This is an archive of past discussions about User:Snowded. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
British Isles
Snowded, I'm just wondering - you're an accomplished editor with a good track record on a fairly diverse range of articles, and recently you've not been involved in BI discussions. However, as the issue flares up once more, you wade in again, but you didn't do so as HK was quitely deleting some usage, why? Do you enjoy getting involved in conflicts such as British Isles? It's a genuine question, and as I say, I'm curious. The problem is, your implicit support for HK is prolonging this never-ending dispute. And it's not only you. It seems that as soon as HK is put under any sort of pressure the woodwork is suddenly depopulated. LevenBoy (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. I've consistently edited on BI issues as and when I have time. I also think HK has been professional in agreeing to take part in proper process. We had a bad period with Flash and Midnight reverting any change for its own sake, but now they are out of the way I hope we can make progress. --SnowdedTALK11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Define progress. Come on Snowded, what is it you're after here? The use of British Isles in the vast majority of articles is of little or no consequence even if its use is technically wrong, so why all the effort? Yes, I could ask myself the same question and for me it is all about POV pushing and trying to prevent it. LevenBoy (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I am after is accurate articles and preventing POV pushing. I suggest you look at the log in your own eye before you criticise the mote in those of another editor. --SnowdedTALK18:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I will let wiser heads determine that if they can be bothered, my comment related to HKs participation in the special cases page and I will stand by that. And do we already know you SpongerJack? Very familiar for a very new editor methinks, I smell socks --SnowdedTALK12:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think its probably a matter of working out who the sockmaster is, I'll keep an eye out on your edits to get a clue. If I am proved wrong I will apologise it, but I really doubt that I am. --SnowdedTALK12:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
A 4-hour old account, with knowledge about the BI discussions? This much I know, socks tend to hurt the content argument of the sock-master. It also puts a stronger lense on newbies entering the BI discussions. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You'll be blocked as a sock anyway. Reverting a sock is just part of sweeping up the floor at the end of the day --SnowdedTALK22:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, make things easy for yourself. Why not just ask, ney tell, HighKing to go and find something esle to do instead of deleting British Isles. Maybe he could go and wage war against the USA or something, I don't know, but get off his British Isles trip and in the long run it'll be better for you, better for me, and for certain withoout a doubt defintitely better for Wikipedia. Now you know this but you won't do anything about it. Shame on you. SpongerJack (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, you need to do me a favour, and if not me, someone, because that checkuer is a flatout liar! The only common component between my ip address and the one quoted: 86.29.126.11, is the 86. The one quoted may be MidnightblueMan, I've no way of telling, but I can guarantee you 100% that it is not me. I'm not so bothered about SpongerJack, but if they do reinstate that account I'll abide by the undertaking I've given. However, I am very concerned that a checkuser has either made an error, or given the vast difference in the ip addresses, is just lying. Could you please ask for a second checkuser to confirm what I already know. Whatever you might think about Spongerjack, MidnightBlue or the rest, this is a different issue and I am serious about it. Note that this is a "one-edit" account and won't be used again. I hope I can rely on you. Thanks. SpongerJack. InfinitySpooked (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"I hope I can rely on you. Thanks. SpongerJack.InfinitySpooked (talk)" He did. Same one who's been commenting above. See SpongerJack's user talk page for the other Checkuser confirmed socks. N419BH00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but here's another one-off account since the last one has already been blocked! I re-iterate, the checkuser is mistaken or lying. What are you talking about - the other socks? There are none. I am NOT linked to Midnight. My old account is FootballPhil and I'm now over there to prove it to you. By the way, the sockpuppet report on User:FootballPhil is also incorrect, for heavens sake, check it in detail and you'll see amongst other things "I'm on a slightly different geographic net to the others", and I have no commonality with the alleged socks. CarbonNumbers (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that the only recourse open to you is provide a full account of your various accounts, a clear undertaking never to sock or edit war again and then see if the community will agree to allow that. You can do it on one of your talk pages and I will pick it up from there if you tell me which. --SnowdedTALK01:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't censor articles at their subjects' request. The claim there is both sourced (and traceable back to the man himself) and relevant to the context. Also, from WP:HOUND: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." If you continue to be obstructive, and continue to leave bogus passive-aggressive notes on my talk page I will have to report it as harassment. To that end, since you've been here long enough to know better:
Please feel free to report any of my edits if you think they have involved any type of attack. I am however afraid then when you edit war, do not seek consensus, dismiss other editors arguments when they disagree with you and fail to engage the community on policy issues (my reference to BLP) you will end up with the sort of polite warnings I have left on your page. --SnowdedTALK01:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! You're doing good work here. I think that any link to the Mirror, anywhere in Wikipedia, has to be regarded with great suspicion, for reasons that are obvious. As you know Mr. Boisot and are in touch with him, I wonder if you might pass along my regards and check out my inquiry on the talk page of the article. While the tabloid nonsense is clearly not sufficiently notable to include, particularly in such a short biography, I was wondering if the close friendship of the two families could in some way be important. I think there is a good chance that it is not, at all, but if it is, then surely we can find a non-tabloid source to report on the non-gossipy facts of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jimbo and I appreciate you getting involved. I'll contact Max and give him the links and get his views --SnowdedTALK15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In another case You supported the Mirror as a reliable source, and in fact you replaced it after I had removed it. Here is the diff of you replacing it with the edit summary "reliable source making a valid political point. restore"
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred".
