User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 29

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Education Act 1902
The Conservative govt. introduced various Education Acts, it is for his work on the 1902 act that LG was noted, and this needs to be clear to readers(not all of whom will be as versed in Liberal history as I am). Also, acts are normally called by both name and year. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Its in the link if people click on it - and the place for this is on the talk page of the article not here Snowded  TALK 04:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Re your blanking - I am using your talk page to discuss your behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you are expressing an opinion about what needs to be in the article. Try and use the talk page, it helps everyone  Snowded  TALK 04:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to David Lloyd George
With this edit, you removed a legitimate "bywhom?" tag which I had added, removed links which I had added for a (not very well known) historian who had only been mentioned by an unexplained surname in the text, and introduced some American format dates. Please be more careful when you revert. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is subject too occasional bursts of near IP vandalism but I'm sorry if some of your edits were legitimate got swept up in that. Otherwise  I've left your links (although I think they are excessive) but confirmed them to make the text more readable  Snowded  TALK 04:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How charming of you to apologise for not bothering to check what it was you were reverting. DuncanHill (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually I was being polite, I really don't think most of the edits had value, the 'who said' is possibly the only one. However I have attempted to compromise by changing the links.  If you don't like it fine but lay of the sarcasm  Snowded  TALK 04:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As you assumed good faith when you blindly reverted my edits? DuncanHill (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) See above comment, I didn't blindly revert them, I didn't think they added any great value. Given the links seem important to you I compromised with my subsequent edits.  . Snowded  TALK 04:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So you deliberately added mis-spellings and American style dates? DuncanHill (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I really can't get worked up about date formats and US style ones appear increasingly, but if they really matter to people fine (which is why I left them second time round).  If there was a mis-spelling I may have missed that.  Not sure why you are getting so worked up about this but I apologised as it obviously mattered to you and just confirmed the bulk of changes to normal practice.  Most editors would be happy with that.  evidently you are not so I repeat the apology  Snowded  TALK 04:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. After 8 years editing Wikipedia I am rather tired of being treated like some "near IP vandal" whose edits get reverted with no explanation, especially when the reversion introduces, or re-introduces, errors. And as a reader of Wikipedia I do find it obnoxious when editors assume that readers are already familiar with random surnames. You did not seek to tell me why you were reverting me, and your response to a fairly polite comment here was to go to the article and straight away start undoing more of my edits. You will, of course, have noted that I did not simply revert your initial edit (the one I initially linked above), but went through making a few changes here and there. But I do thank you for your apology, and hope you will appreciate my explanation here. DuncanHill (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't undo your edits on the second round I simply put the '|' in a different place. Not sure why that needed explaining here first and I have limited time this morning on a very slow broadband link while on business in South Africa.   Otherwise I appreciate the frustration but try and understand that those of us who spend most of our limited time on vandalism patrol over many articles sometimes take it a bit far given the volume of edits we are dealing with.   Snowded  TALK 04:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You also removed some links, not just changed piping. And please could you as a "vandal patroller" please bear in mind that most editors are not vandals. If you are too busy to check an edit then maybe it would be better to leave it to someone who has the time. DuncanHill (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that is your opinion, but I am afraid I disagree. As I said I did check the edits, it appeared in the sheer volume I missed one spelling mistake.  That sort of thing happens, live with it  Snowded  TALK 04:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You just took it back to the edit before a red username. If you did check the edits then you got it wrong. Live with it. That you then went on and started undoing my other edits without bothering to reply first is not something to just "live with". You removed useful links, you made names etc obscure by unnecessary piping, and introduced errors. Just admit you screwed up and move on. DuncanHill (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Duncan you disagree with me on piping, fine, take it to the talk page. You think I screwed up, I don't and we will both have to live with that difference. I really can't get worked up about this enough even for mild sarcasm.


 * Now that is fine. But just to say "Adams" with no context is not. DuncanHill (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, its better that way Snowded  TALK 04:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge Management
Could you tell me why you undid the edits I made on the knowledge management article? I have lots of issues with that article and would suggest many more changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianOrr2020 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the reasons I gave in the summary. The definition in particular was in terms of information which is a very partial view of the field.  The place to raise this however is the talk page of the article not here  Snowded  TALK 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt reply. I have started a discussion on the talk page of Knowledge Management and hope we can hae a discussion there.

