/adoption and some balancing criticism this reads like a promotional piece; other related articles look to be extracts from Boje. Full disclosure, I know of Boje's work and am involved in the field of organisational narrative. --Snowded TALK 07:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Should this article be moved to wikiversity?Harrypotter (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

•   * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC) •    * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC) •    * Delete - Agree with Snowded. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboje (talk • contribs)


 * Please read it David (or get an admin to take you through it as they can show you the deleted page), Someone else nominated it with the reasons stated (its in the header on the page).  I supported that nomination, the phrase says "delete per nomination" for God's sake.  Now lay off the conspiracy theory, its an AGF violation and read up on the BLP reference I gave you.  You really should not edit your own page, or pages about your own theories.  Its bad form.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

h-index
Per your edit here - I cross-checked with Publish or Perish program and co-authored papers are absolutely counted, so this is not the case. It may be that you're referring to some other widely cited publications, not indexed by scholar.google.com. Still, since indeed it is not a standard practice to give info on scholar's academic impact in their bio articles, I'm not insisting on it - it is fair to cut it out. Pundit | utter 19:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its historically been an issue and when I looked at the list then two papers which have multiple citations in stared journals did not come up. Curious.  That said its one indicator of impact, you can find a whole literature on that. -- Snowded  TALK  19:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it isn't. Pundit | utter  20:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its always interesting to read what people don't say -- Snowded TALK  20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy, with all the things you actually said, you're walking with a candle in a room full of gasoline ;) Pundit | utter  22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wales is a mining community we understand the use of Canaries and the value of Davy Lamps -- Snowded TALK  12:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the pluralis majestatis could be a sign of spending a lot of time underground with your preciouss ;) jokes aside, let's chill out, I'm beginning to get lost whether you think I'm a metaphorical canary, Davy, or a Caribbean pirate. have fun in Singapore! Pundit | utter  12:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Chilled, hope to meet some time -- Snowded TALK  12:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, cheers :) Pundit | utter  12:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

NPA
You should know Snowded that labelling an editor as an "idiot" is a form of personal attack, whether its in a comment or edit summary. I've seen editors blocked for such simple abuse repeated. I'm not going to give a formal warning though, a simple note such as this should be suffice unless you become prolific at it which i hopefully doubt. Mabuska (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please, it was a sock puppet trying to delete an arbcom tag from a blocked editor. I would happily call them an idiot again and if someone wanted to make a fool of themselves by formally warning or reporting such then they should feel free.
 * Make a fool of themselves? Onetonycousins got his first block for labelling editors as idiots in his edit summaries so obviously admins deem it a personal attack and have taken action in regards to such. Just letting you know. Mabuska (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would not be acceptable against an experienced editor or new one, but against a clear disruptive sock I think its legitimate. If an admin wants to make that subject to a ban then it would probably be the final trigger to get me to disengage from editing - something that started as a short term participatory research project into complex systems.  Letting me know is always appreciated however so thanks.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've regarded Snowded's work as a test case to see if someone with extreme patience can get an extremely contentious article to follow the rules. Living in Leicester, close to the centre of EDL activity, I regard what he is doing as valuable. Few others could have done it and I wouldn't have attemped it.  I suspect however that he is human.  JRPG (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks (from JRPG's homepage). Recognizing the nature of a behaviour, the contributions of a particular editor, and the fallibility of human beings in general doesn't involve a contradiction.  AJRG (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Human enough to appreciate that comment JRPG,, many thanks-- Snowded TALK  17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave Snowden
I've put that page on my watchlist - do to Irvine's fetish. I've little patients for sockpuppet-masters, particularly stupid ones. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The trouble with Irvine is that he isn't stupid, just petty! However the more who can deal with him when he pops up the easier it is all round so thanks-- Snowded  TALK  03:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GAA
Care to chime in on this discussion? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, now Eamonnca1 this is a blatant case of WP:CANVASSING. You should really know better. Mabuska (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