It appears you support only your own POV and whatever tabloid insult that supports it' The talkpage discussion where you repeatedly support the valuable opinion of the daily mirror is here.Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The Mirror in that case was backed up by multiple other sources saying similar things and was one of a series of references including the Guardian. The view expressed is shared by the leaders of the main political parties who are also cited at various points in the article.--SnowdedTALK15:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Snowed in this instance. The Mirror seems spot on with its characterisation, and is itself supported by other RS. Verbalchat17:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I would recommend in general avoiding lower quality sources when higher quality sources exist. Even if a particular low quality source is backed up by higher quality sources, it's probably best (there can be unique exceptions, of course) to just go with quality sources altogether.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the point in this case was that all the serious press, and the popular press and the political leaders of all main parties regard the BNP as a bunch of racists and fascists. The language of each source varies according to their style, its the unanimity of all sources other than BNP supporters which is notable in that case. --SnowdedTALK23:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Is Fox News regarded as a quality source in Wikipedia? It seems to be referenced all over the place. Yet Fox has pretty similar journalistic "standards" to Brit tabloid outlets. Not that I'm disagreeing with the BNP article point, but surely it's generally case-by-case when looking at media sources? In the past the Mirror, has, for example, broken significant and later proven stories, as well as some notorious concoctions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In Singapore now James, 7 hours ahead of the UK so I went to bed! Its the wrong shaped ball for me anyway, but I think its rather cute that the Octopus got it right --SnowdedTALK23:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Strange life you lead - "if it's Monday, it must be Singapore". Do you have President Reagan moments? "It's great to be back in Kansas City!" (In Des Moines). The footie wasn't all that gripping but I switched allegiance half-way through as Spain, being more gentlemanly, attracted my English love of decency tendancies. Crumbs. Wish the octopus could do flat-season tricasting. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit like that - next Monday its Latvia for a project on the status of Women in Eastern Europe. Singapore is a main base however - I was one of the two principal architects on their RAHS project (which is the one occasion I sat on the same table as Jimbo although he probably won't remember it) and I am there for my annual teaching programme for their civil service. My secretary out here is a Torres fan so celebrations are on progress! --SnowdedTALK08:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm frequently amazed by the number of (apparently) well-educated and well-connected (see above threads) people who don't know the difference between "principle" and "principal"........!!! ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)]
I'm partially dyslectic Ghmyrtle so if the spell checker doesn't pick it up I'm lost. Used to get caned for every word I got wrong in the weekly spelling test back in the 60s/ Corrected and thank you, but it will happen again --SnowdedTALK08:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to generate reprimands in even smaller text Ghmyrtle? I found it hard to focus on that particular piece of pedantry at this early hour. By the way, "Who led the Pedant's Revolt? Answer: Which Tyler." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Level of involvement
As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I have - if you look at the edit history on the special projects page you will find I have been putting long hours into trying to look at each case on the evidence. If you could clarify the question I'm happy to add information. --SnowdedTALK22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how else to word the question, but if you want some guidance on how to interpret it, you can look at how others have responded to the same question (at the linked discussion) when it was posed to them - see the adequate answers that were provided by 2/0, Off2riob, TFOWR, Beyond My Ken, BritishWatcher, Salvio, BozMo and RashersTierney. It may be obvious, but it is likely not so obvious to an outsider who will close the discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I've looked at those and I accept some of them, those from BritishWatcer and Off3Rio do not match to my experience but I really don't want to get into a debate over that. As far as I can see in my contributions I have made it very clear I have been actively involved. With BlackKite I set up the project page to get the discussions into one place, and worked hard with HighKing to get him to engage there and accept consensus decisions. I've put time and effort into looking into each case and have a fairly balanced record of accepting or rejecting the term on a case by case basis. I have also attempted to get guidelines and processes into place to resolve the issue. On the original BI article dispute and the disputes of the country status of Wales etc. I was one of the main editors involved in creating compromise solutions and ending controversial edit wars. I'm happy to let my edit history speak for itself - or get some of the admins like User:Canterbury Tail who are involved to give you an informed opinion. Making claims as to status in a straw poll is easy, I prefer to let my edit history stand and suggest that a few uninvolved admins need to look at the edit history of the protagonists and (to be brutally honest) listen to those of us with long experience of this issue. --SnowdedTALK07:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Good Morning to You, Greeting from Calabria and morally in Venezuela, I write you if kindly you could improve the Article on Our Lady of Coromoto, my English it is not perfect, it is more scholastic... With the Blessed Virgin I have a particular devotion, considering that the past year has saved me from certain death. In Change I will help you with some translation in Italian and Spanish, and with the various Italian dialects. in wait of one certain answer of yours I thank in advance you for true heart♥... and that the Virgin always protects yourself. God blesses you♥..sorry my bad english♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Snowded. Seen as I'm here I thought I'd say that this edit by the ip was in my opinion correct. Are those of Scots ancestry abroad really Scots? (Jack forbes) 86.181.188.234 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but that still doesn't mean those of Scots ancestry are actually Scots. I myself have mostly Irish ancestry, but wouldn't expect to be included in any figures for the amount of Irish people in Scotland. Irish ancestry, yes. Irishman, no. 86.181.188.234 (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Large populations of Scottish people settled the new-world lands of North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, with a large Scottish presence particularly noticeable in Canada, which has the second largest population of Scots, after the United States. (Scotland itself is in third place.) They took with them their Scottish languages and culture.[20]
If you read this, it basically reads that there are more Scottish people living in Canada and the USA. With a population of just over five million, that means five million people have in the course of history, emigrated from Scotland, and carried on the bloodline elsewhere.
The statement itself also reads to means that there is more living Scots people in other countries than in Scotland itself. This depends on your intention with the statement. As this would mean the entire population of Scotland needs to be replicated, living, in Canada, that obviously isn't right. However, if you're referring to descendants of Scottish migrants, then that needs to be clarified.
Both of which are less than the current census population of Scotland.
So I feel that the statement can stand, with an alteration of:
Large populations of Scottish people settled the new-world lands of North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, with a large Scottish presence particularly noticeable in Canada, which has the second largest population of people claiming Scottish descendancy, after the United States. They took with them their Scottish languages and culture.[20]
Snowded, can you express support or otherwise for the guidelines? In the absence of anyone other than Bjmullen being willing to explicitly express support, I'm going to mark them as having failed to gain consensus. Thanks, --RA (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Make the case for BI on the project page, why you are not doing so I don;t know. If it is present in all those areas then its a valid use of the term. --SnowdedTALK14:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
In order to restore your integrity, could you ask to have your false and damaging allegation against me made in the history summary removed from the history, please? Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Why, you were blocked here and more recently warned for personal attacks here. You edited a page and subject area where you had no previous edit history at the height of an ANI case on the subject of which you were aware. Do you have some new definition of integrity failure which means "making any factual statement that Triton Rocker doesn't like"? Incidentally the above post with its direct accusation could be considered a personal attack. --SnowdedTALK04:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Whatever ... but I was not blocked as or for what you said.
To make a false allegation as that in the summary history summary was a deliberately provocative and knowingly damaging act. --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Snowded,
I am happy that you are reading this message but I am very frustrated at your mis-editing of the Labour Party page. Labour is a progressive party. As a member of the Labour Party, I know that Labour are annoyed at the way that you have edited THEIR (not your) Wikipedia page.
There dictionary definition of Progressive means - in favour of political and social reform. It is an ideology. That is what Labour has proved from national minimum wage right through to repealing Section 28 and making equality laws. Now, on the Conservative Party website there is no mention of progressivism, same with Liberal Democrats. Now this is not a party political issue and I am sure that Plaid is a progressive party but Labour is too.
Also, the US Democrats have got progressivism on their inbox. They have said they are progressive and they have said the Labour Party is progressive- because we are sister parties.
Also, social democrats, NOT democratic socialists.--92.30.136.9 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia pages are not owned, either by their editors or their subjects. The Labour Party has a web site of its own where it can say what it likes - content here should be properly referenced in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
so you are trying to get the Labour party page to say its progressive at the same time as demanding the conservative European grouping be labelled as far right.Slight conflict of interest! lmao
Thanks guys - to our IP (or whoever you are), I don't think you have a case, but either way the place to make it is the talk page of article concerned. Your first sentence is a little silly you know, its not their page and I very much doubt you have access to their opinion. --SnowdedTALK03:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Labour Party (UK)
I don't know, but would protection help? I've had this watchlisted since an editor posted on your talkpage saying that the Labour Party wasn't "democratic socialist" - that surprised me enough to check for myself. I live in a safe Labour seat so I have a fairly good idea what they stand for - they're better at telling me than the other parties! I'm wondering if this is a campaign by some nefarious anti-Labour force? TFOWR15:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of asking for semi-protection, although its one of those every few day irritations so its not a major burden. --SnowdedTALK15:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I'll keep an eye on it, anyway, and don't hesitate to ping me if I'm around and I miss it. TFOWR15:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I knew there was a reason why I hadn't been involved in discussions like this (list of nations/list of national anthems type articles) for a while. It's like banging your head off a brick wall. If I said what I really feel I'd probably get blocked, so I won't. Jack 1314 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with BW is that he is not being malicious, its like he doesn't realise the effect of plastering his User Page with the Union Jack. As it is he ends up being a disruptive editor while he is trying to do the right thing. --SnowdedTALK17:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No particular brief for BW Snowded, but what's the difference between displaying the UJ on one's user page and other national flags, such as the Welsh one on your user page? Surely a user is free to do that, or are you getting ready to claim the UJ should be removed from Wikipedia? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Its the size of it which is the issue James, its in your face the minute you get there. It has a long history (remember the "Butcher's Apron" reference) so some sensitivity is called for. --SnowdedTALK10:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I nearly put a Manx flag on mine. Grandstanding is certainly part of the problem, but so is reacting to it... AJRG (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any policy on that? Other than against specifically being insulting, which is not the case with the UJ. I can see that for example displaying the Nazi banner might raise eyebrows. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No policy on it, or I would have done something about it some time ago. As I said in the original comment BW frustrates me as he is a dedicated and basically honest editor who seems to have little understanding of when he inflames difficult areas. In practice I think its useful for all editors to declare their political and other affiliations as its more likely to keep them honest. It just doesn't need to be OTT.--SnowdedTALK10:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I once had a large saltire on my user page, and if I recall rightly BW more than once commented on it when discussing certain subjects. He must know the kind of reaction he may get after reacting himself. Jack 1314 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the British Isle issue, keep it on the policy discussion page, thank you.
I am sorry but you lost my respect. Firstly, over those bogus accusations you made and using the summary to rub salt in and, secondly, over that Arthurian stuff.
If you break WIkipedia rules such as WP:NPA or fail to follow community directives on insertion or deletion of "British Isles" then expect to get a notice. If you delete it (which is your prerogative) then its proof that you have read it. You were blocked for inserting BI so there were no bogus accusations. If you check it out it was generally agreed on the mythological places page that there was no need for a geographical reference. You might also note that I simply asked you to provide a full quote to back up your reference. All you needed to do is to provide that material and engage on the talk page concerned. I do think you have some behavioral issues here and unfortunately it looks like you are going to end up learning the hard way. --SnowdedTALK09:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
SPA
Please stop referring to me as an SPA as you did at AN/I earlier today. While the majority of my edits are concerned with one topic, not all of them are. I'm basically a reader of Wikipedia rather than an editor. To label an editor as an SPA can be provocative. Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well from what I have seen you are pretty much single purpose, I haven't seen any edits in other areas so I think the cap fits. --SnowdedTALK12:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and if I didn't need more evidence for your SPA status you have ignored the consensus discussion and reinserted British Isles. Its seems to be a Pavlovian reaction and is especially a breech of process here as BI was only inserted this morning. --SnowdedTALK12:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
SPA is a perjorative term so please avoid it. I've self reverted two edits, both of which actually made good sense, but I see an admin is taking no prisoners here. I look forward to HighKing attempting to delete BI, he will be topic banned immediately by the look of it. LevenBoy (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Display a different editing pattern and no one will be able to apply it to you. I noticed the reverts so my thanks, I have advised one admin that you have done so. --SnowdedTALK13:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
@ LevenBoy - thanks for self-reverting: it shows good faith.
@ Snowded - I'm not convinced SPA is a pejorative term, and I take no view on whether it is nor is not applicable here. However, it clearly concerns LevenBoy. In the interests of collegial editing I'd recommend avoiding the term with respect to LevenBoy.
What it is not "BRD is not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it. Researching first, then citing sources, may reduce the likelihood of a reversion or, if one takes place, help keep the resulting discussion constructive." You wer already aware that there were interested parties, and had been asked fpr sources baiing the statment. You had failed to do so (over a year ago). "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." So I am not required to follow it. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." I has attempted a re-wording (supported by sourcesa) which you had reverted to text (not supported by any source). "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." You had indead already reverted to your prefred version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Slater, no harm is done by waiting a bit. I restored to the position that has been around for a bit and said lets talk about it. I also suggested that we allow other editors to get involved. This is all good practice, there is no need to be quite so aggressive. I have no recollection of failing to respond to a request for sources by the way. --SnowdedTALK15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I should have said that those supprting the term were asked over a year ago. But you were asked during this discusion. Moreover this debate goes back (and you have been involved thruout) well over a year. Plenty of time to have found a source for a contentious phrase. You here even agree that we need a source [[1]]. So you have known for a while this needed a source to (in your words) water tight in October of last year.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Fully agree that we need a source, but I must say that I thought it had been resolved a year ago. I did a quick look as you know and found one quickly, but subject to interpretation. The real point though is closing things off too quickly, we got to an agreement there was no need for aggressive changes, and it would have been better to leave it for a little longer to allow other involved editors to take part. That way we might avoid a future edit war. --SnowdedTALK15:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
And I seem to recall that in the past the attitude was that is RS cannot be found to support something it should not be included (not it should be left in to allow time for sources to be found). I also seem to recall that material should not be included if there is no consensus for its inclusion. Not that material should be inclused untill there is consensus for its removal. Nor was I aware that there was any aggrement to keep the page as was (or to not make "aggressive changes"), in fact I seem to recall that the accusation was made that in fact the re-inclusion of this phrase went against previous consensus (that yourself and the accused party had agreed to).Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well the RS question is open you know and there was space for discussion. If there is a discussion going on no harm is done by leaving the established version in place for a day while discussions take place. As it is, the history of the page shows it would have been better to wait. --SnowdedTALK16:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
We have been waiting a year for a source (we have been waiting about 8 months since you asked for one). If we keep on saying OK we will leave it a bit to allow for sources to be found when do we decide we have waited enough, the second time its raised the third or the fourth. Unsource materail can be removed if challended, it was a long whole ago.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Always best (in my view) if there is any dispute to restore the prior version and allow a discussion to take place before removing material --SnowdedTALK16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate you finding them. The first illustrates the issue, the organisation wants to claim its non-political . The second I think establishes the political nature - but that interpretation is being challenged. --SnowdedTALK18:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't found anything more solid than this. "Single-issue organisation" seems to be the phrase - at what stage does that qualify as political? A Facebook page under their name (how official would that be?) describes them as an "English far-right single-issue organisation". You might find the analysis here interesting. AJRG (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why so much fuss is being made about political to be honest, the critical think is that they are right wing. For the moment I am trust trying to settle down the edit warring and trying to understand why Verbal is refusing to engage --SnowdedTALK16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
One original revert and three since, if it went to report you would get a block. Verbal its nor worth it, please make the case on the talk page you are just giving ammunition to the "right" at the moment. --SnowdedTALK14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You might get away with that if the admin was tolerant! I think most would see it as edit waring, and sorry I think its bad tactics --SnowdedTALK15:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I just saw it - you need to add in the reference to the warning you gave and link to the comments on his talk page or above - I'm happy to stand by those. I'm not sure it won't increase tension however but I must admit my frustration levels at having to deal with assertions and a refusal discuss are building--SnowdedTALK16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
EDL
Hi, Snowded. Amazing the things you learn here. I had honestly never heard of this group till I found it here. I guess they must be bigger news in England (hence the word English in the name). As for my suggestion, on reflection I guess your right in that it would have been using weasly words but I thought I would throw it out there anyway. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Nasty bunch to be honest - we had them in Cardiff at a Rugby match campaigning to stop a new mosque being built. I'm pleased to say the Rugby crowd gave them short shift and the police ended up being there to protect them! The problem with the "described as" is its the standard BNP approach as well - they want to avoid the Far Right lable so they keep trying to argue its just a liberal media conspiracy. --SnowdedTALK15:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Scotland generally gives all these types of right wing groups the elbow. In saying that, we in Glasgow have had to put up with things like this for far too long. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
They must be in hiding then. When I say they I'm thinking it's probably a couple of little bigots/racists sitting in a pub all day complaining about those lazy foreigners. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware that there may be a Hindu-Muslim subtext to some of this debate - it's not simply left v right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Now look you, it is now established that you are a POV pushing Welsh Nationalist, how can you possibly stay out of it? --SnowdedTALK16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
Hi Snowded, are you available to review 2 new pages of mine this coming weekend ? Your comments and assistance would be much appreciated. Jembana (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to English Defence League was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.
I* realise this must be hard for you, after all verbal is your natural ally were as I am your natural foe. But I realy feel, that Verbal is now a very disruptive influence on the EDL page. I belive he has lost any sence of objectivity and neutraility. I think perhaps you should try and talk to him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You've always been open to argument, unlike Rob! I've tried and I've joined in on BWilkins who I think has more influence. --SnowdedTALK17:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I am allowed to disagree, there is no reason to be upset about it. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong - I'm not calling for anyone to be topic banned. Verbalchat17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither I am I Verbal (topic banned that is), but I really think that this time you are hindering not helping. Take it or leave it, but that is how it is coming across to me. --SnowdedTALK17:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Catholic Church proposed Edit
Hello all,
I am new to this, so if I make mistakes I am sorry.
Regarding the use of the name "the Catholic Church"
and the name "Roman Catholic Church".
The Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church.
The name Roman Catholic Church refers specifically
to those Catholics that are baptized into the Latin Rite
of the Catholic Church. The name Catholic Church refers
to the Roman Catholic Church
(the Latin Rite) and the other 22 Eastern Rites (Eastern Churches)
that are in communion with Pope Benedict XVI who is the Bishop
of Rome, the head of the Latin Rite, and the successor to the Chair
of Peter, and therefore the head of the Universal Church. The Eastern Churches
distinguish themselves from the Orthodox Churches by this communion
with Rome. Examples of the Eastern rites are the Maronite Rite, the Melkite Rite,
the Malabar Rite, the Ukrainian Rite, and so on. Please see the following links
Take it to the talk page - but you will find that this has already been discussed, mediated and agreed. Its a question of common name. --SnowdedTALK19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OR or not OR
Just picked this up from the Village pump:
You seem to be making the common mistake of mixing up the sourcing of facts with the sourcing of names. We use individual sources (such as the one saying where a certain person came from) in order to back up an individual factual claim. This has nothing to do with our editorial decision in what terms we re-state that factual claim, when we speak about it in our own, Wikipedia's, editorial voice. That decision has to be made on the basis of Wikipedia's general naming policies, and on the basis of observing general practice across the English speech community. "X came from Londonderry" and "X came from Derry" are synonymous sentences; they have the same truth value, and exchanging the one for the other is no more "OR" or "SYNTH" than translating a text from one language to the other. It's our editorial decision, and it cannot be dictated by the coincidence of what naming convention was used in whatever source it was that happened to be used for a given factbite in a given article. (Besides, what would you do if you had two alternative sources, both supporting the same factual claim but using different naming?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Eminently sensisble stuff I would suggest. Perhaps if these sentiments were applied to the British Isles issue we'd be a lot better off, and wouldn't have to spend time hunting out references using precise words. LevenBoy (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. Especially seeing as Londonderry (the city) is synonymous with Derry (the city) - the point being made. Whereas "British Isles" is not synonymous with, say, "Britain and Ireland". Nice to see that. --HighKing (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
And the Derry/Londonderry agreement is a good one which has stood for some time, its a way of dealing with alternative sources. On British Isles we need to (i) follow sources and (ii) if it supports different use of language to apply the emerging principles. Blind reversion or blind insertion does not help. --SnowdedTALK02:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping to get Paul Siebert in on it, since he (and to some extent, OpenFuture) seem to among the most knowledgeable in the field. Paul Siebert is one of the most prominent editors in the dispute, so it didn't seem right to try to move on the mediation without him (so I took a different tack with my new "BigK Challenge").
Of certain discussions, the phrase "willful ignorance" comes to mind. I have a sneaking suspicion that you share my feeling there..... BigK HeX (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep - matches experience on the Ayn Rand pages a year ago and also some work I am doing for the US Government at the moment on how belief systems prevent people seeing data --SnowdedTALK07:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Happens in all spheres of life, I think, and of course it works both ways. The recent Climategate scandal provides examples from all sides. AJRG (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Whilst it's undoubtedly true that "belief systems" influence how we see facts put in front of us, the hardest systems to see beyond are our own - and that goes for university academics of a nationalist bent as well. :-) Just my five-pennyworth Snowded! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Its called pattern entrainment in cognitive science, unfortunately the only way to break it is to impose trauma, and yes James it applies to all of us. That said there are limits, there is partial or incomplete perception and then there is willful ignorance. --SnowdedTALK09:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A lot of behaviour is set up by environment - it's very noticeable how the rules and lack of them in Wikipedia set up different kinds of gaming, wilful and otherwise. Game Theory and Cognitive Theories aside, the simple lack of clarity and a need for leadership at all levels (only a very few good, active, focused and consistent administrators in what is after all a voluntary role) seem to me bound to set up the things you see going on here. I read somewhere that Wikipedia is an RPG and it does seem to be at least partly a set up for that, good though it is in lots of other ways. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Its a very good point James. Its one of those issues of scale. Wikipedia is important as its the first search on most subjects, that means it matters but it also attracts fringe players. At the moment I can look at the stuff which is trying to say that race is biological, the communism leads to mass killing but capitalism is always innocent etc. etc. We had it on Ayn Rand where there was no way of objectively determining a content issue, only behaviour issues. I am not sure that is sustainable in the longer term as it grows. I also think the fact that mediation is voluntary and mixed in quality is an issue. --SnowdedTALK09:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those issues seem to go to the heart of it. I've been thinking about the ways in which, say, encyclopedia brittanica is put together. Clearly, Subject Editors, with overall content policy oversight, would be difficult to appoint, elect or sustain in a semi-libertarian system like Wikipedia. Unless a sort of "DeeperPedia" is linked, with more "professional" editors running content policy, the foolishness of the daily battles will continue. At present, most serious editors consume their available voluntary time on battling this rather than building deeper quality. Therefore, largely, WP stays shallow and many articles do not zing quality in your face. GA and FA do help but many of those do not go nearly as deep as they could. Burnout for serious editors who are not here motivated by one burning POV will also remain high. The system is flawed, although I agree it works well for a ShallowPedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the solution is process based. A few hard ball admins able to force a conversation and adjudicate on rules, a sort of task force, would be hard at the start but would chase off the POV editors over time. Mind you if you want a real nightmare look at the Race and Intelligence project at Arbcom --SnowdedTALK10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Spot on. Also seen in the widely quoted but false maxim extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence frequently used to rebut challenges to the current belief system. There isn't a double standard - all claims need to be adequately evidenced and this is equally true for seemingly unremarkable ones. AJRG (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
And the fact that when you disagree with someone elses POV (belief system), most editors take it personally, and react by losing objectivity and engaging in a slaggin match. Rather than being a collaborative process, it becomes a situation involving "winners" and "losers" and "sides". A solution, and one I've seen work in other online communitites, is a reinforcement of the core importance of WP:CIVIL. Enforced by a few hard ball admins, it would also drive most non-contributory POV warriors away, and focus would return to content. Yes, the system is flawed - but not necessarily by design, but in the execution. --HighKing (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm often in brooks/streams, where trout are aplenty. Wowsers, now that place is gonna remind me of Wikipedia, ahhhh. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I like it that you have geology A level and am wondering if there's an infobox for that? Your list of accomplishments never ceases to amaze. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing special really Welsh Grammar Schools were pretty ferocious intellectually and you had to keep up. Working class parents who had fought their way to University against opposition from families helped a bit as well. I did Pure Maths, Applied Maths, Physics & Geology at A Level and to be honest Geology was a hobby, most weekends when not sailing I was out with the geology hammer in nearby Shropshire. --SnowdedTALK12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"sailing out with the hammer" - is that a Welsh-ism? I'm probably just a bit jealous by the way - I wouldn't have minded doing Geology at A Level as they went on much more interesting field trips. I did Geography. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Which is the best type of archive box template to use on the BISE page please Snowded? I am thinking we should archive everything below our new intro and down to the point where TFOWR classed the archive discussion as resolved. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I think for the moment we should collapse each discussion where we have a resolution? Then we can look at archiving after that? --SnowdedTALK15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I messed it up the other day, but it has been done once on the page collapse top|reason at the start then collapse bottom at the end both in thee squiggly bracket things. I thought I followed through on that, got one to work but then could n;t get the others--SnowdedTALK15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I think its only a matter of time before an RfC is needed! It not a good editing environment. We'll just have to wait on the straws I think, or take it to another forum --SnowdedTALK13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've already suggested OpenFuture start an RfC on the content. I'd be happy to start it, but I suspect unless s/he does so, s/he may not co-operate with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well on the Mass Killings one I have half suggested we need an RFC on him and Mark. However I think we need for the current one that he raised to finish off. It makes the British Isles disputes pale ....--SnowdedTALK15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
My interest in Wikipedia is mainly how processes emerge to handle conflict and create constraints - its an aspect of complex adaptive systems theory. So its all interesting, a wonderful real time laboratory in social systems. So sorry Jack, you're a rat in the maze .... :-) --SnowdedTALK15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Here am I involved in a serious long term participatory ethnographic study and next I know its Beatrix Potter time --SnowdedTALK15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Participatory Ethnographics sounds like one of those things people invent to get grants for their pet project, which is really measuring people's heads to see whose smartest and who has the whitest genes. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
Howdy Snowded. Your trout has caused succeeding posts at that article's discussion page, to be mis-aligned. It might be best to throw em out (delete), unless ya can fix it up. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Snowded the likes of Rhiwbina and Whitchurch have been swallowed up by Cardiff not Tongwynlais. The M4 will restrict Tongwynlais from becoming part of the continued urban sprawl of Cardiff along with the A470. I don't know if you know the area but there is a farm to the south west of Tongwynlais along with playing fields then a bit of forestry to the south east of the village where the new business park is situated along with the hills. Tongwynlais has become part of Cardiff county, but has not been swallowed up at all. Your comment on the post code house prices are fair enough, but saying Cardiff has been swallowed up is completely false.Richie123098 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am open to argument on a different description but whenever I visit Castle Coch I come over the M4 from Cardiff and I'm straight into the village. The new wording implied some form of green belt between the two which is just not true --SnowdedTALK21:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
BW
Sure you're right, but surprised you don't find "Bull. The common and widely used term for the language is Irish. It doesn't matter a twat" equally "needless and provocative". Not feeling inclined to take "her" on? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sarah is a good editor, works on lots of articles at a detailed level but is pretty direct on BI pages and that is not going to stop. Her views are known, she is consistent and I don't really see "matter a twat" of "bull" as other than robust but not insulting language. BW worries me more at the moment as he appears to be attempting to becoming the British nationalist High King (of old not the current version), moving over multiple articles with an agenda. The comment on Zionism was terribly provocative. --SnowdedTALK10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah Jaysus! I am, and never have been, a nationalist. Proud to be Irish, sure. Anti-English - only as much as Scots or Welsh people, and I'd class it as a rivalry. Anti-British ... no. Picky on terminology usage .. probably anally. If I tend to lean towards usage as covered by definition - well that's my style and I like things to be correct. Not OCD. But not a nationalist (the way that term is bandied about here). --HighKing (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are all kinds of nationalists, HK. Not all of them have to be denied as though it were a terrible insult. You can always choose which kind of nationalism suits you, if any. Jack 1314 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I reiterate that I'm absolutely not a nationalist of any variety but if I were to pick the closest variety if would probably be territorial. --HighKing (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, HK. It would be interesting to hear what kind of nationalism (if any) others here would most closely associate with. Not trying to out anyone you understand, but it would be interesting. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
She seems to have quite a history of blocks for personal attacks and the like, perhaps it's been a bit more than "robust" in the past. I thought BW's comment was really just silly rather than terribly provocative as you put it - but it's in the eye of the beholder. I just feel they are equally silly and was curious why you didn't tick Sarah off as well, although it's up to you and you're not yet an admin, so it doesn't have any effect other than that quite a few people respect your thoughts, as do I these days. I am a bit put off as well by her statement that the admin community stands ready to help her campaign, seems a bit far-fetched. But maybe I don't know as much as I thought - are there a bunch of admins ready to intervene on this? I haven't seen any evidence of it yet! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Happy to be corrected :-) It may just be familiarity with the editor, and concern over the Zionism comment which was (I thought BW) a bit out of character. If you get an extremist statement, then a provocative response generally results in escalation. Oh and thanks for the compliment by the way! I am still in three minds over an RFA .... --SnowdedTALK10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I find the concept of Sarah777 expecting "support from the Admin Community" on anything at all to be absolutely hilarious. They are not her favourite people, and she makes it obvious at every opportunity. Daicaregos (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
My comment about Sarah and "extreme prejudice" was simply my sense of humour, i did not mean it in a nasty way, just a friendly joke. extreme prejudice were her words, not mine. As for the Israel comment, the guy was ranting about zionism and some wikipedia conspiracy. Id hope the section be archived and closed to avoid needless further comments there. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you read my recent posts at the bottom of its disccusion page,regarding the reasons for having a Tricolour or Irish Provinces Flag,but some interesting points I also raised about BritishWatcher?Sheodred (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussing content, not for personal attacks and ideological rants from editors who are unable or unwilling to follow WIkipedia rules on evidence. Oh, and I see you just got your first block for actions elsewhere, maybe that will help the learning process --SnowdedTALK 08:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)--SnowdedTALK08:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
DIKW
I would submit that a reference to the DIKW Hierarchy exactly belongs here. One of the fundamental philosophical questions is "what is truth?" And how that can be discerned is, in many cases, a process that depends on the scientific method, which is used in many philosophical constructs. I would submit that the relation between Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom, is fundamental to an understanding of where the reality of truth comes from; how we distinguish between truth and fiction. I would also submit that this is concept that is sorely lacking in civil discourse today.
Just because Information Systems theory has created a concept does not mean that that concept cannot be used by other knowledge disciplines. In fact, it is the synthesis of ideas across multiple disciplines that is the highest form of research that can be undertaken.
To me, the key reason that the topic of DIKW is highly appropriate for this page, from an analytical standpoint, until I understood this continuum or progression of structure, I did not appreciate the distinction between data, information, knowledge and wisdom:
Data – Raw Facts
Information – Data organized in a way that make it useful in making decisions
Knowledge – Information that is appreciated as to its significance in a particular field or situation
Wisdom – Knowledge that is valued based on one’s philosophical construct as to being right or wrong, or the optimum judgment as to action.
And I am sure that there are other analytical thinkers that share my observation.
And finally, the fundamental purpose of Wiki is to act as an encyclopedia – “holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge” I would submit that both the discussion of DIKW an its inclusion in this article fit the definition of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbbinning (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The DIKW model is increasingly under challenge within systems thinking, and the definition you give it is not universal anyway. It did not arise from any philosophical study and would be unlikely to survive scrutiny. Wisdom, knowledge information and data are all interesting concepts but the DIKW will (I think) be seen as an short lived historical model. Increasingly with social computing for example we are driving information back to data. The idea that Wisdom is an abstracted form of knowledge is absurd (again my opinion). Whatever, you can always make the case on the talk page but you will have to find a reliable third party source that relates it to the field of epistemology and I don't think you will be able to do that. --SnowdedTALK15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
What I understand you to be saying is that you, as the unqualified expert and arbiter of the “truth” of the meaning of knowledge . Therefore, you can arbitrarily dictate the contents of the webpage. Since you think that the DIKW model will be replace by some other construct is an interesting stance to take, I am not sure what will end up replacing it… That you think that it is “Absurd” to even think that Wisdom in an abstracted form of knowledge would therefore suggest that you need to rewrite the Wiki page on Wisdom so that it conforms to your arbitrary ideas, since my read of the Wiki page on Wisdom supports the idea.
I understand that the number of people contributing to the Wiki initiative has been decreasing for the past few years. Given that this seems to be the prevailing attitude of what I assume to be page moderators, I can understand why… I have better things to do with my time… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbbinning (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm giving you my opinion and Wikipedia works on the basis of editors discussing changes within rules. If you think you are right you should open up a talk page discussion and see what other editors think. No editor has any more status than any other, but they all need to be prepared to discuss things. In particular you should pay attention to the need for proper third party references to support the type of edit you made. The Wisdom article says " wisdom consists of making the best use of knowledge" which is not brilliant, I would include some aspects of judgement. That said it is not remotely close to DIKW --SnowdedTALK18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If I may, I would say that the DIKW construct is a linear hierarchy that has little to do with what actually happens. It is also essentially a cognitive construct. For me, and I have written extensively on this, wisdom is not the end product of a linear (teleological, cognitive) process and neither is it simply a special case of knowledge. Wisdom may be better thought of as an emergent property of a complex adaptive system that necessarily involves sentient (knowledgeable) human agents and social structures (and other things). In philosophical terms I prefer phronesis (practical wisdom) over Sophia (contemplative wisdom) and in my own sociological work prefer what I call social practice wisdom which is very much based in Aristotle’s notion of phronesis. Most of what has been published recently on managerial and organisational wisdom takes its lead from Aristotle’s phronesis. This social practice approach, like much contemporary knowledge theory, renders DIKW redundant. DIKW is not representative of the state of the art in either knowledge or wisdom research. So, although I have different ontological reasons to Snowded to object, the end result is the same. Cheers, David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roonied (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Worth remembering that for Aristotle phronesis has to be be combined with sophia, they are the two intellectual virtues and one cannot be preferred over the other as they are not possible without each other. --SnowdedTALK08:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point, I should have phrased that statement better. It is not a matter of one over the other. I violated my own point about linear hierarchy not being the best way to go. The DIKW issue raises a lot of important points of discussion. Thanks to Gbbinning for raising it. Cheers, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roonied (talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