BrianOrr2020 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Map of British Overseas Territories on United Kingdom article?
Could you please explain how including a map in the information box for the United Kingdom article containing the United Kingdom and its overseas territories/crown dependencies is inappropriate? Similar a map can be found on United States with non-integral territories. Italay90 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've put it back on, there is no case against it being there, "inappropriate" betrays personal aversion. Hayek79 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Overseas territories
Inappropriate or difficult to read? Which one is it? There are similar maps on the pages for France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States, for example, such that there is therefore no justifiable reason to remove it. Hayek79 (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TPS: Certainly in the cases of France, Denmark and the Netherlands, the constitutional status of their overseas territories is quite different. Areas like French Guiana, Greenland, Aruba, etc., are constituent parts of those countries.  The UK dependencies are not part of the UK - they have a different relationship.  So, the map should not be included in the infobox.  Whether it should be included in the main text on Dependencies is a different matter.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree and this should really be taking place on the talk page of the article!  Snowded  TALK 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Welsh Dragon
Hello,

I have seen that You rolled back information that I added to art. about Welsh Dragon. I believe that You know better than me about this issue and I would be interested to read You comment on this. As for my post, it origin from the research about Sarmatians and Legion VI Victrix that was send to Britain year 175. In several publications, I noticed that Welsh Dragon suppose to origin from the Draco military standard that was part of Roman army at that time. I know that this standard have been used also in IXth and Xth century. However, when we talk about year 175 and cataphracts or draconarius, I think it refere to Sarmatian knights. Let me know what You think about this. Best regards, Camdan (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You have to find an independent third party source to support the statement. Regardless of the truth or otherwise original research by an editor is not accepted  Snowded  TALK 14:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

''The oldest recorded use of the dragon to symbolize Wales is in the Historia Brittonum, written around AD 829, but it is popularly supposed to have been the battle standard of King Arthur and other ancient Celtic leaders. Its association with these leaders along with other evidence from archaeology, literature, and documentary history lead many to suppose that it evolved from an earlier Romano-British national symbol''
 * In the art. about Welsh Dragon, it is stated:
 * First, I question Celtic leaders around King Arhtur. Any proof? Most researchers claim Sarmatian origin although here group of scolars that match what we know with the DNA results and come to conclusions that it is in most Sarmatian Draco but...lso Celtic (see the clash of the cultures around years 200-500). Second...it is written that the Dragon might evolve from Romano-British national symbol, it should naturally refer to Draco. Third...yes, the source was not good, I admit - i was just sure that it was so wide known. I will choose much better source and claim Sarmatian Draco again as long there is stated that the flag might origin from Romano-British national symbol. A bit confusing since Roman national symbol and banner was Eagle and Draco was a standard of a cohort. Camdan (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I question Celtic leaders around King Arhtur. Any proof? Most researchers claim Sarmatian origin although here group of scolars that match what we know with the DNA results and come to conclusions that it is in most Sarmatian Draco but...lso Celtic (see the clash of the cultures around years 200-500). Second...it is written that the Dragon might evolve from Romano-British national symbol, it should naturally refer to Draco. Third...yes, the source was not good, I admit - i was just sure that it was so wide known. I will choose much better source and claim Sarmatian Draco again as long there is stated that the flag might origin from Romano-British national symbol. A bit confusing since Roman national symbol and banner was Eagle and Draco was a standard of a cohort. Camdan (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At the moment what you are saying is original research or synthesis. Speculation is speculation even if it is referenced  Snowded  TALK 04:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates (such as welcome templates and user warnings) on talk pages, as you did to User talk:HymanFam, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use instead of. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Free will again
Hi Snowded,

Brews is back at Free will again making some troublesome edits and I just have terribly terribly little time in my life to do much more than revert vandalism these days, which I don't feel comfortable doing to Brews' complex and partially-constructive edits. Could you by chance maybe swing by there and keep an eye out to make sure he doesn't cause trouble unimpeded?

Thanks, Pfhorrest (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I took it off my watch list as the willingness of the community to deal with a disruptive editor like Brews was not there. When one admin was into a 'ban everyone mood' I decided I was giving up on it.    I'm prepared to take a look tomorrow when I have time.   I tempted to do a mass revert with a 'take each amendment to talk' suggestion.   I'm not willing to do it on my own however  Snowded  TALK 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

plus ça change
ArbCom case yet again - in which I decline to participate, leaving such "evidence" as I can for those who read my talk page, and who will faithfully understand where I stand. You never did write your blog, did you? In any event, you might enjoy WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. Collect (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its on a list to write but I have been pretty wiped out the last year and also got pissed off with wikipedia to the point where I largely spotted.  Have you got a link to the case will take a look  Snowded  TALK 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See  and note some of the usual names.  Also read my user talk page to see some of the "stuff" involved.   The complainants even car on my essays, fer  gosh sakes!  And what I called SYNTH was found SYNTH by an overwhelming majority at Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush  so I think the claim that I was wrongly citing policy should have failed right off the bat.   But trying to make sense of ArbCom may be a losing battle.    And also read Jimbo's talk page to see why I am just giving in to the harassment finally -- I could handle Ikip and his associates, but some of the editors involved are far more persistent indeed.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You missed the excitement
Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Brilliant - sorry I don't monitor that page anymore otherwise I would have chimed in. It will be good to have you back on Philosophy articles !  Free Will in particular needs attention at the moment  Snowded  TALK 04:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh it's Brews again. Not sure if I have the stamina for that. I will take a look. Peter Damian (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have the Stamina but the odd helping hand would be appreciated.  I may even have missed the odd improvement in what he contributes!  Snowded  TALK 19:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with the Metaphysical libertarian Robert Hilary Kane's BIO
Hello Snowded I was wondering if you would like to help with the Robert Kane (philosopher) article. Since you have at least an interest in metaphysical libertarianism. Also most of the arguments showing that science can not be used to dispense with indeterminism, stochastics, free will are in Nassim Taleb's very famous book The Black Swan and also Robert Kane's book The Significance of Free Will and almost anything by Ilya Prigogine. As such Prigogine caused a lot of controversy with his theory of irreversibility as if anything, it shows that if there is indeterminism, stochastics (i.e. Freedom of will) any form of determinism can not be used to refute it as there is no way to scientifically prove determinism. LoveMonkey 14:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a side note. It is no "illusion" that people operate by faith. It is a matter of science. In this I mean that human beings operate from the perspective of incomplete information (epistemic opacity). I would like to create an article on that subject and the work that Robert Kane has done on that. LoveMonkey 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try and get time to have a look at it over the weekend - have been travelling and managing Brews is exhausting.  I like the idea of that article and there is other material that could be used  Snowded  TALK 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable wikipedia
here.Peter Damian (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Free will
Snowded:

You might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Labour Party page
Hi

I was reading your page about the Labour Party and in particular the section about Northern Ireland.

Can I suggest two changes.

1. The article suggests the party changed membership rules after a review. It's only if you read the citation that you get the context of the review. I believe that if you include some of the citation detail, it provides a fuller explanation to the reader. The change only happened after the threat of legal action, backed by the GMB Union and the expectation the party would lose any case.

2. Recent comments by Labour leaders imply whole hearted support for the Union, but as you point out they have an affiliation with the SDLP, a Nationist party. This is in marked contrast to their views on the SNP. I appreciate this might be considered more of an opinion.

Thanks Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.175.186 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Labour Party - Northern Ireland Entry
Hi

I was reading your page about the Labour Party and in particular the section about Northern Ireland.

Can I suggest two changes.

1. The article suggests the party changed membership rules after a review. It's only if you read the citation that you get the context of the review. I believe that if you include some of the citation detail, it provides a fuller explanation to the reader. The change only happened after the threat of legal action, backed by the GMB Union and the expectation the party would lose any case.

2. Recent comments by Labour leaders imply whole hearted support for the Union, but as you point out they have an affiliation with the SDLP, a Nationist party. This is in marked contrast to their views on the SNP. I appreciate this might be considered more of an opinion.

Thanks

Paul

Countydown (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The place for that is on the talk page of the article itself. Happy to look at it if you make a proposal there Snowded  TALK 10:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

British Empire
I've already started a conversation with the user who denies the deletion for the sentence. I hope that we can work something out, no need for a block threat. (N0n3up (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC))
 * You use the talk page of the article and you stop edit warring. Otherwise it will be reported for a block.  From what I saw you didn't start a discussion either you just tole the other editor he was wrong.  Snowded  TALK 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I already explained why that part should be deleted, he on the other hand just reverted without giving a single reason to do so. (N0n3up (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC))
 * Talk page of the article, make your case, do not edit war Snowded  TALK 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The United States was in a stage of Industrial growth at the time, but that had nothing to do with the erosion of Britain's power. I was making reference to the US article of Wikipedia to pint out the widely accepted fact that the US was involved in Britain's fall after WWII, I wasn't using it as a source. And the sources I provided does prove that Germany was the main reason for Britain's power erosion and then WWI and WWII followed. (N0n3up (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

Articles for deletion/Subject–object problem
See Articles for deletion/Subject–object problem (you have edited this article before). Peter Damian (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No more
I had as much as I could bear on Talk:Free will Peter Damian (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel, time to try and get action I think Snowded  TALK 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The action needed is to address sources instead of behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you in a minority of one in thinking that Brews.  How many more editors have to chime in before you finally admit you might be wrong?  Or is ANI and yet another ban the only route? -- Snowded  TALK 15:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP policy supports the purpose of the encyclopedia, which is to present what reputable sources have to say on various topics. Naturally such presentation involves some discussion of this content and how it should best be presented. Neither of these activities has recently been your focus. Brews ohare (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And as you have been repeatedly told by many editors both on Philosophy pages and on Policy pages it does not support your personal synthesis of those sources.  If you want to write essays on Philosophy please enrol in your local community college.   Snowded  TALK 17:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Biting the bullet
I have tried engaging with Brews again, to no avail. I have asked him the following question. If he disagrees, I would fully support a topic ban from the whole of philosophy. I think he means well, but he finds it difficult to work constructively with others, and there are basic issues with WP:COMPETENCE. His activity on the Free will article is immensely disruptive. Peter Damian (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, little alternative. I'm en route Auckland to Marseille over the weekend so will have limited time.   But I'm teaching for the next three days at the University there and its not demanding (complexity theory to MBAs) to will draft something if needed  Snowded  TALK 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As you see, a topic ban now has my full support. He seems to have no interest in working constructively with others. It might be different if he had something useful to offer, but there are competence issues, as I said. Peter Damian (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen it.  I really wish he would enrol in a community college and read Philosophy rather than attempt to have the discussions he craves here.  I think he considers that the best way forward is to keep stringing together secondary sources and can't understand why the rest of us won't add to the lists.   I'll draft something over the next few days unless we see evidence of sudden enlightenment  Snowded  TALK 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment invited
It would be useful to have your comment here. Someone is suggesting that philosophy is not controversial, it would be helpful for you to suggest otherwise! Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

See also my comment here. Peter Damian (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on this by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC) It's been a few years coming, but a chance to use Philosophy in the public sector to make a difference Snowded  TALK 06:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Obvious political bias
I appreciate your concern for a editor consensus prior to edit but frankly the obvious bias against the political party within the article does not conform to Wikipedia's non partisan perspective. Examples include describing the voter base as uneducated and predominantly white, old and middle class. aside from being factually inaccurate based on results from the 2015 general election it displays a deliberate attempt to further the authors agenda. Additionally no other political party is subject to this. I hope you can see this as a way to revert the article back to the independent once it was but a few months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berox7 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you make the case on the talk page. At the moment you are edit warring.  Do that again without consensus and you get reported with a view to a block  Snowded  TALK 19:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You aren't secretly Edward Snowden are you?....

 * No, same surname so we are probably related as the origins go back to an early Norse settlement in the UK. Snowded  TALK 12:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Last warning
The next comment you make on the Talk page referring to Harold directly or indirectly or his company, I will bring this matter to ANI and I am fairly confident that the result will be, that you will be topic banned. I have warned you several times. Your comments are directed time and again to protecting your interests and to pursuing your real world dispute with him. Both are an abuse of your editing privileges. This is the last warning. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I provided a link without any commentary whatsoever. But this is getting out of hand so while I disagree with your conclusion I'll back off and leave it to you.  Snowded  TALK 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, to show Cynthia's relationship with Harold's company . Your seeming lack of awareness of the extent to which your comments on Talk are being driven by your dispute with Harold and your COI, is hard to watch. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of the suggestion that an article by Cynthia was a independent source. So I disagree on that one, but I'm also prepared to accept that (i) I may be wrong and (ii) you are doing your best to be objective.  So as I just said I will leave it  Snowded  TALK 20:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

..

Notice of discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions - note
It just occurred to me that there are discretionary sanctions available for biographies of living people, which includes comments about other living people on article Talk pages. I don't have to go to ANI to have action taken against you, should you continue your feud in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly like Snowded that much but I'm going to say you are going over the top with this warning stuff especially when he is saying he could be wrong and is willing to examine his behavior. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you are aware of the extent of this feud. And even though Dave wrote that, the behavior continued unabated on article Talk pages, even after a very strong warning.  They have both been abusing Wikipedia, and that is stopping now.  By their own self-restraint, or by the community. . Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And it took 3 threats to get this across? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently. And we will see if it even has gotten across or not.  My hope is that they will get it now. Self-restraint is the greatly preferred option.  Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I do find this a little ironic. When this started I moved immediately to ask for an independent admin review which supported my reversion. You then appeared with a new COI process which I agreed to cooperate with and since then it's been difficult to try and work out just how you are interpreting what is a guideline not policy. You seem to think it excludes even a simple link to show that another editor is failing to point out they have a commercial link with the author of a self published book they wish to use as an authority. What is clear is that the guideline as such needs clarification. I didn't think I would ever agree with Hell in a Bucket but on this occasion I do. Whatever, I've been around Wikipedia long enough (I think longer than you) to know how the 'a plague on both your houses' syndrome hits an ANI and that it's too easy to get sucked into a dispute when your own reputation is at stake. So I agreed to back off and reflect a bit. When it's calmed down I'm going to get active in the COI group to deal with that clarification of process. Snowded TALK 05:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * no Your behavior has been very clearly COI-driven.  For what it's worth, I advise to not take comments from editors who have not been closely observing your behavior as some kind of vindication.  Your case is not ambiguous - both in the existence of external relationships (with your company, your academic claims of generating the concept (not commenting on whether that is accurate or not, just that you claim it), and your personal and professional disputes), and in the way those relationships have affected your behavior here. If you want me to lay out diffs I will do. I do not say I will bring someone to ANI unless I know I have sufficient difs to prove my point.  Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I know you think that, I agree with some of what you say and not with other aspects. Not sure why you find this problematic nor why you think I took the comments as vindication.   Snowded  TALK 14:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Paid editor
As I wrote on Risker's page, in my view it is a distinction without a difference. Why is it important to you? Just would like to understand better. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As Risker said in the context of the community use of the term its a personal attack and other editors obviously see a significant differernece between the two. It needs clarifying and the practice of dealing with experienced editors when a COI Issue arises needs improvement.   I also work in conflict resolution, not just in a Univsrsity but in post  conflict  situations at Government level.   One clear lesson from that is that mediators should not inflame the process by insisting that their interpretion of a guideline Is the only way forward.   Very happy to work with you on this issue independent of the Cynefin  article as it's important for Wikipedia  Snowded  TALK 22:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not contest Risker's deletion. Let me ask you, were you aware of the notice at the top of the WT:COI page and its intention? Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of both notices and I was not bringing a specific issue to do with you to that page, but making a general point on policy. I intend to make more and to look at a protocol as to how to engage potential COI cases in the future.    Neither am I a paid editor on wikipedia as I think we have now established. Like all human beings I am motivated by my experiences and I will refer to those when I raise some suggestions on the COI pages in the future.    But as I have said several times I am waiting for the Cynefin page discussions to die down before doing so as I don't want confusion between policy and a specific case.    On Risker's page you clearly left the impression that you accepted that you would not use the term 'paid editor' in the sense in which you used it on this talk page.  You also did not contest the point that an academic in a field has SME expertise regardless of a COI in an article.  Given that I would expect you to strike that comment  Snowded  TALK 04:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pointless. I am walking away from this whole mess. Good luck. 06:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your call - I will simply link that comment from you to the discussion on Risker's page as an alternative. Pity, I think it was a simple request and one that would have demonstrated good will on your part.    I'll leave it for some weeks then do some work on the COI page around this.  I think its important that the manner of approach to a COI editor is such as to engender co-operation not confrontation   Snowded  TALK 06:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * for pete's sake, i cannot strike what Risker deleted. in your indignation you are not even dealing with editing reality.  As I wrote on Risker's page, you are fighting every effort to acknowledge and manage your COI, and now that you have actually turned to the attack, it is even less manageable.  You should have disclosed that you have multiple COIs when you posted at WT:COI and you didn't - that is the spirit of the notice there.   Making a federal case out of the label is completely missing the point. I will leave you and the other editor to deal with your issues however you can. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I see the confusion. I was not asking you to revert something that had already been reverted.  I asked you to revert the same accusation on this talk page with seems reasonable. I freely accept that you had a different interpretation, but that has now been clarified so I think its time we moved on.  Not sure why you should call it an attack, disagreements happen on wikipedia and they need to be explored as equals ...  Snowded  TALK 21:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)