Jump to content

User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monoglot Welsh

Hi Snowded. I'm interested in your comment on monoglot Welsh (re. Bangor hospital) - purely a professional interest, you understand. Are you saying that you encountered some elderly people who CANNOT speak English? My understanding - from a newpaper article a couple of years ago (can't remember the details) - was that the last monoglot Welsh person had died - hence the article. I'm genuinely interested if you know differently. Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 13:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and talking to the nurses there are several. