User talk:Snowded/Archive 4

Ireland

I guess it's time for Arbitration now. -- Evertype·✆ 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(from Republic of Ireland RM), what's transclusion? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a computer science term "the inclusion of part of a document into another document by reference". --Snowded TALK 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, Mick's copy of Taskforce votes at the RoI RM request. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep and that's improper behaviour --Snowded TALK 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All this talk is making me thirsty. I propose a toast to the Emerald Isle.Lestrade (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute

I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved editor opinion

Hi Snowded, I seek your opinion as an uninvolved editor whom I respect. If you have the time please have a look at Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area#Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I would just like to know: 1. if you think the position I'm arguing is right or wrong and 2. if you think the position I'm arguing is correct, but that I should just give it up anyway. Please let me know if you if you either don't have the time or the interest. Thank you in advance for you help. Daicaregos (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How odd. That is the very reason I am visiting here (on a totally unrelated matter to Daicaregos). Am working on an RM which has already been changed (under dubious circumstances imo) by 2 admins. It could get sticky and would appreciate your advice, as a non-involved rock of sense. RashersTierney (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Which RM Rashers? Happy to get involved and thanks for the "rock of sense" comment! Cheered up a lonely wait in the departures lounge at Boston. --Snowded TALK 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves #Other proposals 1st December Roma people to Romani people. There was probably a better direct but I'm a bit knackered. Thanks.RashersTierney (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK flight will be called shortly so will look at it when I get back to the UK tomorrow --Snowded TALK 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Pleasant flight! RashersTierney (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an update. All quiet so far...maybe a little too quiet, or maybe its just the paranoia again. Oh well...

Belated thanks for moral support on successful RM. RashersTierney (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really do anything. I looked at it a couple of times and it seemed to be going in the right direction. --Snowded TALK 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

All that was needed! RashersTierney (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd luv to enter that discussion. But, I won't. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also much appreciated.:) RashersTierney (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sooo... shall we light the blue touchpaper - with a RFC on the Scotland page perhaps? Daicaregos (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am begining to think that the UK is a basket case on naming --Snowded TALK 08:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The UK suffers from multiple identity crisis, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Much easier when you were the conqueror rather than the conquered. Daicaregos (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. I still have my support & oppose 'votes'. So let me know if the article has a straw poll. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Added englands coat of arms

England has no coat of arms. It has been decided it has to be removed like Wales & Scotland. Thanks --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on the talk page to that effect - the discussion appears ongoing. Your comments o the Scotland page were largely ignored and you are also a suspected sock puppet. --Snowded TALK 22:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actuatly there was a discussion on the England talk page and Jza84 thought it should be moved

I read the discussion and Jza84 expressed an opinion, but there is no agreement per your comment. Take it to the talk page and ask for agreement --Snowded TALK 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was just my opinion, and unfortunatly for Wikipedia, my opinion does not equate consensus just yet!

Snowded, it's pretty clear this is Nimbley, but I'm not blocking as it's easier to manage if he has a single account we can rollback. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he hit several pages while I was waiting for a plane last night so I simply monitored and reversed until he stopped. Easier that a checkuser, block and yet another ID!--Snowded TALK 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (episode II)

Spainton is suspected of being the grate Nimbley6. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that on the user page, but it was pretty self evident from the edits. The latest on sub-headings a dead give away --Snowded TALK 19:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I wonder if Nimbley6 & Wikipiere are cousins (one British, the other Irish). GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley6 is just stupid, Wikipiere is irritating as he could be a good editor --Snowded TALK 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I reckon a CU is headed Nimbley/Spainton's way. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're over-reacting at Lo2u page. I still have no intentions of fiddling with those 4 articles or the related countries lists. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, my nose hurts again. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you are making some strong statements that four pages have a nationalist bias. Now I don't think you have any evidence for that. Aside from the involvement of several admins (such as DDstrech and JZA) who can't possibly be called nationalists, I think most of the active editors go out of their way to avoid a POV position. So for you to broadcast an accusation without backing it up is a form of failing to assume good faith. It doesn't matter if you intend to edit the articles or not. On the Wikipedia you are what you say, and its you who are saying it! --Snowded TALK 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'll scratch out my PoV there. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Ya really got me, with the AGF thingy. That's my weak spot. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

wicked  :-) --Snowded TALK 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scorpions

I don't know if you are up to date with the furore of the Scorpions record cover with the little girl. Well, I feel a little, no, a lot uncomfortable with it. I made comments to that effect on David Gerard talk page and the Admins noticeboard. Like me, I would have thought the vast majority of wikipedians wouldn't be comfortable with it. I fear that if this is permitted it may go down a road where I may find I don't want to be a part of a wiki that is happy with these images. I'm not mad on censorship but do believe there should be a line drawn somewhere. Sorry, I had to get that out. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of Child Porn is a major issue on Wikipedia to be honest and one that has got at least one editor banned by Wales (whose record in respect of the glamour industry is not good). Look up the Peter Damian case if you want an example of someone being punished for taking a moral position in an anything goes environment!. I'll look up that example --Snowded TALK 11:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That was as good as a blank! (on Gerard's page). Titch Tucker (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems is the rhetoric used, and, like many other situations on wikipedia, there is inconsistency and distortion in bucket loads as a result.

The mantra that many are trotting out is "Wikipedia is not censored" when of course this is so false that it becomes ludicrous: there is mass censorship of undesirable false information, when desirable false information is allowed (like the mantra itself, for example); vandalism is removed, in an act that is censoring, although it is normally said to be something else, and easier to claim this by using the term "vandalism"; actual pictures of child abuse and child sexual abuse would not be allowed (and rightly so), and that would be censorship; personal attacks upon others are censored, critical comments about people are sometimes allowed in places where it is said that they should not be made, and little is done about it, and ad hominem arguments are certainly allowed in some places (like RfAs where the issue of whether candidates are trustworthy or not is clearly an argument about the persons) and not others, and so they are (partially) censored.

So, without much thought, the mantra can be shown to be clearly an oversimplification that glosses over things.

The problem then is that people can point to this incident in the light bof the restrictions such as those I've mentioned, and argue about inconsistency in a way which actually does support the idea that unsavoury images are protected from being deleted from wikipedia in certain contexts.

The problem of having administrators who are below the age of majority in many jurisdictions, no checks on the age of people accessing the information, and anonymous editors merely makes the matter more of a mess, I think. In other contexts, there would be positive action required by readers after a notice that says that the content may offend and that they should not access the material if they feel this would be the case or if they are below 18 years old.

What really happens here is that wikipedia as an organisation has developed forms of control of admissable content that can be called censorship on an independent, objective analysis, but when it runs into another organisation whose view of admissable content differs from its own, it yells "Unfair! Censorship!" in the same way that some "disruptive editors" are criticized for doing towards wikipedia. So long as wikipedia maintains the fiction that it is truly uncensored in an absolute way when it is clearly not, then there is little hope of reasonable negotiated solutions in situations where it disagrees with other organisations over admissable content. Essentially "censorship" means that the two or more parties disagree over what is acceptable content, and that some content is not allowed by one party which would be by another.

Finally, the point is being made that the image concerned would not be found to be illegal. Ok, in that case, there is a need for a court case to test the claim, and those who propose a claim must provide the evidence, and so I suggest that the most vocal proponents of "wikipedia is not censored" and "the image is not illegal in the UK" to put their money where their mouths are and offer themselves up to the full force of the UK's police departments who are concerned with child protection and pornography by laying their head on the line. I suspect they would shy away from that when the full realisation of what would then happen hits them coupled with the risk that a jury would convict them. I also they take on the task of countering the amount of vandalism that the wholesale chaos of maintaining this position has provoked. What I am suggesting is that it is cheap to appear to take a principled stand on this matter, coming out with cute soundbites about "wikipedia is not censored" and similar comments to "the image is not illegal", but when the chips are down and the ruination of one's life is on the cards after having to face a sexual offences prosecution in the UK, I bet you wouldn't be able to see very many of them for dust!

I think wikipedia ought to simply change the image used to the less objectionable one that was used in many other countries for the album, otherwise, I guess people will start to call it "wikipaedia" or some such rubbish, and the associations that this incident will bring about will lead to people, such as myself, not being particularly happy continuing to work on it.

Ok. Rant over!  DDStretch  (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Great set of comments - mind if I use some of them in a blog I am preparing on the subject (with acknowledgement to your pseudonym or real name if you prefer! --Snowded TALK 13:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Just wanted to warn you about User:Welshleprechaun#The_List[1] I don't think that this is acceptable. Pondle (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Its unusual! However he is saying that he thinks I am a nice guy, not that I think he is so its difficult to know if one can/should complain --Snowded TALK 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just looked at the edit history - yes I think its wrong to list "bad" editors, but I see that has been removed --Snowded TALK 12:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

UK reversion

The fact is that i've learned much more abt WP by keeping my ears open, and remembering the mistakes i've made, than by pursuing the tutorials. And that should soften whatever harshness you read into this correction of your practice:
You must explain when you revert, even if only with "rv v". Even if you were misled by my jocular phrase "inquiring minds" in this case you also owe the article the questions "Is the year the UK came into existence a first order fact about it, that's appropriate to the lead?" and "How should one learn which people had "British" as opposed to "Scottish" or "English" state identity?" I just figured out i could harmlessly re-establish what i'd forgotten about the "undo"-tool's messages and options by trying to revert what you already reverted; i see the message is

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.

I do not think you can claim that that implied exception frees you from AGF, and your unfounded guess stands far from conforming to that standard.
I am reverting back, and i expect you to start a discussion on the talk page of the article if you still have misgivings.
--Jerzy•t 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I explained it the first time if you bother to check. (I thought I had, checking I hadn't so apologies for that. However it is now explained The UK was not founded by the act of union. Sorry I will revert, the de facto position does not have that date. --Snowded TALK 07:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the 2nd rv, repairing the effects of my careless ignorance (i.e., i should have been able to figure that out, even tho i don't know the dates). My 1st thot on seeing it was "c'mon, that's easy to work around", and my 2nd thot after abt 30 sec. was "Hmm, i guess it isn't at all!"
  Thanks also for your conscientious handling of your need to "expand and revise [your own] remarks" (Congressional jargon for shamelessly falsifying the Congressional Record", tho the concept is a good one, with proper annotations such as yours.) Since you are conscientious in that, i hope i won't be too annoying in demonstrating my extension of what you INTENTIONAL died aborning above ERROR. (It may not be obvious that it uses the ~~~~~ quasi-sig thingy.)
  --Jerzy•t 20:54 & 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  

No problem --Snowded TALK 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst/while

FYI - the result of the peer review at B.E. was that while is preferred over whilst, so I've changed it accordingly. I'm sure that neither of us would want this to prevent it reaching FA article status. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A blow for the diversity of language, but agreed on FA. --Snowded TALK 07:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock: help needed

If anyone is monitoring this page (I know you are) then would then please ask User:Elonka to remove the autoblock she has imposed - text below: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias". --Snowded TALK 08:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just found this - hopefully it will work. --Snowded TALK 08:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

((unblock-auto|1=194.72.9.25|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias".|3=Elonka|4=1248271))

Sorry about that, you should be good to go, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Its just been put back in place - what is this admin playing at? Can't they read? Anyone around? its taking a long time to respond! --Snowded TALK 13:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, I've heard this Auto thingy, blocked out all UK Wikipedians. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you mentoring me? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Me? Would I take on that awesome responsibility? --Snowded TALK 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Guess who

Hi - yeah, agree absolutely. I'm coming slightly late to the party; the latest sock has already been indef blocked. Thanks for the heads-up, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Closeupon

Absolutely - and this time I was a wee bit quicker! I filed a RfCU, which has come back likely. Closeupon has already been blocked. Thanks for spotting this - it feels like the Nimbley6 tide is turning (and to quote a NZ advert "it ain't turning [their] way").

Re: Bristol: mostly visiting close family - though I'm on leave right now for the first time in a long time, so sort of a holiday, too - I grew up mostly in the South of England, despite being a Kiwi, but moved to Glasgow for university and stayed there - with the exception of the past 18 months - ever since. Clear as mud, eh?!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Impressive turnround! Given a choice between Bristol and Wellington I would choose the latter anytime! I get our there three/four times a year and its always a pleasure. --Snowded TALK 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin

Can I point out that it would be entirely appropriate, and probably for the long-term good, to issue formal templated warnings about personal attacks. Mooretwin has begun to allege that I am engaged in a personal vendetta against him for warning him, but I feel it is in the overall interest of wikipedia to not allow this to happen. There is a thread about this on WP:AN (The "Can someone counsel User:Mooretwin" subject) where you can see that anyone who tackles him is being accused of vendetta, thus preventing more action against him by them, as they then become "too involved".  DDStretch  (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, will do (although I see he is deleted them) --Snowded TALK 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin is currently blocked for 1-week. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been on the watch list for some time, but thanks --Snowded TALK 16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

England

Hi Snowded! Just wondering why you reverted my grammatical corrections to England and why you didn't leave an edit summary to explain your action. Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well one of them changed it to England's is which is just plain wrong and I am pretty sure that it should be tribes who not tribes which. To be honest the England's is was so badly wrong I didn't see the need to explain the edit. --Snowded TALK 11:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As it stood it read "England is the world's oldest parliamentary system...". This is wrong: England is not a parliamentary system, it is a country which has many characteristics, one of which is its parliamentary system. If we're talking about England's parliamentary system we must say so, for example "England's parliamentary system is the world's oldest parliamentary system...". This structure is overburdened and either "parliamentary system" could be deleted. Perhaps it would be more acceptable to you if I changed it to "England's parliamentary system is the world's oldest...".

Regarding "tribe who" versus "tribe which", "who" relates only to people who are explicitly mentioned; if only the collective is mentioned then "which" applies. Thus we can have "a tribe of people who"... because the "who" refers to the people but we can't have "tribes who settled" any more than we can have a "club who plays at White Heart lane" or a "church who meets to pray every Sunday".

Hope this explains things adequately and accurately; perhaps you can explain the distinction between "which" and "that" - that's something which / that I'm not so sure about. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotlands opening sentence

I see you have agreed to the change in the opening sentence, and whilst I won't lose any sleep if it does change, I wonder where it will all end, and what will be the next suggestion to improve the Scotland/Wales articles. I've given my opinion on the matter and will step back again, but I'll watch with interest over the next few months. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that agreement as a necessary step in making sure that country status is not challenged again. People like Jza and other neutrals will defend the current Wales/England position as citable. The Scottish lede is nationalist (and as you know I am one) but WIkipedia needs to be neutral and we are stronger if we demonstrate that neutrality even when we like existing text! --Snowded TALK 11:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope your right Snowded, I'll try and show a little faith. I'm off, the in (out)-laws have been ignored enough :) Titch Tucker (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Butting in, because this broadly seems to be my position too - though for different reasons (I'm not a nationalist, but I don't see Scotland's comparatively recent involvement in the UK as being that important in the millenia-long history of Scotland). One thing I've been ignoring until recently, and that Jza and Snowded have brought home to me, is the need for - and advantages of - citations. That's driven my agreement with the recent proposal, though I can't say I view it as ideal. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as Scotland is in sync with Wales, England & Northern Ireland, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in British and American English

It surprised me that what I'm sure is your favo(u)rite word isn't listed here, just after "coulee" perhaps. Would it help to add it, do you think, or not? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I give up, I don;t get it! Mind you its late at night and I've just driven home from Rodney Parade in the rain so I have some excuse. What is the word? --Snowded TALK 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Country - there seem to be different interpretations (!), and if they're transatlantic differences it would be appropriate that it be listed in that article. (apologies for being obtuse!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Interesting one will think ont. --Snowded TALK 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help and support. Hopefully all that is now behind us. If there is anything I can do to help you, just say the word. Peter Damian (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure Peter and I managed to create a bit of a stir in the blogosphere which was useful. Just help knock pseudo-science entries like NLP (maybe spiral dynamics is next on the list) on the head and keep people honest on philosophy and history pages - that will be thanks enough. --Snowded TALK 11:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Spiral Dynamics. That looks like a good one. Is there a three-headed monster guarding it? Peter Damian (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with these is once you start following the links you find a whole nest of evil toxic material e.g. Integral movement, Ken Wilber and so on. Where will it end? Peter Damian (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Its very toxic. Ken Wilber leads you to all sort of interesting places and his current links with the Arlington Institute, Beck and others are shall we say "interesting". You get some craziness here such as the return of Quetzalcoatl. Trouble is you look at the popular end of a management "science" section of a bookstore and what do you get? NLP guides, Spiral Dynamics, simplistic recipes and books on leadership by people who couldn't make it past stage one of the republican nomination process. We live in scary times but I am reliably told it will end in 2012. Apparently the Green feathered serpent God of the Mayans will return to restore peace and universal harmony. Now peace and harmony are not usually associated with Mayan Gods, but I suppose that we should assume good faith even for Quetzalcoatl --Snowded TALK 12:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite. On the other hand (I have a long list somewhere) I don't see anything particularly harmful in stuff like Ascended Master Teachings. It's fairly entertaining and clearly no one who doesn't already take it seriously is going to take it seriously. The dangerous stuff is what looks plausible and convincing and scientific but isn't. NLP definitely falls into that category. I am going to take another look at Spiral Dynamics. Best Peter Damian (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a lot of people confuse it with complex adaptive systems, although why I cannot understand its got no real basis there. --Snowded TALK 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by population

See this? Happy now? Daicaregos (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ID as assertion

The issue is in talk. ID is not an assertion for the same reason a boat is not an assertion. The quote might be called an assertion. An assertion is a statement with truth conditions. Compare to something like a question "is ID correct?", or a command "close the door", both of which have no truth conditions. You don't have proper truth and falsity in science: you talk about facts, and what's a theory, and what's real. Compare to mathematics, where you can and do talk about proper truth. This is why searching google for uses of assertion brings up comparatively many math/logic pages, but no related pages (except our ID page). Our usage is highly uncommon, and just wrong. –M^T 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An assertion is a statement based on a set of assumptions and is different from a scientific hypothesis. Your statements on science, mathematics etc represent a position in philosophy of science but not the only one. Whatever you should be raising this on the talk page concerned. I reversed because it needs to be discussed on the talk page concerned. --Snowded TALK 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(It is being discussed there. I'm following WP:BRD in talking to you directly. I'm working under the assumption that if you revert, you're willing to discuss the disagreement and work out consensus.) My statements are only examples, and not arguments, so that's not really relevant. I'm not saying that we should write hypothesis - a thesis is very different from a hypothesis. As for your main point: I've checked several dictionaries, and all of them present 'assertion' as 1) a (speech) act, or 2) a statement given without attempt at proof, or both. Your definition, oddly enough, seems to be the definition for thesis (an argument being a conclusion derived from a set of assumptions). If that's the definition you think is correct, and 'thesis' fits while 'assertion' doesn't, then would you support the use of 'thesis'? –M^T 09:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the discussion and I see that you do not have consensus for the change which I think justifies my reversion. It seems to me from reading the exchange that others have handled the points you mention above and I have nothing greatly to add to them. Given that you have been banned once for reversion on this I suggest you take your own advise on discussing disagreements and working our consensus. --Snowded TALK 09:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to do my best - if you could offer me advice it would be appreciated. See it from my point of view: I think the article could use a lot of work, so I'm trying to fix it. I think that I've made many strong arguments for removing "assertion". Wikipedia:Consensus tells me right up front that silence implies consent, so it seems that there's no longer a consensus against my proposed change. I don't think it's helpful to revert and expect others to do the discussion/consensus-building for you. I'm asking you something specific about something you said that was never brought up on the talk page. You said that an assertion is a statement based on assumptions. What are you basing this on? –M^T 11:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Silence can also mean that people have had enough of saying the same thing many times and repeating arguments. I think the points were well made on the talk page and you were in a clear minority. This happens. As the page - yes it needs radical improvement and it might be best to try and build an alternative somewhere and invite comment. I don't think this aspect is one of the things that particularly needs fixing --Snowded TALK 11:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's possible, but I have trouble finding a response that suggests that others there understand the point I'm trying to make, so I think it's more likely that I'm not making myself clear in some way. Would you mind helping me out by telling me what you think my objection to the use of "assertion" is, so I know what I'm getting across to other editors? –M^T 11:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can do justice to the various arguments on the page. But from my perspective using language which implies any scientific basis for ID is wrong on this article and "thesis" does that. As someone says its not testable or refutable. I also don't think you handled the "feline animism" argument well, that made the point that in this context "assertion" was valid. I might (like you) have some sympathy for belief as an alternative, but I can see the objections to that as well in particular the issue of religion or not a religion. Sheffield Steel came up with the best suggestion on 9th December. I don't think you are not making yourself clear, I think its simply that people don't agree with you. --Snowded TALK 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

<ud> So you think that something like feline animalism is an assertion? I don't think I'm making myself clear at all then :/ Your page says you have a BA in Philosophy - are you familiar with much philosophy of language? Perhaps you'll like seeing a more formal argument:

1. Assertions are statements: things that can be true or false (cf "is it raining?", which is a question not a statement)
2. A common, sensible, and relevant use of ID is "we came about through intelligent design, not evolution"
3. That makes no sense if ID is a statement, so ID can't be a statement (cf "we came about through one phenomenon, not the other")
4. If ID isn't a statement, then it can't be an assertion (QED)

Where do I go wrong? ((Compare ID to lamps, Marxism, and Goldbach's conjecture: "I assert [that] lamps" makes no sense, because "lamps" can't be true or false. "Marxism" also can't be true or false. But "every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes" can be. The reason the lead sounds right is because that is the thing that supporters of ID often assert.)) –M^T 12:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"X asserted that the moon is made of green cheese" is a valid statement. I can think of no sensible use of ID and I am also a Catholic by the way so don't take that as being anti-religion its being anti-stupidity. ID is not the same thing as "lamps" it is a complex mix of belief, superstition, politics etc. and as such can be asserted. --Snowded TALK 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a mix, but that's precisely why it can't be an assertion. An assertion isn't just something you say is real or actual or correct. This floor is actual, but it's downright unintelligible to say "this floor is an assertion". Marxism is also a mix of politics and belief, but "Marxism is an assertion" is equally unintelligible. To clarify - you think that step 2 is grammatically or semantically invalid? Do you think that the steps don't follow? –M^T 20:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Its valid to say "Marxism is the assertion that ....." and that is the form (followed by a quote) which is used in the article. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that's valid. Do you think Marxism is an assertion? Because "Marxism is the assertion that ..." implies "Marxism is an assertion" in the same way that "Spot is the dog that ..." implies "Spot is a dog". –M^T 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Marxism is not an assertion clearly, however to say "Marxism is the assertion that ...." is valid and that is the form used for ID. Assertion in that case describes something that Marxism does, while Spot is a dog describes something that Spot is. Get it now? --Snowded TALK 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, this is much more informative than the talk page. Often, large disagreements do come down to a tedious point :) Are you saying that a) Marxism asserts that..., b) Marxism is the assertion of... (ie is an act), or c) Marxism is the assertion that...? If it's a, then great, but that makes Marxism an asserter. If it's b or c, then you've lost me, because when you say "Marxism is X" you say that it is something, not that it does something: that's what did/do/does/done/doing is for, or you could any old verb (see (a)). But we don't do either of these things, in fact we explicitly use "is". This is either not what you mean to say, or you're on the verge of correcting a fundamental misunderstanding of English. –M^T 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I may have lost you then. I don't see any major issues with a or c, I am not wild about b. I think c describes marxism, while a to a degree implies personalisation of an idea. --Snowded TALK 08:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, A does imply personification. You have already unambiguously stated in your last reply that Marxism (and hence ID) is clearly not an assertion, which is exactly what I'm saying on that talk page. What you're saying now is that C doesn't really imply it's an assertion - yet C describes something Marxism is, and not what it does (on all accounts of English that I'm familiar with). Can you think of any other sentence "X is the Y [that] ..." that implies X is 'doing'? I can come up with "that is the kick that sends the ball down the field", but that's hardly a relevant example. I think you might be confusing C with A ("that" with "of"), and that we don't disagree at all. –M^T 14:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to remind me of my dislike of English linguistic philosophy and its failure to realise that the language is not a form of mathematics. Marxism is not an assertion per se, but "Marxism is the assertion that ..." is a valid expression. Sentences are to be read as sentences, not a construction based on axioms. In the latter form the emphasis is on assertion, in the former on marxism --Snowded TALK 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

<ud>(I don't know to what your 'latter' and 'former' refer.) So your point comes down to personal taste. The meaning is clear and no amount of subtle emphasis changes it. Is ID an assertion? No. On this point, you agree with me and disagree with others on that talk page. You can't excuse poor wording by pointing out that people will understand it anyway (unlike in math, which is often fully unintelligible if botched). And it is poor wording - nobody uses it, check my survey of 80~ usage instances. I wonder if your position leads you to think that when we say "ID is the theory that ..." we don't actually say or imply "ID is a theory". –M^T 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

self proclaimed

Hi snowded. I saw your revert my removal of "self-proclaimed" from Ayn Rand. I'm not going to revert that as I thought I was cleaning up vandalism by Edward Nilges posting from an IP. However, you may want to see a list I provided where she is called a philosopher by people other than herslef. One such instance is Robert Paul Wolff in his philosophy textbook. That's actually where I first heard about her. There are other cites as well. I listed them on talk but they are probably archived now. So, if you added selfprocalimed and not Edward, I'm sorry. Hopefully you'll read the talk listing I provided and consider those sources for the title philospher or novelist-philosopher as I think she was more than self-proclaimed. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the other descriptions are clear, and its also true that she was the inspiration behind a political ideology. However, other than the sense in which we are all philosophers I don't think she is. There are cites on both sides here. I think the main section covers that well, the info box on the other hand does not have room for explanation or qualification so its best left as is. --Snowded TALK 13:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page, but I wanted to quickly note before an edit war begins, that you must explain your tags on the talk page and provide valid reasons for the tag's existence. Tags that fail to meet this requirement are removed. Idag (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The tag was explained, you just didn't like it and I am afraid that you are not entitled to decide what is or is not valid. --Snowded TALK 18:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

National anthems

I agree with almost everything you say on GoodDays page, other than your view that only Wales really have a national anthem. It might say on the Scotland article that we have two anthems and have not made our minds up, but ask anyone in Scotland what our anthem is and invariably you will receive the answer Flower of Scotland. Scotland the Brave is a fine song, but hardly anyone here knows the word to it. The only reason some people put across the idea that Scotland are undecided is that the third verse is not favoured by some unionists. I don't see the problem, after all, we don't have a verse boasting of crushing the English. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you on Flower of Scotland, but its not determined ... --Snowded TALK 12:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, if there is no official anthem, then the people through popular use can decide the national anthem, and as I said, the vast majority of people consider Flower of Scotland to be their National anthem. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Flower of Scotland (unofficial) "? –M^T 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland lede

Be honest with me, I can take it. Do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree and wasting my time putting forward my proposal? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't. We finally got an agreed form that would also us to prevent the attacks on country status that come along from time to time. We did that by proving a NPOV position and getting the neutral admins on side. It now looks like what a lot of them forecast, that once this was conceded nationalists would come back for more. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be getting any kind of consensus anyway. I must say though, I am a little worried when one of your "neutral" admins believes Scotland was not independent before 1707. I'm also trying to figure out what was conceded, those who wanted the UK mentioned in the first sentence got their way, so that was conceded to them. Nothing was conceded, as far as I'm aware, to any "nationalists". If you mean they conceded that country could be used I don't see it, there are enough sources to back that up without having to say it was conceded. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There were huge battles over the use of the word country earlier this year. I think what you saw on the talk page is some kick back --Snowded TALK 11:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be there is now a kick back against those who are showing a blatant unionist POV. I have noticed that on different articles they are the ones who are not slow to change the text or criteria to suit their own point of view. I fear nobody will ever be 100% happy, but that's the world we live in. Anyway, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a good New year. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And thus does conflict escalate. I have been attempting to take a strict citation approach to avoid the pendulum swings. Whatever - all Christmas wishes fully reciprocated and its good to have you here --Snowded TALK 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You said, re Ayn Rand:

Please learn to respect citation and agree contentious issues on the talk page. Some of your edits are approaching POV pushing and/or vandalism Snowded

But it is you who simply revert edits. Each of mine has offered a different attempt at a reasonable wording Kjaer (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you have stated several opinions which is not the same thing as acting reasonably. I have just changed Objectivism (Rand) to correspond with the actual phrase used and make it clear it is Rand's defintiion of capitalism not a definition of capitalism itself. It would have been simple for you to do this yourself. One the Chomsky quote you are reverting from cited material to one based on your own opinion. The third set of edits you are editing against the current consensus on the talk page. As I said you are verging on behaviour that could get you at least a temporary ban. --Snowded TALK 19:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nimbley

Hello there!

Yes I got through most of their work. At first I was reluctant to block them (we know the cycle), but the account was recreating deleted articles and breaching WP:NONFREE, amongst other issues. I had to stop them in their tracks.

Personally I think they should be range blocked, or at least formally banned from certain aspects of editting. However I understand that the folks with the ability and know-how to make this happen are reluctant to do this unless it's a really serious case (I think User:Yorkshirian would be a candidate!). In short, AFAICT, I don't think there's much we can do just yet - we'll have to do the cleaning up manually. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

Snowded, we disagree about who is editing the Ayn Rand material with less than good faith. An impartial examination of the edits would make it clear that you are failing in this respect while editing based upon an agenda that does not benefit the article. I have consistently been civil, presented reasons for all of my actions, not participated in your edit warring but have participated in the talk pages - I would appreciate it if you refrained from making these baseless accusations. --Steve (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An impartial examination would be more than welcome Steve. Your recent contributions to the talk page do not even engage with the arguments on citation etc. they simply make an accusation against another editor (myself) which you repeat here (an agenda), hence the AGF notice. --Snowded TALK 08:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your agenda stands out like an elephant in the room and becomes mentionable for that reason. I quoted the AGF text that permits pointing out the obvious. And the last entry you made on the talk page was to accuse me of a bias and of being unable to accept a difference of opinion. You need to take your own advice and pay more attention to YOUR lack of good faith. Personally, I'd be happy to stop this nattering back and forth on article talk pages and on user talk pages - it has no value I can see. But evidently you felt the need, so I'll just hope you'll get it out of your system. --Steve (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just playing it my the book Steve. When I see you engage with arguments rather than denigrate the motivations of the individual I'll happily back off. --Snowded TALK 09:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rand being American

Just to clarify my reversion (since this isn't really important enough for a talk page discussion), when Rand moved to the U.S., Soviet law was such that a person who became an American citizen was still a Soviet citizen. Since a lede is supposed to be simple, I think we should try to avoid things that would necessitate an explanation of how conflicts of international law should be resolved. She was Russian-born and she was a writer, that should be enough for the lede and the body of the article clearly states that she then became an American citizen. Idag (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point and as you say its not the most important debate on the article at the moment (thanks for being constructive there by the way)! I think her choice to be American outweighs Soviet Law and she in many ways exemplifies a strand of political and social thought which is American. However its not something I would go to the barricades over. Happy for you to revert it and I will leave it alone and see if anyone else objects? --Snowded TALK 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way its not WP:Synth see here --Snowded TALK 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The secondary sources do it both ways.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idag (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

True but its still not synthesis! --Snowded TALK 18:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that is true. Idag (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall

Hi, the IP reverted the article intro to the version of 24th November. [3]. Admittedly a change was made by me after that date but I don't mind further changes to that as long as it is discussed between regular contributors, instead of unexplained, unilateral reverts. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's going back some. I think they made a lot of sense. The current version contains statements like "Kingdom" which has never been the case and is generally messy. Why do you think its preferable? --Snowded TALK 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an article of the Kingdom of Cornwall. I'm no historian (and I don't pretend to be) but from what I've gathered there is no definitive version of Cornish history. The current intro sticks to established style guides for introductions on counties or regions, and tries to summarise the whole article (the very point of intros). It could do with a bit of sentence structure cleanup but if you still feel the intro is inadequate then by all means start a discussion on Talk:Cornwall and we'll get some wider input. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its more a matter of making progressive edits. For example I think you would have been better making changes rather than reverting! There is an article on Kingdom of Cornwall but its very poor and has few if any citations. The only evidence for Kingdom is for the Kingdom of Dumnonia which was not co-terminus with Cornwall and may have referred to parts of Wales. --Snowded TALK 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Multilingual world leaders

As requested Best, --Cameron* 01:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, you learn something new every day (although it is her site!) --Snowded TALK 09:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Yeah, people tend to boast on their personal websites! ;) --Cameron* 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reverted the same edit 3 times on List of schools of philosophy. Please be aware of WP:3RR. Further reversions will be refered to admin and may result in your being blocked from editting. Kjaer (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Very aware of 3RR Kjaer and unlike you I haven't been blocked in the past. Now please be civil and engage in discussion (and please don't tag team with the odd IP that suddenly appeared) --Snowded TALK 17:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You have reverted cited material three times on Ayn Rand regarding William Buckley's catholicism and why it is relevant. The reversions are a violation of WP policy. And the removal of the citations is outright vandalism. Any further reversions will be reported to administration and may result in your being blocked from editing the article. Kjaer (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted once in two moves and then part reverted one item that you reinserted so 2RR at a pinch. I asked you to discuss it on the talk page (giving my reasons for the removal there). Controversial edits should be discussed, inserting them and refusing that discussion is just not on. Kjaer. Please calm down and withdraw the accusation and try and engage with other editors. --Snowded TALK 08:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You tagged text and I supplied some citations to support the text. Those citations do not replace the text, which is accurate and can be supported by further citations. Your reversions due to personal dislike are a violation of 3RR and will be reported to admin and may result in your being blocked if it continues. Kjaer (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and stop issuing threats and attempting to intimidate other editors. --Snowded TALK 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This wrangle is now over and finished. The article has been fully-protected for one week. Please take the time to stop perpetuating the silly edit-warring with warnings, such as some of the above, posted on users' talk pages and discuss the matters under dispute on the talk page of Ayn Rand and other pages, all the time assuming good faith, and striving to reach consensus. I do not expect to see a perpetuation of this dispute by templated warnings about 3rr or other matters whilst the dispute is being discussed.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best way to break the pattern which was creeping in - thanks will aim to work with that as an alternative to simply walking away and giving it up as a lost cause. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nantes, Brittany or not?

Hello Snowded, Before reading my words, excuse me for my bad english: I'm French! ;-)

So, I've just seen you're not agree with my modifications about the "twin cities" section of the Cardiff page. I'm surprised! I'm from Nantes, I leave and work in Nantes everyday! Who are you to write or not what are Nantes inhabitants?

Ok, you're right: my city is the capital of the Région Pays de la Loire. But it's also the most important city of Brittany. I'm sorry Snowded, but Brittany isn't simply an ancient duke. It was a kingdom, it was a duke, and now it's an historic region divided into 2 administrations (or "administrative regions", or “political subdivision”, as you want): 4/5 of my region are in the Région Bretagne and 1/5 (the Loire-Atlantique department) is in the Région Pays-de-la-Loire.

So, Nantes is in an administrative subdivision and in a historic region too.

An other example to talk with you: Biarritz. City of the department of the Pyrénées-Atlantiques, the city of the Région Aquitaine, it depends on no administration identified as Basque. Officially, the Basque country is somewhere else, on the other side of the border, in another State… And nevertheless, who would dare to claim that Biarrots is not Basque? No, we differentiate the history and the culture of the administration. To understand and respect the identical feelings of a population, it is indeed necessary to us to distinguish region of Region. Note the capital letter: Region for administrative subdivision, and region for historic and cultural country.

About the question “Nantes, Brittany or not?”, let me tell you that 10 000 people took the street on September 2008 to demand the administrative reunification of Brittany! (I found this post about it: http://www.agencebretagnepresse.com/fetch.php?id=12288).

So, we have different solutions: 1) We write the administrative region: it’s right but not enough for Nantes inhabitants. 2) We write the historic region: it’s right but you’re not agree with it. 3) You wrote “there can’t be too many images” but why not? Yes we can write the both informations: Brittany and Pays-de-la-Loire Region! 4) We write nothing, just Nantes and France: it’s right too. And no war!

What is the best for you?

Best regard, And happy new year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.215.91 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your English is better than my French so no need to apologise. I have also spent time in Nantes during the World Cup in 2007 and the hospitality was impressive. I am also happy to support the administrative reunification of Brittany, we used to have some of the same problems in Wales but at least UK legislation has legitimised our language and enabled an assembly. All of that aside the Wikipedia does not work on what should be, but what is. For that reason I think solution 4 is the most sensible. --Snowded TALK 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BRINT

Greetings Snowded, would appreciate your help in adding references for verifiability, they were added earlier, but another reviewer mentioned there were too many references! Here is a quick question, how to add the following reference, there are too many as I noted earlier, don't want the references to exceed the text of the page though:

Forbes ASAP (April 7, 1997, p. 64) on Intellectual Capital, Tool to Raise Your Company's IQ.

More will be coming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.12.63 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I put the citations into wiki format and simplified the text including the jorunal/magazine change to something that could be supported by the citations. At the moment though I think you might get hit with a AFD as there is little content and its not clear if am institute of this site should have an article. --Snowded TALK 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the notability guidelines. It seems that the coverage of BRINT is consistent with the notability guidelines. Specifically among others, the following notability clause is applicable in this case and establishes notability - compared with many other organizations and institutions specified as 'notable' in Wikipedia - in terms of quality and quantity of reviews by third-party prestigious and reputed resources ('major newspapers, academic journals, and academic media' as specified in the notability guidelines): "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.12.63 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be the strongest approach - but don't swamp the article with references that can come out if its challenged. Also if you want to have the tag about "personal involvement" removed then it would make sense to register rather than using an IP, unless you are Malhotra or an employee of BRINT in which case you have a problem. PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS --Snowded TALK 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Quebecois nation motion

Hiya Snowy. I'll have to pull out of the List of national anthems discussion. As a Canadian federalist, seeing Quebec's entry can only be seen as blasphemy. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed that England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are also on that list. Holy smokers, when it rains, it pours. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They had been there for 6 months GoodDay, that was one of the main reasons for the creation of that entire list to find a home for the countries of the UK entries. Ofcourse for those six months there was a see also note to the United Kingdom, which has now also been removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can allow people national identity and still be a Federalist you know GoodDay and the same applies within the UK. . --Snowded TALK 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't allow it. If people wanna leave Canada, let'em. Just leave the provinces & territories be. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

YOU can't allow it? They don't have to leave Canada to have a clear identity. --Snowded TALK 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"....said the Welsh Nationalist"...sorry couldn't resist... ;) Best, --Cameron* 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, can't allow. Quebec seperatists are free to leave Canada, when ever they wish. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Any intelligent nationalist knows that there are many people who identify with the nation but don;t necessarily want independence. Prior to the UKs membership of the EU I would have taken that position. Such an option is not there for Quebec Hence my comment. I realise you couldn't resist, but felt that some clarification in the face of Unionist banter was appropriate  :-) --Snowded TALK 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The European Union has certainly provided a possible future for many countries or regions within sovereign states that may seek independence. Whilst i hope such a thing will not happen it would be rather amusing if the first country to fall victim to this is Belgium, the very home of the European Union. They have even more problems there than we do in the UK or Canada. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Small is beautiful on matters other than foreign policy and finance. Once a population gets much above 5m it gets very difficult to achieve cultural cohesion. Germany would be better as separate states (and was for most of its life), Catalonia is very different from France or Spain. I could go on. --Snowded TALK 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the UK? Like I said to Matt (months ago), the break-up of the United Kingdom, would make things easier on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well in the UK there is always the option of the EU if there was a breakup. However that is irrelevant. National identity does not necessitate breakup. Posing an extreme either/or as you are is unecessary. People in Quebec to not have to leave Canada in order to have an identity - they did after all support the existence of Canada between 1812 and 1814. What matters for Wikipedia is to keep it simple and citable. Your fears/concerns can be respected but do not constitute an argument. --Snowded TALK 18:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I'm having a 'I Don't Like It' momment. Thus my reason for not reverting Fisher's edit (again). I won't compromise on the nationalism topic (thus my lack of usefullness on those articles). GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen too many times the comment "Scottish Nationalist" or "Welsh Nationalist" used in a way that sounds rather insulting. Well, I actually take it as a compliment, because I am a Scottish Nationalist. I sing my national anthem with pride, follow my national football team with pride and am proud to see my national flag flying. This is the reason I am just a little bit upset over, what I believe, is a campaign on wiki to downgrade the importance of these things. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What d'ya know. I've taken a sudden and new found interest in Quwebek (whatever it is), even though it's none of my f**king business, an I know nothing whatsoever about it. Gee, I can't wait to learn. This'll be fun! Shouldn't take too long to find out which pages I can best help on. Could you guys give me a helping hand to start me off? Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, sorry for butting in but I support the Quebecois' wish to secede from Canada. I would like to see a French-speaking nation on the North American continent, especially after Louisiana was sold to the Americans back in 1804. --jeanne (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing? you're being paranoid, Snowy. Jeanne, I've no prob with Quebec seperatist (as they don't use violence) as a people. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why paranoid? I just noticed you strolling around inviting the odd comment .... --Snowded TALK 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Soulscanner could've easily agreed with having Quebec in the National Anthem list. I had no-way of knowing his approach. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal union

I have yet to see a source stating that personal unions no longer exist. They exist less often for sure...due to new forms of government but I believe they haven't been abolished! :) There are pages of discussion on the matter here. Besides the wording is careful not to state that a personal union exists. --Cameron* 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, feel free to start up a new discussion. But I believe this ought to be discussed before being changed. Best, --Cameron* 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

UK Countries

England, Scotaland, and Wales are not sovereign countries, which is what the first list is intended for. Anyways, I was just suggesting an alternative classification scheme. --soulscanner (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And no one claims they are, and they are not in that section. However calling them regions is plain wrong. Hopefully you are happy with the changes. --Snowded TALK 10:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Good Luck

Thanks... looks like I'll need it. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you made a mistake with that quote

Check out this change you just made. It looks like you made a mistake. The quote is now there twice. Please check it and undo. diff. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

If you email me from my user page, that will give me your email, and I will then send you the papers on the assumption that Heap agrees. I will also try to get a copy of Newbrook's paper in the same issue which addresses the linguistics side of NLP mostly ignored in all the academic literature. Peter Damian (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing posts or section titles on article talk pages.

Snowded, I see what you have done with the Talk page reorganization and it is a better arrangement than the one that grew up haphazardly, but it would be best to make a post to the effected parties user talk pages and ask permission before moving their posts around or changing the titles they gave a section they started. Thanks, --Steve (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, although being bold on this is normal practice, they can always revert! --Snowded TALK 09:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but why take an action that invites a revert if we are trying to eliminate an edit war? --Steve (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed obvious to me, I didn't imagine a reversion as I was not altering the meaning in any way. Its not an edit war if someone reverts a format change. Looking at it I think that Kjaer thought I was rejecting Machen and responded accordingly but I could be wrong. --Snowded TALK 10:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer asked me to do something about this on my talk page. WP:REFACTORing is allowed, but it might have been better, given the charged nature of that page, to inform people clearly about what was being done. Of course, it goes without saying that any refactoring should not distort any editor's messages. Better to post a message about refactoring first in future.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You can see the conversation above. I think part of the problem maybe that Kjaer thought I was opposed to the inclusion of a "notable name" and was somehow changing the headings to support that position. In actual fact on that name I was supporting his position. Refactoring is a normal part of structuring a discussion but now I know his sensitivities I'll avoid it.

Pnawnd da

Hello Snowded.

I am new to Wikipedia and saw your profile links on the right hand side of your page. Could you tell me please how to add them to mine?

Diolch yn fawr iawn

Richard

Richardeast (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

.... Sorry - I have just worked out how to do it (if it is ok, I have borrowed some of your panels). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have borrowed them from other people over the ages so I can hardly complain

Welcome to WIkipedia --Snowded TALK 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Snowded, I was reviewing comments on the Ayn Rand talk page, and I was curious who you think the most influential philosopher is of our times? Are you willing to give a top 3 or top 5? I suppose the criteria of what is meant by "our times" is important. I consider Rand more modern, if you will (post-modern?), while Marx and others seem to me to be from a different era. But perhaps that's just my bias. Rand's ideas were promulgated after WWII though, so how about using that as a cut-off? Is that fair? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)I

Its an interesting question although I am not sure how valid! For example you can look at the influence of Hegel on many thinkers of modern times and he had an influence on Marx who is less of a philosopher. In philosophy schools develop in the main around several people with some divergence. Existentialism for example is often better portrayed in literature (compare "Roads to Freedom" with "Being and Nothingness"; but although Sartre is there he does not define the movement. DItto in ancient times; there were many Stoics. After WWII you can look at Rawls, Hare, Blackburn and many others all of whom have contributed to the field. Rand is (in my opinion) a novelist with poorly thought our philosophical ideas who created a cult. Philosophers rarely do that. Marxism (assuming Marx was a philosopher) was propagated by Lenin/Stalin in the context of Russia, but by Liberation Theologians in the 70's & 80's in Latin American. You also have to have influence outside of a particular culture. Rand is a US phenomena, and a minority one at that. The citation support comes from the height of free market capitalism and Greenspan's acknowledgement of the failure of that ideology is significant. --Snowded TALK 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey snow, your comment on Steve's page mentions AFD, but I think you meant Arbcom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[4]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Always provide an explanation

Not providing an explanation of retracing comments isn't very profressional of you.

Please do so when you 'undo' something. Personally I cannot see why this would be seen as damaging or misleading.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that the poor quality of the edit meant I treated it as vandalism. Apologies for my misinterpretation of your intent. I have provided a reason --Snowded TALK 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your reason.

I've come to understand that whilst former monarchs can be written in such a light, it may be many years after QE2's death that this topic can be touched upon to show the negative reaction from the public that were attacking the monarch for not showing the flag at half mast, acknowledging Diana in a broad enough light etc, even in a short sentence such as "refraining from the public eye."

I'll refrain from undoing the comment.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Commercial sites

Are not all publishers' sites commercial sites?

Philosophical Connections is a free online resource - exactly the same as, for example, the Internet Encyclopedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia. There is no justification for removing it as a reference resource. Hbarbet (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between a site selling on line courses and Stamford. Please. If you think its valid then make the case on the talk page and see if others agree with you. --Snowded TALK 22:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So I may list it if I don't refer to the publisher? Will that satisfy you - whoever you are? 194.46.246.10 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

and are you oh IP address also Hbarbet? To answer your question no it won't. However you are fully entitled to make your case on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 16:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Complex Adaptive Systems

Thanks, I'll check that out. You wouldn't happen to know a good textbook? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Best from a philosophical perspective is "Dynamics in Action" by a good friend of mine, Alicia Juarrero. She is also working on Free Will at the moment and I met with her yesterday in DC to discuss that. Its not out yet but her draft book chapter is very interesting and I can email you a copy if you want. Axelrod and Cohen's "Harnessing Complexity" is a good basic text book on what I and others call "computational complexity" and is worth reading, although it fails to account for intentionality and identity in human systems. Cilliers "Complexity and Post Modernism" is also good and any of Bill McKelvey's material (UCLA) is worth the effort. There is a paper "New Dynamics of Strategy" by myself and Kurtz in the IBM systems Journal which you can get here which deals with our application of complexity to issues of national security post 911 and at the more popular end and article by myself and Boone in HBR Nov 2007. --Snowded TALK 10:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand. Peter Damian (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please withdraw the personal attack. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a accurate statement, not a personal attack. It is not withdrawn. --Snowded TALK 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the clarity. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Essay

Thanks Snowded. If you would like I would be glad to send you a copy. Just don't post it on teh intarwebz ;) TallNapoleon (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - please do, to my email address and I promise not to publish it! --Snowded TALK 19:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Hrmmm, I tried sending it to your email address and it bounced. Sorry about the delay, I'll figure something out! TallNapoleon (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep your mitts off my comments

You made an edit to one of my comments on the pretext that it had been responded to which as of the time you made the edit was not correct. Post your own slanted drivel to your heart's content, leave my comments alone.TheJazzFan (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? You are making statements to which people react, then going back to edit your statements after the effect. Pretty poor form. --Snowded TALK 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rationale is false. There had been *no* response to that particular comment as of the time of my edit. TheJazzFan (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are my comments really nonsense?

Re: "Well you could start by proposing changes rather than criticising one of the admins who has show he understands the issues associated with the various UK Pages. I have had my run ins with him but the above comments a nonsense. I also see that you are a "new" user who has jumped straight into a controversial area. --Snowded TALK 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"

I have to ask, as a new user, whether calling someone else's comments "nonsense" is normal Wiki practice? I suspect it is not. Before using such language, perhaps you might learn whether proposals had been suggested. As it happens, the editor in question has engaged in an edit war over each of my successive and different proposals, without offering any feedback on my edits. I'll keep my mitts off your comments as long as you use your mitts to keep your impolite comments to yourself. As for the controversial area involved, I have been involved in it for about 10 years, not in the lofty ivory towers of Wiki-land, but in the lowly corridors of research universities, both in the US and in the UK.Dylan Hunt (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Dylan Hunt

You have made no page edits. just a talk page and two editor talk pages. What proposals have you made? Did you make them under another ID? --Snowded TALK 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you previously edited at 98.222.63.218 then you have a few minor edits and then you hit the "Home Countries" amendments which were reverted by three different editors and at no time did you take it to the talk page. You then report a violation without even following the template. You really need to take Jza's advice and read how to edit on WIkipedia. And if you really think that Home Nations has a use outside sport then your academic claims have to be called into question. --Snowded TALK 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Naturalism

I took it to the talk page....please discuss Theology10101 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you provided some citations but sure --Snowded TALK 21:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I added citations to support my edit. What you are now doing is harassing, would you like me to contact an administrator? Theology10101 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The citations have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject and don;t worry I have advised your conduct to ANI, see you talk page for details --Snowded TALK 05:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naturalism (philosophy). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see I am reverting vandalism. I suggest you check the content of the edits and the refusal of the other editor to use the talk page. --Snowded TALK 06:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Justification

Actually clicking 'vandalism' was a mistake; sorry you acted on it. The reversion was more to return the article to its state pre-dispute than it was to pick sides or indicate I thought his edits were made with the intention of harming the encyclopaedia.

No issue, its all I did; namely returned the article to its state before Theology edited and ask him to discuss the change on the talk page. There were similar edits on other pages which required the same action. --Snowded TALK 13:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia

Keep it to yourself.

Thanks

Thanks for keeping the IP's harrassments, off my talk-page. The IP has tried my patients & that's why I've ceased communicating with him/her. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS- I fear, this is a pit bull in a china shop situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure have just reported him for 3RR --Snowded TALK 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Belfast Agreement

I re-worded that setence for ya's. I think ..end of 1 December, 1999.. is more accurate & less disputable. I had trouble with 'mid-night' situations on articles before, the NY Governors & Lieutenant Governors, were nightmares. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are indulging Mooretwin who simply got something wrong and wasn't prepared to admit it/ --Snowded TALK 20:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Midnight is a funny one, kind of betwixt and between. I do think though that midnight on the 1st is the normal way of saying it. It certainly couldn't be midnight on the 2nd. End of 1 of December is actualy the 2nd, isn't it? Just my tuppence worth. Hmm, if that makes sense, maybe someone can explain it to me. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

At least it wasn't an end of the YEAR thingy (like the New York situation). GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your not a Sock puppet of Daicaregos are you?

I cannot help but wonder. Your user pages are strikingly similar, and your writing styles are also similar. So are your beliefs (Anglophobic Welsh nationalists, you know that mentality were old fashioned nationalists like you think that every English person is responsible for Welsh problems, Wales not being an independent state ect). I hope your not.Kasbaar (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Grow up, I am a welsh nationalist but that does not make be anglophobic. I am also a modern nationalist - before the EU I did not support independence for Wales. Neither have I at any time said that every English person is responsible for Welsh problems. I borrowed some images from Daicaregos's page as he did from me (it happens). If you check his history his first edit of the Wikipedia is way after I started. We come from the same cultural and educational background however. If you think I am a sockpuppet then ask for a checkuser. Now I don't know why I am giving you the dignity of a response to a pretty pathetic comment, but I feeling generous to day. --Snowded TALK 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a Scottish Nationalist but didn't know until you pointed it out that I blame the English for everything. Well, well, you learn something new about yourself everyday! Titch Tucker (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always suspected Braveheart was a Scottish PoV movie. Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What!! You mean it wasn't all true? Noooooo! Titch Tucker (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't unless Wallace was a pedophile, considering Isabella of France was still a child when he allegedly impregnated her. (She was also in France at the time, having married Edward II in 1308-several years after Wallace's death). BTW, I wanna be a nationalist for some nation, but cannot find a nation on this earth that wants me to support it. Boo hoo. It's not fair. Titch has Scotland, GD has Canada, Sarah has Ireland, Dai and Snowded have Wales, what have I got?--jeanne (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You got rythem. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How's that possible when my mama can't dance and my daddy don't rock and roll?--jeanne (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref: NLP page

Hello,

It is nice hearing from you but rather frustrating that you are deleting my posts. It will be interesting how we progress in future. I am rather new to editing Wiki and thank you for any help in this regard. It is hoped that perhaps unlike other NLP practioners [which I am not] I will be able to argue logically better than the founders taking on any disputants that come from psychology or psychotherapy with logic and clarity.

I believe I am using references to my NLP edits. For example , I have 'underlined' people and words that can be referred to within wiki [e.g. Robert Cialdini, or hypnosis, or model, or Tony Robbins etc.] Also I do give reference to material such as referrring people to expertise research, such as that of Anders K. Ericcson, Prof./FSU

It would be helpful to me if instead of merely blanket deleting my entries, you would tell me "which facts" need further support and reference.

I have also critiqued your own criticism of NLP and the sources.

For example - it is not broad in scope to suggest that "NLP" is not based upon empirical research when the entire field of pscyhotherapy and psychology also falls into the scope of "lacking objective empirical evidence to substantiate it as a science", such as the fact that no-one can develop "expert" skill in the subject such as using psychotherapy. Instead the "skill" set developed is retention of knowledge about the history of a subject. So for example, a Freudian psychotherapist can explain why he belives his treatment works, but ultimately he is in fact explaining what amounts to "Freudian literature bedazzlement" not "actual science". Similarly with a wine-tasting expert: double-blind studies show they are no better than an amateur. However the wine tasting expert unconsciously in this context, has the gift of the gab [literary and poetic expertise of a marketer, sales person, a persuader] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelanwar (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are almost entirely OR and in effect are "selling" NLP. That however is beside the point. You need to learn to discuss changes on the talk page. If you hadn't put this post here and indicated that you were at least prepared to talk then I would have reported you for a 3RR breech this morning and I am pretty sure you would have been banned form editing for 24 hours at least. As it was I just put yet another warning up. Take your arguments to the talk page but they will have to be a lot better than those you supply above. --Snowded TALK 08:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Is this the talk page? If not what do you mean "take your arguments to talk page", because when I go there I do not know how to engage you there! I see your name there, but if I click on your name, it ends up going to your profile page.

2. It is my opinion that I am putting forward correct statement of NLP. I am indeed engaged in persuasion [for a balanced article should contain "pros" and "cons". There is a strong bout of "cons" already listed on the page later on, where it is explcitly stated that NLP is a "pseudoscience" and further articles that you have referenced which cannot be counter argued in wiki]. I am engaged in persuasion on a hot/contentious topic just like any and all logical thesis [on every statement in every wiki page]. However I am not engaged in "selling". To be engaged in "selling" I would have to sell a specific product or service by a specific method [such as merely recommend XYZ-NLP-provider. There are in facts many many providers out there]. Instead I list a variety of well know NLP names, and further the entire context of the artile that I have written is used to analogously compare NLP to:

- psychotherapy [namely all psychotherapy is in fact found to be based upon subjective opinion, not objective fact at all. There is no skill whatsoever required in psychotherapy according to rigorous testing. This line of reasoning equally applies to a stock trader. It has been found that a "blind man" or "monkey" can equal the very best Wall Street trader. Therefore, here is another area where so many people put in so much money, but rigorous research finds that it is better to get a blind money to choose stocks by random for one! [Work of Prof. Burton Malkiel "Random Walk Down Wall Street"]

- in fact taking it further since its inception, the field of psychology has been contentiously debated to be a "soft science". Everything in psychology and every era has been filled with skepticism of a type ordinarily not found in other subjects. This is because of the huge subjective nature of psychology. There are eras where the movement is "certain" that their methods are correct and will be correct for infinite time: such as Freudian movement; Behaviorism movement, and modernly we are at the juncture of the cognitive science movement [I even read a hearty article that stated something equivalent to 'finally objective data has been collected to ascertain that cognitive psychology is legitimate'].

- NLP vs. the academics of "business", and I take that even further to suggest "get rich strategies" and "stock trading" [for reasons I will explain a bit]. In fact "business" is a great analogy to compare NLP to. Business is about having "select principles" [different selection by different businesses] to guide the business. One business may focus on customer service, thinking that is the very best way to get results and repeat customers; whereas another thinks that whereas minimal levels of customer service is neccesary, any more wastes time. For example during rush-hour lunch lines in supermarkets, minimum customer service enables the cashier to get through the line faster. That is better than "good to great" customer service but which take more time, resulting in greater frustration by customers due to longer lines, and the ultimate result is "less repeat purchase and therefore less profit".

- NLP vs. sports coaching, motivation and "intervention". In reality, NLP does work but it works because

[a] there is a coach to intevene, break negative habits [which includes mindset] and focus on on positive habits [such as goal setting, maintaining a different physiology akin to that which they do in the Marines etc.] l

[b] a coach can also elicit the Hawthorne effect whereby the feeling that one is being monitored by a chosen respected source has the effect of the client working harder and more efficiently.

[c] When one uses NLP by oneself, then the fact that there is a "train track" already laid down, a set of specific procedures, enables one to use it to direct one's mind towards the positive. Whether or not the "train track" is truly "scientic" is besides the point in the sense that if the user [a] engages it; [b] believes it then the user will get [c] efficacious psychological results.

The question may be asked : then how is NLP different from inherently ineffective "herbal pills" ? The answer is that whereas herbal pills can not create the physiological result that it purports; NLP does create the "psychological" results that it purports for it is based upon the "subjective experience" of the user.

- NLP vs. BRAIN SCIENCE

[a] NLP uses methods equivalent to those used by Pavlov and B.F.Skinner. Whereas these methods work, they are not an elixar. They work on animals, who share the same equivalent nervous system as the human [at the level of the nerve cell].

[b] The brain is highly malleable [not for all purposes though]. So brain modules and hemispheres always retain their position, but other neural links can be modified surprisingly easily]. UK's medical Prof. Ian Robertson talks about experiments whereby merely "imagining" playing the piano for example is sufficient to both retain and even enhance the neural connections on the "body map" located in the brain: areas to do with the fingers. This is possible due to the impressionability and malleability of the neurons. NLP incidentally uses procedures where "imagination is required and used alongside more specific Skinnerian-like conditioning".

- What level of detail is required for a psychological system to be valid? Conventional psychologists argue that one must go behind the mass and dig deep [Freudian approach]. Whereas NLP implicitly argues that one does not need to "dig deep" but merely work with the "mask" [and/or change masks], and therefore the behavior of the person will change too to reflect the type of behavior he has been after [e.g. confident, positive, motivated, happy] far more often.

3. It is true that I use the "OR" [even above] but that is logically acceptable. "OR" does not defacto create a violation of the rules of logic, and certainly not in the way I am using it.

I wish to put my revised articles back on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelanwar (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you learn to edit the WIkipedia. I put a welcome message on your talk page to help you with that. If you want to make controversial changes to an article then you should first propose them on the talk page of that article, which is here. The arguments you outline above are to my mind typical of a lot of NLP practitioners and advocates. I have no intention of giving a basic tutorial in cognitive science on my own talk page, but I will say that most of the statements you make (to my mind) fully justify the label of pseudo-science.

Whatever I think, if you want to put the material on the page you will have to first seen consensus from all editors who engage with the page. Until you have that any further insertion will be treated as vandalism. --Snowded TALK 09:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom & Subdivisions of the United Kingdom

Hiya Snow, how she go? Ya'll should re-consider merging those 2 articles. There's alot of similarities between them. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussed before and one includes counties so probably not - whole area best left alone! --Snowded TALK 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Still the same arguments getting thrashed over I see. Jack forbes (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey if you think this is bad go look at Ayn Rand (well possibly don;t its depressing) this one is tame --Snowded TALK 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If I hang around I think I'll stick to the tame ones for now thanks. Hope your doing well Snowded and winning all your arguments/discussions. Jack forbes (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I started this as an experiment in order to write a paper on complex adaptive sytems. now I am an addict! Hope you are well, we;ve missed you --Snowded TALK 21:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit question

Hey Snowded. What's the deal with this edit: [5]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

reason was stated - awaiting arbcom --Snowded TALK 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's your position I think you should request protection of the article. As it's not protected it is open to editing. And it also seems to be a selective reversion, because it looks like other edits are being done. No? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should all withhold from editing but I can't impose that! Its not protected and the editors seem drawn to it. However controversial edits have to be reversed until ArbCom determine a process, and I think the main editors on each side are agreed on this --Snowded TALK 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So now Snowded is calling for people to stop editing. I remember clearly when Kjaer, I, and several others were asking people to stop editing until we had a consensus, or until the results were in from the RfC - but the avalance of edits that came were 50 times what we are seeing now. Interestingly, Snowded is reverting the 'pro-Rand' edits, saying we should not edit during the ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Snowded, several editors have called for a halt to edits pending the outcome of arbcom. But this is problematic since they haven't gotten the page protected. At the same time, I am troubled at the nature of the edits that were reverted. They seem to have been good faith and uncontroversial with good sourcing, and I haven't investigated thoroughly but it does seem like only some edits are getting reverted? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good faith & uncontroversial seems reasonable to me. We need Arbcom to do something now they have agreed to take it on. --Snowded TALK 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss.

I spent days carefully checking the references and source for my edits and I have clearly discussed each major point on the talk page.[6]. Please tell me exactly what you disagree with. Otherwise, can we move the disputed text to the talk page and only put it back when its agreed upon? ----Action potential ^{t c} 08:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy to discuss PROPOSED changes on the talk page. I don't see any discussion of several of the points on the talk page. I don't see you waiting for a consensus for a change which you know is controversial. --Snowded TALK 08:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Its sometimes easier to edit the page even if it is reverted then we know what where the differences are. What do you think is difference between 'model' and 'theory' as related to NLP. The co-founders and i have reputable secondary sources to back this up presented it as a model first. My best source to support NLP as a 'model' or 'system' (rather than a theory) is OED (" neurolinguistic programming n. a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour."Oxford English Dictionary neurolinguistic, adj. (n.d.). . Retrieved January 23, 2009, from [7]) and National Library of Medicine ("A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior."[8]). What is your best source to the contrary? ----Action potential ^{t c} 08:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

LOOK, the place for this discussion is on the talk page itself not here. Several of the edits were fine but you overlaid them on the earlier controversial edits. The effect of that is to make it impossible to accept the reasonably, reject the controversial. A better strategy would be to make what you consider minor changes and then place the controversial changes on the talk page (with sources) and seek agreement. Remember there may be sources which say different things and editors may wish to check the sources or ask you to give the full text to check there has been no misinterpretation. The OED reference requires a subscription so I could not check that. The NLM one needs to be examined (and compared) with other sources already quoted to check for balance/weight --Snowded TALK 08:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your position and what you're using as evidence. What do you think is the difference between a theory and a model when used in the definition of NLP? Why would the NLM and OED describe it as a 'model' or 'system' rather than a 'theory'? What source (except Newbrook who was writing from the perspective of a theoretical linguist in a skeptical magazine) support a contrary view? If so, why? ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Try and understand that I am telling you to present the case for your changes on the talk page of the article in question. If you check above I have NOT said if I am for or against "theory" or "model" but that I want to look at the evidence. I am also objecting to your making a mass series of edits most of which you know will be controversial (given that as on previous occasions you appear to be trying to make the article more favourable to NLP, or reduce criticism) without first proposing them on the talk page. Arguing about ONE world in what was about 20 edits overall on my talk page is a waste of time. Use the talk page of the article to make your proposals. --Snowded TALK 09:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make the proposal on the article talk page that way we can get more people to comment on it. Possible get a third part opinion if we need it. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Article

I'm pretty much leaving this article alone until the ArbCom decision comes in. I've tried to get some sort of compromise going, but its pretty clear that this is not going to happen until ArbCom resolves the behavior issues, so I'm just going to save my breath. What do you think of doing a philosopher RfC once the behavior issues are resolved? Idag (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea on the RfC, although I am hoping ArbCom will make a ruling on the evidence question and proving a negative. I keep resolving to leave it be but then succumbing to temptation. --Snowded TALK 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have promised to neither edit Ayn Rand nor Talk:Ayn Rand, as one of the "conditions" required from Kjaer was that I should not be involved, and it was small sacrifice to make to walk away from that cesspit of bad faith and insults it has become more like in recent weeks if it meant that more people would agree to mediation (I was dragged into the ArbCom because of the allegations about myself given, and then I was criticised for still commenting at one point by Kjaer when he had made the allegations that seemed to require a response from me! It is a soul-destroying and motivation-sapping experience for me and the whole of wikipedia, I think.) However, on the question of whether she was or wasn't a philosopher, I wonder whether a compromise solution might be the following: to accept that the perception of her within the USA is different from the rest of the world, and use a form of words like "She is considered to be a philosopher and novelist within the USA, but is more mainly considered to be a novellist and writer outside the USA who wrote about philosophical issues." I think from trying to sort out the facts and verifications from the insults and other stuff flying around that such a sentence could be justified by judicious use of footnotes to expand the sentence and provide verification for (a) the claim that within the USA she is thought of as a philosopher; and (b) the claim that outside the USA she is mainly thought of as a writer and novellist.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd buy that and have thought of suggesting something similar. However I think we are dealing with people for whom her status is a totem and we probably need arbcom first. You could suggest it, I see no reason for Kjaer's intimidatory tactics to succeed. --Snowded TALK 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if she's considered a philosopher within the USA. The academia completely ignores her. Granted, that's not determinative of whether one is a philosopher, but it does make her different from other acknowledged philosophers. Idag (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its all down to weight and the repetition on the talk page with the most crazy of analogies indicates why this needs a ruling. Its the same on intelligent design and other pages, same issues. --Snowded TALK 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturalism talkpage

Just to clarify my comments; am I explaining it incorrectly? Because it feels like I'm either completely failing to make myself understood or the user in question is just not getting the idea, one of the two. Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. The user just doesn't get it. He made similar edits to Liberalism and a theology article. If you look at what he then did to his talk page I think we are dealing with someone with problems. --Snowded TALK 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Theology

You might want to check out this. I think he just crossed the line into causing more harm than good; being ignorant of wiki-policy only creates so much good faith. I also find his mentions of 'the truth' in discussions quite worrying for a contributor to a neutral encyclopedia. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree and I responded with one mistake! He has been so irritating I thought he had been banned, but I think his talk page says it all. I think he is just ignorant to be honest, rather than pernicious but the effect is the same. --Snowded TALK 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mendacity"

Perhaps I shouldn't have used such strong language, but I am so utterly frustrated with the way Steve and Kjaer (and for that matter some of the other Randites) continually distort the opinions of others as to be utterly frustrated. My question: do you think I went out of line? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Kjaer's posting was a gross distortion of history and in at least two points a plain and provable untruth. Both of them are now (as ever) forming a sort of tag team writing long intimidatory posts whenever they are questioned. The trouble is I think they may genuinely believe the things they say but then that sort of behaviour is a long standing feature of cults (Randism being a cult has citations by the way Steve assuming you are monitoring this). The effect of their strategy is to drive editors away and that may well be their intent. --Snowded TALK 07:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I will leave if ArbCom asks me to. I am not, however, inclined to give into petty bullying. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be to take the high ground. If Kjaer and Steve want to be unreasonable, let the diffs on ArbCom speak for themselves. If they raise an AGF argument, ignore it and answer only to the merits, if any, of the proposed edits. This way, we can lose some of the rancor and increase the chances of actually resolving these edit disputes. Just my $0.02 Idag (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Except for the part implying that Kjaer and I am unreasonable, that is excellent advice. And, if the aim is to reduce rancor and increase chances of working together with less friction, it would be extremely important to avoid character assasination, like calling someone a liar, or dishonest, or mendacious. Retracting those - deleting those comments, with or without an apology, would be a sign of commitment to the principles of civility. But, I will admit to having a personal bias in this area after decades of practicing honesty. --Steve (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a fair point, but that latest Kjaer post on the talk page was incredible. If nothing else it needed pointing out on the arbitration page, with the linkage so that Arbcom can see the bahaviour. --Snowded TALK 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think one can merely let them continue to post the messages they do on the ArbCom page for all the arbitrators to see, and then deal with them calmly and collectively, as I had to do this morning/last night in response to Kjaer's unsupported and incorrect idea that Snowded had somehow recruited me to involve myself on the talk page: they seemed to forget that if that were true, then some of their messages seem to be quite inconsistent with what they are alleging they believe, as well as not being in agreement with the facts, and that needs to be pointed out. I was particularly struck by the inconsistency between saying I was not able to act like an administrator on the one hand (and therefore should be criticised), and then that on the other hand I must use some administrator's tools to their request, otherwise I should be criticised. That was in the context of (early) thanks for my actions and requests for help later on coupled with messages that I listed as diffs, along with refusing to block them which Peter Damian suggested should be done. My own worry is that the sheer number of these comments means that one either has to go way over the 1000 word limit, or one lets them go by unanswered. I want the complete record of my edits to be placed better, and may put it on the talk page, as I think a look at that is illuminating in what happened compared with what they say I did. I think ArbCom really should be stepping in very soon to just put a stop to it. I didn't even want to get involved again when I withdrew, but felt forced into it by their constant allegations of impropriety (and I recall, I even got criticised for this because I was still editing on matters of Ayn Rand).  DDStretch  (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The truth of how I came to get involved on the talk page is quite simple: I was sorting out some old books in a few boxes, and came across copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that I had bought on a recommendation years ago, but which I had never been able to finish reading as I thought the writing was not to my preferred style (I found myself unable to read them for any length of time.) That prompted me to look at Ayn Rand. I often do that when things IRL catch my attention: I just go and see what kind of job wikiepdia editors have made of a subject. I thought the article was strangely structured, and so I took a look at the editing history to see how that had arisen, and was immediately struck by the edit war. A glance at the talk page horrified me. I could have walked away, but I felt that administrators have responsibilities, and that, even thoigh the problems appeared severe and difficult, one should not turn away just because something is difficult when one has an administrator's role. The rest is history.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep and the sooner Arbcom do something here the better, enough projectile weapons have been utilised to damage plantigrade appendages by now. Steve's comment above indicates the depth of the issue as I think he genuinely believes what he says; one is reminded of Wittgenstein's argument in respect of ostensive definitions. --Snowded TALK 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom definitely needs to step in soon. A lot of reasonable Objectivists, like Jomasecu and Skoromokh, have been driven away from the article, and the longer this dispute lasts, the more trolls its going to attract. Idag (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict funny aside) I favour Karl Popper over Wittgenstein, and Ludwig can be interesting, even though they both (according to some reports) "crossed pokers" at a Cambridge seminar. I read that Wittgenstein liked to sit in deckchairs, and often had them around the houses where he was staying. A friend of mine in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (where Wittgenstein worked during WWII as a hospital porter) lived in a flat that Wittgenstein was reputed to have stayed in. In a corner of the room was a really heavy old wardrobe that hadn't been moved in years, it seemed. It was decided to move it, and behind it was a door into a kind of cupboard. My friend pulled the door open, and out fell a really old deckchair! Coincidence or what, who knows, but we couldn't stop laughing for a while about this when it happened.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Idag on the editor population of the article. To Popper, I must admit that I always sympathised with "poker"solution to Popper and the tedium of debates between critical realists and social constructivists that are his inheritance. Love the deckchair story - that should be published. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting story about the deckchair. Re the poker story. Popper, in his autobiography (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography p122-3), claims that as he stated certain philosophical problems, Wittgenstein began playing nervously with the poker by the fireplace, using it "like a conductor's baton to emphasize his assertions." When Wittgenstein challenged Popper to cite an example of a moral rule, Popper replied: "Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers." At that, wrote Popper, "Wittgenstein, in a rage, threw the poker down and stormed out of the room, banging the door behind him.' The story has been disputed by others present. Peter Damian (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading the account by Popper in Unended Quest, it occurred to me, and to some of my friends who were similarly interested and had read it, that one could apply Popperian principles (note the kind of term used there: "Popperian") to it and ask how one could test this account. We needed some other account from an attendee to see whether their account differed from Popper's (Wittgenstein being dead, could offer one). So, I was quite interested when Peter Geach wrote his letter about it. Of the books, I read the Edmonds and Eidinow one "Wittgenstein's Poker", but found it rather dull and vastly too long for its content and the conclusions it drew. Zipping fowards a few years, one of the friends who had known Popper thought that on the whole, Popper may well have embeliished it a bit, and that his public persona (as one might imagine from his books) was not entirely the same as his private persona, and that he could be quite viscious and suspicious of people who criticised him, sometimes complaining that he had been ignored unfairly. Oh well.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Progress?

Is there any more I can do re the Rand article and Arbcom? I agree with you that they should be focusing on the use of citation and sources, and in particular on the difficult (and common, in respect of pseudo-disciplines) situation when reliable sources do not mention the subject (since reliable sources, on the whole, only discuss other reliable sources). There is also the problem that a small number of apparently reliable sources do refer to her as a philosopher (though I am suspicious of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is edited by some Randians). But I am worried that this message, which you have been communicating clearly and effectively and repeatedly, is being lost in the sheer volume of chattering on those pages. Let me know if there is any further help I can give. Peter Damian (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Its all down to Arbcom I think. The Internet Encyclopaedia is as you say a dubious source. Interesting to see what the policy is. If a single reliable source counts then all sorts of nonsense on all sorts of pages are possible. I am hoping that 'proving the negative" will get the right sort of attention. I suspect they will focus on behaviour first and try and solve it that way. Keep it on watch and bring your scholarship to bear I think. In a European context this debate would be laughed out of court. --Snowded TALK 14:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me Ted

David, I appeal to you as a Catholic and a human. Let us bury the hatchet. The issues on the Ayn Rand page are so petty and small that they make my stomach turn when I think of the time wasted. I understand that Rand has people who dislike her. I hope ytou understand that there are many people who like her who are not cultists, nor uneducated, nor interested in making her into something she was not. You can look at my edit history and see that on her article I have never said she was flawless nor glorified her nor tried to embellish her credentials. And look at my other edits, such as to Celtic Nations (which I see you cherish) or my edits to Pornocracy, a horribly POV article which I had changed to the much more NPOV Saeculum obscurum. If I were some sort of monster, would I edit an article to make the papacy look less bad? I invite you to step back, not even "turn the other cheek" but just breath deeply and ask if all this nonsense is worth it? I think we can take advantage of the current movement and bury the hatchet. Let the admins declare their judgment on "philosopher" and let us move on to greener pastures. Wikipedia is not all about Ayn Rand for me, and I hope not for you either.Kjaer (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ted, I don't see this is an issue of personal conflict. If it was then I would happily buy any hatchets. I don't think I have ever called you a monster or suggested that people who support her ideas are necessarily uneducated. Neither do I think that Arbcom are going to rule on a content issue. There are however issues (i) the level of edit warring and invective on this article went out of control and there needs to be some Arbcom ruling on that to prevent recurrence, (ii) the question of evidence remains in respect of the article, with no evidence of agreement on matters of weight, (iii) the question of "philosopher" actually doesn't matter too much, but it does raise a question of wider importance to Wikipedia of "proving a negative". Now the current movement is encouraging, lets keep it going and I for one am keeping up my editing and monitoring of many other articles. --Snowded TALK 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration

This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just making you aware that I provided a direct response to your talk page message. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Sources isn't helpful

Snowded, you deleted two sources, not just one[9]. There was a request that we seek some consensus before deleting sources. There had been some contention on the wording in that sentence. I found sources to support the wording. The first source wasn't approved of by Idag, so I took the time to find a second one. I also took time to make a number of observations on the talk page to support the sources and to support the conclusion[10][11]. Please work on the talk page instead of moving things towards arbitrary decisions of the kind that have set off edit wars in the past. --Steve (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The once source was self referential and the other not really necessary. I don't oppose you putting it back in. As to your injunction above, well you might consider proposing changes first if you don't want amendments and reversals. --Snowded TALK 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about that one source. As soon as that was pointed out, I would have deleted it myself. The other was necessary because people were deleting material saying that it wasn't accurate or that it wasn't supported. I was just trying to provide the support. When it started becoming contentious, I stopped reverting and went to the talk page (where I had already been discussing the issue). Your point about discussing first is well taken. --Steve (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof problem - help needed

[I left the message below on a few talk pages - this is important and needs careful consideration]

I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.

This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.

The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.

I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).

Principle: if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available. Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming disputes

I've asked Jimbo Wales to consider being the third moderator. If he says no, then he might recommend someone. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Novel, but I wouldn't support it, he doesn't have enough knowledge of the subject. --Snowded TALK 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking him. Less knowledge on this subject, might be a good thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have two people in that category. You need a third who understands the history. The games being played over ROI for example, from outside it may seem trivial but in reality it is a major issue. --Snowded TALK 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has replied, he doesn't wanna do it. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Violation of Key Wikipedia Policies

Snowded, I wanted to provide the same warning that I've given to Idag. You have violated Wikipedia policy by deleting properly sourced material without a consensus. The description of Rand as a philosopher has been in many, many articles on Wikipedia for a long time. It is a description found in many, many independent sources. No less than 5 sources were provided with the material you deleted. They were all valid, reliable, verifiable, noteworthy sources that were properly cited. Twice you have deleted the word philosopher and all 5 sources - without consensus. I hope that you will take an honest look at that and recognize that you have seriously violated Wikipedia policy. As I have recently discovered, ArbCom does not make content decisions. For that reason, this issue must be decided by editors using Wikipedia policy (sourced material). --Steve (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also requires us to pay attention to weight. Please stop this tiresome issuing of warnings --Snowded (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that it was you who first began this process of putting warning on my page, back in December. I asked you not to back then, but you and Idag seem to like doing this. But, apart from giving you the required warning that you have now used your third revert in 24 hours on "philosopher" and the sources, I will try to abide by your wishes. --Steve (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

but whats the problem ?

can I know were is the problem in adding compatible images, illustration perfectly articles ? Mysticshade (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I checked it one of the images didn't exist. You also had a prior pattern of adding in material which had to be reverted and one question of copyright on your talk page. Overall it is a mistake to make so many changes to an article all at once. One or two additional images and see what the reaction is, or just produce a list on the talk page and say something like "I plan to add these any issues". --Snowded (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On the hungary article for example, there is more image than ireland, so why you remove with the reason: many images, not many as other articles, its only illustrations. Mysticshade (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been advised on this by me, and also by other experienced editors. I suggest you take the advise. I'm currently checking back through some of your other edits and it looks like you are cutting and pasting material from other sources as well as inserting multiple photographs. You really need to learn to edit before you do these mass changes and also learn to raise changes on the talk page first. --Snowded (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Im happy to constat that there is more images in another articles, so there is no problem about rep Ireland for adding thos images as they are more many in other articles as you know now :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticshade (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Get a mentor, learn to edit STOP inserting those images or the vandalism warnings escalate and ultimately you will be banned from editing. I also apologise, while I am sympathetic to non first language English speakers I am finding it difficult or impossible to make sense of what you say. For example "Im happy to constat that" --Snowded (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Please note: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully familiar, but dealing with vandalism here (not just on this article but many others) --Snowded (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured that's what you were doing and agree with the reverts; but there's a nasty habit right now of some parties wielding 1RR with a heavy stick. It would probably been seen (by some) as unfair if I didn't plop the warning down. Ah what fun. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The wonderful world of WIki! Thanks and appreciated --Snowded (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dont revert another time

look, Hungary's article contain more image than Rep of Ireland, dont revert my edits, there is no reason, if you do this to Ireland do this to hungary ok ? If there is a problem then go to talk page Mysticshade (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you persist in these changes I will (i) revert and (ii) report you as a vandal. If you think the changes are useful take them to the talk page and see if you can get support. --Snowded (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

See my Userpage, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to tell me, you are under watch! --Snowded (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatcha mean, clarify. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ahead of you there --Snowded (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

After your recent revert, you placed a message on the reverted user's talk page that what s/he did was vandalism. It was not, they had in fact tried adding to the article, but put it in the wrong place. Such users should be welcomed, not blamed. You could have added a welcome template instead and then place a small note on his/her user page that the info was placed in the wrong area of the article. Please be a more careful and considerate next time. Thank you. --Knowzilla 12:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They had replaced Elizabeth's signature with the phrase "World Level of Power = 1, Most Powerful Person on the Planet and Most Powerful Woman on the Planet" which is clear vandalism and has no place in the article let along the information box. Also it was not a newby user but one with occassional edits since 2007. Would you please tell me how "the most powerful women on the planet" is in any way something that should have been placed anywhere in the article? --Snowded (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if it didn't seem to fit there, they did try make some sort of contribution. Also, this revision shows that he/she had left Her Majesty's signature after adding their thing. --Knowzilla 14:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, most powerful woman on the planet! Its clear vandalism and should not be encouraged. Leaving the original signature is not a mitigating factor. It would not be a legitimate edit anywhere in the article and I really find it difficult to believe that you are serious. I must admit that I expected an apology for the little homily above when you checked the facts. --Snowded (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

*cough* I didn't say its really a legitimate edit, however it could have been in good faith. Vandalism is when parts are taken off an article without good reason or changed in bad faith, not when you add something even a least bit constructive. You could have reverted it and left a different note on that person's talk page. Please don't take this in a bad way, but I'm simply telling you to assume that the edit(s) was in good faith, even IF it doesn't seem appropriate. --Knowzilla 14:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well we will have to agree to disagree as to what counts as "the least bit constructive", with the best will in the world I cannot see any interpretation of the edit other than vandalism or possibly absurdism. Oh and I am not taking it in a bad way, although I am amused that you feel you have the authority to issue instructions. You might want to consider using different language in the future; for example "suggesting that" rather than "telling". I make this suggestion in good faith so that you can be "more careful and considerate next time".  :-) --Snowded (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to resort to sarcasm. Yes, what the person added isn't appropriate and probably shouldn't be there. No, I'm not issuing you instructions, perhaps I should have worded it differently, I was merely suggesting it you. However in the end I still suggest that you please assume good faith. That's all. =) --Knowzilla 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

More irony than sarcasm and I will continue to assume good faith, unless the evidence is to the contrary. --Snowded (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bretagne

It all started because someone moved singlehandedly the article "Bretagne" to "Brittany (administrative region)". Having an article called "Brittany" and another called "Brittany (administrative region)" is not only ambiguous, it is also quite POV (why should the article called "Brittany" refer to the historical province and not to the current administrative region?). So if you move "Brittany (historical province)" back to "Brittany", you should also move "Brittany (administrative region)" back to "Bretagne". Hundreds of articles link to "Bretagne", so moving this article to "Brittany (administrative region)" has now hundreds of articles linking to a redirect page (on top of the confusion and POV I mentioned). Der Statistiker (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So if someone made a bad move, why make it worse with a second. I suggest you move that back as well --Snowded (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to move the article "Brittany (administrative region)" back to "Bretagne" because the user later edited the "Bretagne" redirect page, almost as if to make a move back impossible.

I also see you wrote a message on the incident administrator noticeboard. How was it an "incident" exactly??? It was a good faith move to disambiguate with the "Brittany (administrative region)" article that was moved by this user without asking anyone, so your portrayal of it as an "incident" is really disgracious. You also wrote "Agreed, until today it was Brittany, it was moved to the administrative region article without any consultation. It should be back at Brittany" which is absolutely untrue. I never moved the "Brittany" article to the administrative region, I moved it to "Brittany (historical province)". Misportayal of what I did to the admins, thanks indeed! Der Statistiker (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't move it back so I went to ANI for help and got it. In respect of the administrative region you are confusing my comments with those of Black Kite so there was no mis-portrayal on my part. Given that the admin reversed historical province to Brittany it is fairly self evident that they understood the real issue. Good faith or not it is generally a mistake to move an established article with a high number of hits without at least doing other editors the courtesy of raising the subject on the talk page. I commend such behaviour to you in the future. --Snowded (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

YOU are the one who wrote "Agreed, until today it was Brittany, it was moved to the administrative region article without any consultation. It should be back at Brittany", not Black Kite. Proof here: [12]. That's what I call misportrayal. As for not asking anyone before the move, I can only wonder why you didn't do anything when that guy moved the "Bretagne" article to "Brittany (administrative region)". Anyway, I will of course write to the admins to let them know of your misportrayal of my edits. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean, well I was responding in general but I can see how you might misinterpret it. However the admin who made the revert was not in any way confused and there is no ambiguity in my notification. I don't watch Bretagne so I was not aware of the move and you still haven't justified your move without consultation. The fact that someone else moved a related article without consultation does not justify you doing the same. Why not just admit you got it wrong? --Snowded (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits appear to constitute vandalism (The English)

I don't think what I wrote constitutes 'vandalism'. I simply wrote the fact that the English were not indigenous to Britain and that they are an ethnic Germanic group that settled in the British Isles from the 6th century onwards. What is so wrong with that?

Well the commentary about their attitudes was POV and you were littering multiple German/Germanics throughout. Either way, if someone reverts you should take it to the talk page and make your case rather than starting an edit war. If you think there is nothing wrong with it, then you should not be afraid to make the case. A one time, single purpose IP will also attract suspicion. --Snowded (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

. . .

Hi Snowded,

Thanks for your response.

This is the first time that I have written, or edited something on wikipedia, so your point about a 'one time, single purpose IP' has gone over my head. The issue of modern English attitudes towards recognising their Germanic origins as being taboo may be POV, but I sincerely think that it is a valid and honest observation. It is all to common to hear English people talk about their 'ancestors' and 'heritage' when referring to the ancient indigenous peoples of Britain when clearly they have no connection to them in any way. Considering this and the fact that they very rarely acknowledge their Germanic origins clearly illustrates that this is a taboo subject for them. A few other points I think should be listed on this page is;

1. The English are not indigenous to Britain as under the common definition of 'indigenous', the English are not the first people that can be traced back to the land in question.

2. Whether Anglo-Saxon, Jutes or Normans, the true ancesters of todays English were all Germanic peoples with no connection to Britain whatsoever besides the fact that they starting migrating there in the 6th century AD.

3. The English language is a Germanic language.

4. There have been several DNA studies of the modern English, all producing contradictory results. Thus any conclusion drawn from such studies may be open to political motive as much as scientific etc.

My main argument is that a clear distinction should be made between the English on the one hand and the ancient indigenous Celtic peoples of Britain and their modern descendants (the Scottish, Welsh and Cornish) on the other. Failure to make such a distinction infers that the English are somehow related to the ancient indigenous population which they are clearly not. Such an incorrect inference also not only does a great injustice to the history and legacy of the ancient indigenous peoples of Britain, it also robs their modern descendants (the Scottish, Welsh and Cornish) of their heritage and rightful place in history.

Cheers,

Áedán mac Gabráin

I have some sympathy with several of the points you make above, although 5th C rather than 6th and I am dubious on the DNA studies and the claims to a celtic heritage which start in the 15thC at the foundation of empire. However that is not the point. If you are making controversial changes (and these are controversial) then you need to discuss them on the talk page first, it is not acceptable to "edit war". If another editor (and they may agree with you but know the matter is controversial) reverts with a "take to talk page" then that is what you should do and seek consensus there before making changes.

You need to be aware that issues relating to the British Isles/Great Britain/Wales/Ireland etc. etc. are all controversial. It is not infrequent for a new user to appear using an IP address and engage in disruptive editing, some of these are sock puppets (look it up in help), so any new IP address will be treated with suspicion. Its much better to create an ID. Have a look at the welcome message on your talk page and follow through some of the advice there. --Snowded (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH YOU ?

Why you revert my edits, there is no problem ? If you dont find a pretext why you revert my edits, I will change yours too. thanks MarshVeld (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are reverting against prior consensus and your response above is reminiscent of Mysticshade. --Snowded (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just about to say, the speech patterns seem to be the same as the banned user Mysticshade. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you persistent or what ? this is a shared network, and I have to do nothing with mystishade. Im just an user and I wanna explanation for what is wrong with my edits to Northern Ireland Article even if there is no errors. so why recerting it for no reason , why ?MarshVeld (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, you sound very similar and brand new editors making controversial changes on controversial pages .....

However if you want a reason (i) you are littering the article with pictures (ii) the flag of Ulster is not the flag of Northern Ireland and (iii) several of your edits were POV. All you have to do (its simple really) is outline your proposed changes on the talk page and see if other editors agree with them. --Snowded (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remove ulster flag, this time, better to not find another pretext with no sense. and please what you mean with POV ? because Im pretty sure there is no that. MarshVeld (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is under a 1RR restriction by the way - I just placed the notice on your talk page so you are aware and you have already reverted once so you are at the limit. Your description of the flag of Ireland restored a change against prior consensus (and its difficult to believe you are new user given that). Littering the article with photo's is a past pattern. --Snowded (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I Just checked the historic on Northern Ireland and got an Idea to place the Ulster flag (as the ulster is Irish historically going back to the Gaelic Ireland as a country), and I tell you more Im just a new user, dont mad stupid mistakes on me, because I will not permit you doing that, again if the Ulter flag is removed, whats the problem ? Dont reunite between users to revert my edits, I have rights to edits as Im a very long user, editing without account since the creation of Wikipedia. you can Believe me by checking this adress IP of the cyber network going back to 2006. Please do not revert my good edits, because there is no pretext. Thank you again MarshVeld (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You have no rights to edit against consensus and it would help if you wrote coherent comments. Its difficult to make any sense of the above and I suggest you spend more time composing responses, remember this is the English language wikipedia. Please propose changes on talk pages do not edit war. The vast majority of your edits on Northern Ireland were problematic for the reasons stated. If you would like to declare your prior IP addresses on our user page it would help. I promise not to revert any good edits however todate I have only seen bad ones. --Snowded (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And then what sense you make exactly ? "I've seen bad ones", maybe you see it but surely not from me as you know. What I do to Northern Ireland articel ? I added a simple image. I will remove it so its FINE. LOOK, you treat me as a sockpupeter, then you tell me my edits are wrong even if it just a flag that is inappropriate, whats going wrong with you ? I tell you that because you are not knowing it as you never stop to reply on a close and a clear subject. I only organized images on Northern Ireland article , SO THERE IS TRULY NO PROBLEM HERE. STOP REVERTING AGAIN. MarshVeld (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have told you what was wrong and I have told you to discuss changes on the talk page. Please read the welcome notice I placed on your talk page. --Snowded (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: user now indefinitely banned, suspected confirmedsock puppet and general abuse --Snowded (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevewunder

It looks like he was vandalizing and was blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The pattern is continuous, hopefully one week may change him --Snowded (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WQA on TheDarkOneLives

Snowded, can you have a look at WP:WQA. One of the issues listed includes a diff where you were going to follow up on a specific incivility. Could you please advise what actions you have taken related to it? Much appreciated in advance! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have actioned --Snowded (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Existentialism

Thanks for your comment on the talk page. That IP user, who has been through four different numbers this year already (and only edited Existentialism from those numbers) is clearly the same user who brought work on the article to a halt last year. I discussed the problem with various administrators, e.g. [[13]]. Fortunately, the user vanished for a time, as there doesn't seem to be any very meaningful way of conducting an RfC on user when the user has no account. Banning an ever-changing IP number would seem to be pointless too.

If you have any great ideas about what to do, please let me know.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Its a common problem on several pages. I think we just need to revert and force talk page. Its a pain but after a certain number of exchange they can be deemed vandals. I will keep it on monitor. Not as bad as the theological inserts on "Naturalism (Philosophy)" [which should really be naturalising but never mind] and nothing is as bad as the Ayn Rand pages!

I admire your stoicism. After today finding all kinds of nonsense on the [Phenomenology disambiguation page] and in the introduction to the [Phenomenology] article itself, I am tempted (yet again) to give up. Maintaining just the basic outline of a handful of Wiki philosophy articles would be a full-time job.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes well, I am adopting a position that the vandals should not be allowed in the citadel! I many not make it but will try. Another one to look at! --Snowded (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't visited Ayn Rand recently, but I just looked. What a shitstorm.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

So you can see why your IP on Existentialism is mild in comparison! Mind you it was fun to see Peter D let rip. --Snowded (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Retirement postpond

Ok, ya'll convinced me. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)