UK talk IP
User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!, I assume. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its his style, but its an Ottawa address and I am pretty sure that Armchair is UK based.  Irvine was adept as using disguised IDs which is why it took so long to track him down.  However the entries don't show his humour.  I have wondered if was a new sockmaster but ....  -- Snowded  TALK  20:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd long assumed that AVDL was in Canada - here for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or this. Daicaregos (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's likely AVDL. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK that looks pretty conclusive, will keep a note of the ID in case he pops up again, style is pretty clear. He is one of those characters you really want to meet in person mind you!  -- Snowded  TALK  06:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rand cuts
Since you commented on the Christianity quote, any thoughts on the Hickman or Social Security matters discussed above on the talk page. The discussion trends seem to favor cutting both. --RL0919 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will take a look -- Snowded TALK  08:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Carwyn Jones
A very interesting 'edit summary' accompaning your 'revert'. What's does 'republic' have to do with my change? Prince Edward island, Arizona, Alberta, Michigan etc, aren't republics. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do laws there need royal assent to be enacted? Daicaregos (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to why I proposed 'deletion' or atleast 'changing' to Monarch of the United Kingdom. Snowded's edit-summary of his revert, seemed to suggest I was pushing a republican PoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold the front page: GoodDay fails to answer a direct question. I'm shocked. Daicaregos (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care if they do need 'royal assent' or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's Snowded's edit-summary, that I'm curious about. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the meaning is self-evident GoodDay, you have already wasted enough of my time to day making multiple edits while a discussion was still underway, and where consensus was not moving in your direction. -- Snowded TALK  17:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your ABF is self-evident. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a time waster and attention seeker GoodDay, if that is ABF then so be it -- Snowded TALK  18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GD, this once again betrays your own BF in your inter-reaction with other editors. Snowded's edit summary was completely uncontroversal and expressed a personal opinion that had nothing to do with your own views but that seems to have washed over you.  But your continual actions and statements on the pages that you camp out on are contentious, opinionated and wearing very thin with a lot of people.  I ask you to sit back and apply a bit of self restraint before going gung-ho into areas where you think you know what you're doing/saying---but I don't think you will somehow. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this the dawning of self-awareness? Don't raise your hopes!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please let it be, but probably a false dawn -- Snowded TALK  05:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 57 today, 57 today. Knowing that Irvine can't edit a certain article (due to protection), puts a smile on my face. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of protection now! Was in your part of the world a week ago - Government seminar in Halifax then teaching at Toronto University -- Snowded  TALK  16:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you lecturued on Canada's becoming a republic. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed
Do you have any experience at WP:WQA? I ask because of this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had it invoked on me by disgruntled right wing editors before. I've also had some experience of PoD in the past and he would be a good candidate!  I have put the page on watch.  However I'd suggest an AGF request before using WQA -- Snowded  TALK  09:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't mean to draw you in to the discussion there. I'm sure (but haven't yet checked) he must have experienced the same sort of discussions previously, given his attitude.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I had a spare half hour in a airport and no desire to tackle the email backlog!  I think the 3rr report was a mistake, it should probably go to ANI on grounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN.  However best to wait a week and see if the behaviour changes first.   Unless PoD has changed he will back off eventually rather than risk a block -- Snowded  TALK  08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I think it epitomises the big problem WP faces - established editors get more and more entrenched and arrogant, so there is less and less scope or encouragement for newer editors to come in with improvements, and the project fossilises and eventually decays. I'm not sure what the answer is - maybe all editors should be completely banned from making any edits in every other year.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My partners would love the every other year idea, they have taken to tracking my wikipedia editing time and using it to deny any claim that I am too busy to do something!  I think part of the problem is that (i) there are not enough admins (ii) the RfA process means anyone prepared to take on extremists need not apply and (iii) admins do not move quickly to check people like PoD.   Also the conflict resolution process on content is not too hard, and too easy to game.  It took me three months to get back to a consensus position on one article as I had to go through each appeal process and face the same arguments - orchestrated POV editing is now common on a lot of political articles.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Publisher selling Wikipedia articles as books
I came across this ... AJRG (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly curious - not sure why you raise it though -- Snowded TALK  11:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BNP hysterics
Sorry Snowy. I thought AP was accusing that Multi fellow of sockery. Wowsers, things are sliding into paranoia territory, with those 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was amusing, also a bit insulting. If I ever decided to sock, I hope I would do it with a bit more intelligence.  Its election time here in the UK though so expect this sort of activity from the extremist party supporters -- Snowded  TALK  15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never a dull moment. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

British Isles
Off we go again! Is it just me, or is HighKing really trying to game the system? Flagging stuff for deletion just becuase it includes British Isles. Unreasonably requests for references, and on, and on. He's indefatigable, I'll give him that! And what about that obvious sock, EliasPalmer or somebodyLevenBoy (talk)


 * You need to look at the evidence and stop reacting. There is no material to support use on that page and its clear OR.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The overriding issue is, however, removal of British Isles. We've been here before. This guy just won't give up. He spreads his disruption far and wide. It's been quiet recently but now he's kicked off again. LevenBoy (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to look at the evidence. Very simply the exhibition material makes no mention of British Isles and there is no evidence of selection on that basis.  Insertion of BI is thus original research.  Please deal with content issues rather than speculating on the motivation of individual editors -- Snowded  TALK  16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OR is just a convenient excuse to remove British Isles. The true meaning of OR is that Wikipedia should not accept original academic research, but POV pushers have manipulated the concept to suit their own desires. LemonMonday    Talk   16:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Address the content issue on the talk page of the article. Or means drawing an inference which is not present and as High King said its not even accurate.   Its clearly OR unless you have some other reference.  You also need to use the talk page, if you don't engage on the content issues there, but continue unthinking reverts based on assumptions about the motivations of other editors you risk extending your block history. -- Snowded  TALK  17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Was there an SPI run on the LM & LB accounts, before? GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More likely meat puppetry. CheckUser is not magic-pixie-dust, apparently. RashersTierney (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its too co-ordinated for that. Remember Irvine ran different IPs using proxy servers.  Only behavioral evidence will work in those cases-- Snowded  TALK  22:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's something very MidnightBlueManish about those 2 accounts. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit more rope, basically. RashersTierney (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave Snowden
I suspect that Irvine has 2 socks working at your article & trying to trap me into a 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not his article. It's the Wikipedia article on Dave Snowden. The Registrar (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a blocked editor Irvine. Stop wasting everybody's time & get a life. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Says you, up and on Wikipedia past 3AM in Atlantic Canada!The Registrar (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3rr doesn't apply to Vandalism GoodDay - thanks by the way although one should probably express sympathy to Irvine's mother who has to deal with him every day -- Snowded TALK  06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "One" is very grand, Sir Dave. The Registrar (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Irvine the Idiot, has been venturing around the article Cynefin. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks GoodDay, dealing with the socially inadequate is never easy, appreciate you spending the time -- Snowded TALK  16:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NLP
I did read the talk page but you'd opened a new section, rather than continue the thread, so I didn't see your comments. Yes, you can find references to 'pseudoscience' but quantity is different from quality. If you google 'NLP saved my life' you get 45000+ hits - but I don't think that's a useful category. I have yet to see you make any useful contributions to the article on NLP - you just seem to want to rubbish it. I'm sure you'll revert me - feel free - I can't stop you. Maybe, though, your time would be better spent on editing a topic you know a little about ; your earlier comment re the link to Milton Erikson shows the paucity of your knowledge in this area! If you care so much about the NLP article, why not work to improve it rather than trying to justify belittling it - write a section on its true origins, the core technique of modelling... I mean it might help a little if you realised that the two guys who started it all are quite clear that its not true, just useful! Tattooed Librarian (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the references come from academic authorities - the one I quoted summarised multiple research reports so it has authority. You should you self-revert unless you can find additional equivalent references (and you should have respected WP:BRD in the first place. I'll leave it overnight in the hope that you will respect the rules on editing and do so.
 * As to a new thread, well if the talk page is on your watch list you would have seen I amended it, basic wikipedia etiquette would be to check that. I don't see any need to link to Erikson or any of the other people whose ideas were used by the founders of NLP so don't assume ignorance. Otherwise you need to get a grip on how Wikipedia works;  my interest in the NLP page is to prevent people using it as a propaganda page for what is a pseudoscience.   I monitor several other articles with the same intent.  I may add to the article on that theme as it interests me.   All articles need people with different perspectives and you need to learn to live with that.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally if you have a reference for "the two guys who started it all are quite clear that its not true, just useful!" then that would be a useful addition to the article -- Snowded TALK  07:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Anglo Pyramidologist & User: 86.10.119.131
Aren't brothers grand? On the same day one guy's block expires, the other declares his retirement from Wikipedia. Gosh, if I didn't know better, I'd swear the IP was the same person, having evaded his 1-week block. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we all knew that :-) -- Snowded  TALK  06:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your archives
Hi Snowded, I am at least partly "back" in WP after a break doing real life. I thought I would check back on what's been going on in my absence and so came to review your always-interesting talk page, but your archives seem to be in a bit of a pickle? Is that meant to be so? :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I realised yesterday you had not been around lately. I have autoarchiving on so it just creates a new number every time, the latest is number 22 so if you feel the need you can check back on various upset parties!  -- Snowded  TALK  07:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for noticing, it's always nice to create a gap! I will consult the doubtless voluminous back-flameage across various "typical" accounts before diving in. Not really. Was just curious. Hope you are thriving. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing too dramatic, the odd academic who thought he had the right to determine content on his own pages and invented a conspiracy theory - we are both speaking at an event at Exeter later this year so tickets are selling out! Then the usual group of unionists, right wing apologists and Irvine22 socks.  Nothing special.  Thriving but traveling too much!  Forcing myself to follow the Kennet & Avon in 9 mile stretches when I am at home, then moving on to the Thames walk by way of getting away form the macbook, email, overdue papers and a serious wikipedia addiction! -- Snowded  TALK  07:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would seriously never have noticed the wikiaddict part. :) I was in Devizes not long ago but it was 100% grey weather so I didn't go out, although Silbury looked impressive in the dark when I drove past. Very pretty weather up here in Derbyshire and full of the joys of having sun on skin. Hope you get some time at home and not touring the Indies. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for holding up Wikipedia's core values at Ganges and Talk:Ganges! I believe once the article is more rounded and balanced the quote can be worked back in. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  06:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It look like you needed some support! Will do my best to stay in there -- Snowded  TALK  06:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

SPA
Hello, Snowded. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LevenBoy (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the thread with interest.  Thanks to everyone who commented -- Snowded  TALK  20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: arbcom ruling for NLP
I was just concerned that we had a returned of banned editors. There are several indefinitely blocked accounts that have similar editing behaviour. I don't think that you are one of the banned editors. I think we should adhere to the WP:FRINGE guideline on this article. What do you think? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should abide by all wikipedia policies and I think you failed on WP:AGF with those comments. I cant see anything in the editors behaviour to arouse any suspicion-- Snowded  TALK  02:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I refactored my comment quickly because I think I jumped the gun. What do you think about the suggestions per WP:FRINGE? In my opinion NLP fits under this category: "3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cardiff
Don't know if you listen to Today but did you hear it this morning? Interesting piece about the seriously lower productivity, economic growth and added value in Wales compared to other regions of the UK and also the role Welsh language insistence has on driving out talented young people from Cardiff. Just mentioning it as the language issue doesn't come up in the current Welsh economy articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some research to back that up and no I didn't hear it, I'm in Washington DC most of this week then on to the west coast next. The role of the language i part of the whole generation of the Cardiff film/TV boom etc. etc. South Wales was heavily industrialised and has major unemployment issues in areas where the language has been weak.  So just as people flooded into South Wales during the grown of coal and steel so they are now having to leave for economic reasons.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will have a look and see if there is research. It will be on the iplayer and presumably therefore tragically unavailable in the US! It was just making the point that Cardiff University students don't stay in Wales and examining why. Obviously that is only one part of the story of economic achievement. Basically their thesis was that London sucks in bright young Welsh-educated hopefuls but I was a bit sceptical that is very different from other British university cities. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * London sucks in people from all over! Most University students don't stay in their University town as far as I know.  Sounds like a little bit of game playing around the Assembly elections.   Will see if its on when I get back - and yes iPlayer sucks if you are overseas.   I keep meaning to get a proxy account but not sure which service to use.  Maybe one of our BI socks can recommend one!  -- Snowded  TALK  09:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC) -- Snowded  TALK  09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC's commercial policies never cease to baffle me - they should allow all the news-related content out free worldwide to act as a draw to BBC Worldwide's commercial output. Then we could get on to why on earth we have to pay for Doctor Who DVDs seeing as we already paid for the programmes in the first place! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A former BBC employee sends me Doctor Who episodes when I am overseas, on the moral grounds that I have paid my license. Having never missed an episode in the entire history of Doctor Who this is important! -- Snowded  TALK  09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that's quite something - you never missed any all through the 60s and 70s? Many people gave up at Colin Baker and then failed to see Sylvestor McCoy whose later episodes I find quite enjoyable, particularly the one with the Nazis and the Cybermen. "You will see many signs and wonders in the days to come". I believe I know every word of Pyramids of Mars. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that idiot on my talk page earlier - I made a mistake on Isle of Man and apologised and self-fixed but apparently that wasn't enough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to be able to help -- Snowded TALK  23:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

acupuncture
Snowded, do not enter into an edit war and revert large amounts of work without looking into the issue. This is likely to go to ArbCom soon, and while I don't mind adding you to the list of people who are obstructing page development, I'd rather not. please undo your last revert, since it's tendentious and improperly reasoned, and then use the talk page to discuss the matter. thanks. -- Ludwigs 2 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't respond well to silly little threats Ludwigs2. I've restored the pre-dispute position.  Lay out the issues so uninvolved editors such as myself can review.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a frigging threat, snowded - I really am going to take this to ArbCom soon for clarification, and your behavior will come up there if it has to. I'm asking you to read the talk page and be reasonable.  christ on a stick.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It reads like one Ludwig2 and I am really not intimidated by it, or by its repetition.   Cool down, have a cup of tea and put some effort into summarising the content issues.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to be intimidated, I'm asking you to be reasonable. but suit yourself.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really don't think you were making (and repeating) a threat then I think you need to pay more attention to the way you word comments. Otherwise I think restoring a default position is a reasonable approach.  I hadn't realised until I checked that you had such a block history so I won't take it personally, but I do think you should reflect on your behaviour -- Snowded  TALK  18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really wasn't making any threats, but I understand that accusing me of them is the new 'in' thing. If you want to get back to talk page discussion, that would be nice.  If you don't, I will assume that I convinced you to look over the material and that you are now satisfied with the revisions.  The page is protected for a few days over this silliness, so we might as well use the time to good advantage.  or not, as you choose.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you might want to consider that rather than it being a new "in" thing several editors are reading your statements in the same way I did.  I will look at the page again later after I land and get to the next hotel.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, as I said, we have a couple of days, so no real hurry. as to the other thing... I have considered it, believe me, but it's a lose/lose situation for me.  If I were to blindside you by dragging you into an AE thing that you neither desired nor anticipated you'd be as (if not more) annoyed with me.  There's currently no way I can do anything on project without someone taking it the wrong way (intentionally or not), so all I can do is be as above-board as possible and (as I said elsewhere) forge ahead.  It's a rough road right now; I'm trying to avoid the worst potholes, but there are some bumps that are just not avoidable without us all stopping dead in our tracks.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I finally found it
I finally found a website to back me up but this website call it british confederation. http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/BritishEmpire/Britain-20centuries.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydin687 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it's a private web site and does not even mention the title you use. Please conduct this conversation on the  talk page of the article - owning it's deletion -- Snowded  TALK  22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't that article have a regular AFD tag on it? There is no quality sourcing to justify its existence. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its got one so it gets deleted automatically shortly -- Snowded TALK  23:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Its the same, a romanised, unified Britain (Britons), just change the articles title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydin687 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its going to be deleted, there was never a united romanised Britain -- Snowded TALK  13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

England
Who was that then? Sorry, I shouldn't have bothered replying in the first place! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Glasgow, but amusing as a diversion! Not sure about being called "lad" mind you -- Snowded  TALK  19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OH god, that was funny, so very funny - life can be dull on Wikipedia but every now and again it throws a beautiful butterfly - or in this case - an ugly one, in your path to facinate you, or bemuse....or confuse the hell out of you. (From an Anon who once partaken in many discussions with the two "Lads" above. Sniggers.) --85.211.118.238 (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Thanks for notifying me of the current month. Some things of which you may not be aware:
 * I have a calendar.
 * Relevant factual observations on an editor's behaviour do not fall under WP:NPA and are OK when made in the appropriate forum.
 * A thread started on my talk page by a disruptive editor is an appropriate forum for observations on that editor's behaviour.
 * Your own combative behaviour is not going to do you any good. It's in your own interest to stop it now. Hans Adler 10:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And you compound the error. I'm addressing content issues working with the established consensus.  You seem to be spending far too much time making comments on the competence of another editor.  If warning you about that is combative then so be it, as I see it wikipedia policy is very very clear,  address the content issues.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case you really missed it: The discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland is about a recent push to give up long-standing compromise wording and make the claim that Northern Ireland is a country more explicit. That's hardly the kind of thing you can support with vague appeals to ancient "established consensus".
 * "You seem to be spending far too much time making comments on the competence of another editor." This is an accusation of personal behaviour that lacks evidence and therefore falls under WP:NPA – unless you get away on the technicality that referring to a single response to a personal attack on my talk page as "spending far too much time making comments" might be seen as a borderline defensible assessment. Hans Adler 10:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling another editor unconsciously incompetent, and they saying their editorial style us rustic is a personal attack Hans under any reading. I think that justifies my statement but you are welcome to refer it if you want to.  I see you have now followed up "combative" with some more perjorative language about "ancient" consensuses.  Please, just sit back have a cup of tea and get back to the content issues.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

English Defence League
Please see WP:V: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I believe you are mistaking verifiability with ease of access, contrary to Wikipedia policy, and will revert AGF accordingly. Stellas4lunch (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Make your case on the talk page then W{:BRD applies-- Snowded  TALK  14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Templating
If you want to be taken seriously, then don't template other regulars. If you wan't to compound the already pretty low impression you are sending out to others when you claim a discussion where nobody mentions a single policy is a valid consensus, then by all means, carry on. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Sorry Mick, but your tendency to edit war means I am getting the warning in early. By the way, are you capable of making any comment without including some form of personal attack, derisive comment or invective?   -- Snowded  TALK  15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a complete neutral here why not leave the article as it is and put the question of policy to the Village Pump? Carson101 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If Mick uses the talk page of an article or the various forum then no one would be more pleased that I. -- Snowded  TALK  15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mick has two reverts - you have templated him unnecessarily, now leave it alone. Hes seen your template as he has commented here, you have no right to keep replacing it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If he had deleted it Off2riorob I would not have replaced it. As it happens you changed it not Mick so your statement above is misleading.  Also Mick made the second revert in full knowledge that there was a consensus position, he knows better than that and we don't have to wait for 4 reverts to make a report, especially when it the editor is using intemperate language -- Snowded  TALK  16:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * e/c Mick would probably have deleted it himself and that would have been the end of it. Why you thought you had to do it for him and then perhaps escalate this I don't know. Carson101 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Opinionated group speak consensus claims are not worth a byte of server space. Its not escalated - Micks seen your template so your work is done. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)You're entitled to your view about that consensus, but as far as I am aware you do not have the authority to determine its validity or otherwise, that is for the community. Mick has seen and commented on the template and if he wants to delete it that is fine.  You have been around here long enough to know better than to escalate things by commenting out a template which does not involve you  -- Snowded  TALK  16:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your constant wiki layering and process dependency is something you should give up for lent. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your view, I can't see any justification for your edit on Mick's talk page, but if you want to throw accusations around here feel free. Its not the first time after all.  However you might be better employed getting Mick to moderate his language a bit -- Snowded  TALK  16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to express my issues with your contributions but I know you will just go running to some noticeboard squealing attack attack. I (and others) see Mick as an extremely valuable editor to the en wikipedia project. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool it, I don't think I have ever taken you to a notice board despite some pretty silly accusations. I also think Mick is a valuable editor, I just wish he would calm down, moderate his language and work with other editors.  From the multiple ANI and other reports I'm not the only one with that view point -- Snowded  TALK  16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Whenever anyone who claims to know Wikipedia aswell as Snowded does template me I tend to leave it up there to out them as being the sort of person who templates regulars. But thanks anyway Rob. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And as said, it tends to be the people who template others that have these rather basic ideas of a 'standing consensus'. The people who don't tend to template regulars are the sort who would have seen that in my second edit summary I was clearly denouncing the claim of consensus, and would thus not have tried to make the same blind revert on the same claim of consensus, not least then follow it up with a warning for making blind reverts!. Still, clue. You've either got it or you haven't. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should still use the talk page Mick, you were bold, you were reverted you should discuss. And if you've got "it", I'm pleased not to  :-)  lighten up -- Snowded  TALK  16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If they deserve it template away see WP:TR Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to have the occasional diversion from Talk:United Kingdom I suppose......  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I wish I hadn't taken a break for dinner now, it all got exciting -- Snowded TALK  22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A hundred thousand welcomes
Welcome to Wikipedia, Snowded! God, I needed a good laugh and baby I got it. Oh and HAPPY EDITING!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this? Great fun!!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I thought weekends at Wikipedia were dull affairs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A creative mind has been wasted putting all that together. Aren't we spoilsports?!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The poor wee thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ok guys I am working from an iPhone on the way to the opera. What are we talking about?-- Snowded  TALK  14:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just revisiting last night's hoax "fun", I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm actually laughing about the editor who welcomed Snowded to Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should read this as well though, if you haven't done so. :-)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. One has to admit the hoaxer is a good writer! The last section is hilarious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I liked the "administrative error" as well. :-o  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See ANI
See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --RA (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Snowded: Do you think User:Trumpkin et al. are connected to User:AndyzB? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You can't just accuse me of being everyone who ever disagrees with you. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is OK to wonder. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they are clearly linked. Same editing style, following each other to different articles, tag teaming attacks on specific editors ( the NLP talk page illustrated this.  Gut feel says Trumkin is a sleeper account.  The newby account created to support their position on th QEII visit to ireland is also now protesting innocence in the same way as the banned sock.  It is behavioural though but remember that is how we finally got irvine22 who was using proxies and multiple IPs -- Snowded  TALK  12:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if it is not so. OneNightInHackney is great at sock tracking. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet/master of AndyzB but a small body of editors here would appear to be meatpuppets. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When accounts protest any movements towards SPIs & forcefully proclaim their innocences - that's usually signs of guilt. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly said that an SPI will show my innocence, as indeed it did. I have not made a single disruptive edit to a Wikipedia page, and indeed every single one of my edits has been a serious constructive edit, though perhaps seen as pedantic at worst. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you've nothing to fear, why protest? PS- and get that blasted alternate moniker shortened, it's confusing as it appears to be part of your posts. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that Trumpkin has made some useful edits. But, edits like this and this give rise to suspicion that he may have another agenda, associating with sockpuppets.  If that is the case, I strongly urge him to think longer term.  As I've said elsewhere, I think he could be a valuable serious contributor here.  But, to do that, people need to be reassured that he really does have nothing to hide and that he is committed to WP principles - no hoaxes, no spckpuppets, and so on.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be take seriously then focus on content issues rather commenting on other editors. This edit is the sort of childish silliness that you might want to avoid, along with the juvenile name. -- Snowded TALK  18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when did I say I wanted to be taken seriously, I merely wish that people would not accuse me of heinous crimes of which I am not guilty - and given that I have been cleared via ANOTHER checkuser, could you please stop wikihounding/stalking me? Thanks, Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Carry on making nonsensical accusations, engaging in silly edits and refusing to work with other editors and sooner or later it will catch up with you.  I think a wait and see approach is probably best, so lets see how you behave over the next few days.  If you carry on in the current vein you will be back at ANI -- Snowded  TALK  18:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpkin (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI
There's currently a discussion about the violations of another use but also involves you, I think they might need your input. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Entirely unrelated note
Do you still want the UK to adopt the EURO after having witnessed the Greece, Irish and Portuguese bailouts? I assume you put that box in a while ago. I'm interested to know if your views have changed at all over the years. thanks Alexandre8 (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting point have not reviewed that recently. Generally I think we need Europe to be stronger to counter balance the US and China, with smaller culturally cohesive states within a wider European identity.  The UK staying out and lack of integration is a part of the problem.  So strategically yes, tactically no -- Snowded  TALK  16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha I see your point. This is the problem, and that's why I was wondering if you'd reviewed it or not. It seems that if the EU was managed better and didn't attempt to regulate laws that simply do not apply to all countries it would work. It was set up more as a trade aggrement than a european government, but due to all the regulating of laws and commerce, I feel it's just a set of power mongers who aren't interested in the fates of the countries which occupy it. If the European Union copped it, what would you suggest as a good way of combating the threat of Chinese and American economic dominance? Alexandre8 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the only way to balance (I would not say combat) is for Europe to be more tightly integrated. The US has the same range of economies as Europe but managers a single currency.  With a more integrated Europe we could even manage an effective defense force -- Snowded  TALK  12:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking?
That was before many days. havn't edited that page still then. Shall i give you warnings for things you have done before an year? Don't post rubbish on my talk page. Go to that guy's talk page to know that it wasn't an edit war by me but an "undo" war by him without any explanation.Aravind V R (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You made the change, ignoring the hat note on the subject and then failed to abide by WP:BRD so you were edit warring. Open and shut case really.  If you don't repeat then there are no issues -- Snowded  TALK  04:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

?
You removed my comment warning the User on the Talk:England page about talking only about content not contributors, why? You gave no reason! --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Opps, sorry about that. Must have accidentally selected it before adding a comment.  I have restored -- Snowded  TALK  12:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (No really tanks) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

St Johns of Jerusalem
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from St John's Jerusalem. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The material is unsupported so I removed it. Its the same dubious source that you are using elsewhere.  I will tag the section for the moment and request citations that can be verified.  Without those it gets deleted.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The material has three footnotes and so is supported. Again you are confusing verifiability with ease of access to sources contrary to WP:V. All very well describing me as a "newbie" editor, please remember DBTN and Civility when making such statements. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See article talk page, the sources are dubious and there are some comical pipelinks.  I've tagged it and raised the objections.  Given that you and your co-author appear to be  newbes I am cutting some slack on the assumption of good faith.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seen this "quote" ...??? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have a sock master using different IPs or a proxy, not sure if the community will take that idea seriously though -- Snowded  TALK  05:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

UK 's intro
Howdy Snowded. Ghmrytle, you & myself, have shown flexiability at that article's intro discussion - just like we did last March. However, my patients is growing thin with the hardcore E/N/S/W crowd. I just might ease myself back to my more extreme stance. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see some flexibility much repetition which is making it more difficult to move forwards. I've seen your extreme stance before it generally increases conflict  -- Snowded  TALK  19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My acceptance of sovereign state for the UK, in place of country, wasn't the easiest thing I've done. It's time for that 'crowd-in-question' to do their part & give up countries concerning E/N/S/W. There's no need for their close minded approach. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More likely to be achieved if you hold back -- Snowded TALK  19:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, they are rather getting under my skin, aren't they. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And you constantly get under theirs, so don't be surprised. The repetition of the same point time and time again has ended up with you being bracketed with Armchair, something I suggest you avoid -- Snowded  TALK  19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall practice greater restraint. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In eager anticipation :-)  -- Snowded  TALK  19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my comment at the UK article, Snowy. I'm considering devoting my time to getting sock-masters blocked - as it kinda puts ones conflict skills to good use. PS: Perhaps there, Daicaregos will get off my back. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just trying to help and that would be a noble cause -- Snowded TALK  14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Right now, things have deteriorated rapidly between myself & Dai, due to his running off (again) to an administrator & trying to get me banned. He's got me into a Hulk smash mood, this morning. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Making mass changes on nationality issues then calling someone a stalker who brings your attention to the fact you shouldn't do that without agreement?  In your shoes I would apologise now -- Snowded  TALK  15:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I owe Dai nothing & that's what he'll get from me. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You owe Wikipedia reasonable behaviour. This is a pattern you get into, making multiple small petty changes that  you know will be controversial, its not sensible when a couple of talk page discussions would cost  you nothing.  You are digging your own grave here, creating evidence of disruption.  -- Snowded  TALK  15:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not apologizing to Daicaregoes. He can become as vindictive as he wishes. Just keep him off my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not being vindictive he's just had enough and I don't blame him. -- Snowded TALK  15:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not giving into that devolutionist PoV pusher. You're more capable of NPoV attempts, where he's not. At this point, I don't care if I'm banned from British & Irish articles. There's no reason to be around those article, if he's there. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't talk nonsense. Dai puts a huge amount of effort into improving (and creating articles and he respects wikipedia rules and process.  Try and address content issues rather than creating these silly little tirades against other editors.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wish for him to stay away from me. Let somebody else bring up concerns or complaints about my edits, at my talkpage. I'm seek of his attempts to bar me. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of people (including me) have brought complaints and issues to your talk page and you have ignored them all, don't be surprised if community redress is sought as an alternative -- Snowded TALK  16:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Even something as simple, non-politicial as adding that 31 seats were needed for a majority in Welsh Assembly election articles, couldn't be left alone by him. I just want him off my back - then I can cool down. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an unnecessary edit and he was fully entitled to object. The talk page is available if you disagree. Given your level of activity you can't expect other editors to leave you alone and you should calm down.  You seem to be pushing the provocations more of late; are you trying to get yourself blocked? -- Snowded  TALK  16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As for apologies. He's neither apologized for or retracted his claim at that Enforcement report, that I threatened him. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're throwing enough accusations around on your talk page and elsewhere that are borderline. Go for a walk, have a cup of tea, back off and stop these mass edits without agreement-- Snowded  TALK  16:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sound advise. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I started reverting his undiscussed changes until I realised the extent of them. . That's only the tip of the iceberg and I don't have that much time in the day to revert them all. Carson101 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've little to no interest in boxing articles & are only hounding me, as a supporter of Dai. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a supporter of Dai. I just say it the way I see it. It doesn't take a genius to realise that you were pissed off that you did not get your own way at the UK intro and then decided to take a little bit of revenge on Dai by changing all those articles. If I'm the only one who can see this then I guess I'm the only one who can see through your little games, and I can hardly believe that to be the case. And don't give me any guff about about showing good faith. You are hardly the one to be complaining about that, as shown on the UK article talk page. Carson101 (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're boring me 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm afraid you are boring everyone. I've had enough for now of your childish antics and will leave you to the silly remarks you make throughougt wikipedia. Carson101 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You really need to listen GoodDay, Carson's analysis looks accurate to me -- Snowded TALK  16:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, you have changed from being a good-natured and funny editor into someone who is increasingly confrontational. What's up?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried over months (or years) to bring NPoV to the British political articles, but failed. The devolutionist bend to those articles are here to stay & there's nothing I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, most other editors involved in these issues work to consensus and with reliable sources. You have a particular obsession about a few phrases and statements which have little support, but you feel free to make broad statements about other editors which you rarely if ever back up with evidence.  In addition the complaints about you come from editors involved in other fields.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that some of these comment towards GoodDay lately could be seen as a bit provocative in themselves.


 * RE you comment above - the whole area is surely beset with closed-consensus and sourcing issues isn't it? Secondly, it is just not right or fair to say GD has an 'obsession' essentially because of the way he writes - especially when so many have a serious obsession in this area too.


 * GD's real problem is that his single-sentences are a wind-up to most people eventually. They are even worse than the walls of texts some editors do. But he's not the only one to repeat his position ad nauseum: most of us do it in this area, you included. I actually support his position on most of the things he says - though rarely in the way he says it. These are micro consensuses Snowded - small guarded rooms - it's simply not with-policy to criticise GoodDay if he disagrees with them. He isn't 'fringe' in any sense of the term - and that will be obvious to onlookers if anyone does drop the big one on him. What GD needs is just a mentor - just be a presence of him and others to be aware of. I'm getting into the idea of mentors, providing it's done properly (ie it not being an invitation for a party). GD has said he'd accept one - maybe he should simply request one somewhere. He could go to the mentor then, instead of orange barring people with exactly the same discussion page comment (which is the other thing I suppose). It could stop all this bitching from all parties too - it's not helping anything.


 * This cannot be a content issue with GoodDay though - I want to make my position on that absolutely clear. His constituent countries position is entirely valid. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The 'other field' issue seems to be over diacritics, which I'm not sure where I stand on personally. He has a valid position though surely? Is it fair for you to connect the two? I haven't seem the same level of issues with that personally, not on his talk page anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GoodDay has I think made the right decision to withdraw from the subject Matt, the sheer number of editors concerned made that case.  Its always been a behaviour issue with him not a content one.  Otherwise  we had a macro consensus on the key issue of country some time and ago and its been stable, there is no value in constantly bringing it up.  All the ledes make it very very clear that they countries which are a part of the UK.  On diacritics I haven't looked yet,  took three days off at Hay on Wye over weekend so catching up  -- Snowded  TALK  11:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He always comes back though doesn't he? (And he has every right to of course). I can't get as upset as others with GD, partly because I often agree with him (or the jist of it), partly bacuse I can see where he is coming from (or trying too - the 'balance' thing which upsets him so), and partly because he simply (if often gnomically) represents underlying issues that cannot just go away (at the moment it is what constitutes 'constituent'). Matt Lewis (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the first time he has agreed to leave the subject and done so by agreement with an admin. So lets wait and see.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no intentions of returning to those articles. If things haven't changed in 6 months, my absence will continue. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice, when was that? Perhaps I'm just reading user talk pages, but I keep reading about your various 'positions' at the moment. If you are removing yourself from the related discussion/article pages only (and not people's talk pages in terms of discussing it) then it is silly and doesn't make all that much sense imo, as you are still be involved - and thus will need to contribute at times (as semi-interested people do). When you are tempted to return (I don't see this as a stage of anything) my advice would be to request mentorship first - I think it makes sense.
 * I've agreed with administrator Cailil, that I would stay away from British & Irish political article & talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When was that? I don't remember it at Dai's ANI on you. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A few days ago at Cailil's talkpage, where Dai complained about my edits to British boxing articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Its down to you to make the case"
Re: "Its down to you to make the case", I believe I did make my case. Perhaps you might wish to discuss any flaws you see in my argument so we can seek consensus. Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be missing it, but I can't see an argument for pipelinks on the talk page. WP:BRD applies.  You were bold, another editor reverted and you should have discussed.  I simply came in and put the previous stable version back in place -- Snowded  TALK  09:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion for link changes withdrawn because of clear consensus to have no links (see Philosophy talk page). You were correct to revert to stable version. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - and that was a nice summary of yours on the talk page by the way.

Counting
You say try counting, so lets. You remove POV tag, thats one. You remove POV Section tag, which would be two. And you then remove a dubious tag which I am absolutely certain makes three. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did too, you're right on that. Surprised at myself there as I thought I had exited without confirming.  Ah well saves someone else from doing it.  You really need to address the evidence issue there you know -- Snowded  TALK  10:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Just popping in to say hi! Fancy some stellas? Irvinestaunerson (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stellas are good. Snowded, you'll have to have it with me, since the above invitation was blocked in the mail. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry the invitation keeps on getting stuck in the post. We are going for Stellas after the next EDL rally right? Irvinevingtdeux (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A Request ...
A Request ... Snowded, I am not a troll, and I am not a vandal. I do not appreciate this constant mis-representation of me as a troll, that is indirectly stated by you. I am asking you to stop it. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * if you stop making repetitious statements that are factually inaccurate then I will not need to make the comments anymore. -- Snowded  TALK  13:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowded, I am making a request. Whether you choose to consider it, is up to you.  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You might notice that I made one too -- Snowded TALK  13:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)... -- Snowded  TALK  13:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not going to let this devolve into a battle of rhetoric, in the field of Logic. If you push this further I will involve the administrative apparatus to sanction you, as situations arise.  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your block record indicates that you have familiarity with administrator sanctions. However familiarity and learning in your case appear to be separated.  Behave in the same way and I will make the same comments.
 * Continue your behaviour and I will be reporting you to the Administration requesting they sanction you for your behaviour. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd wait for the next Snowded to come along - he's bigger than me. Oh and I would watch out for Australian throwing artifacts -- Snowded  TALK  15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)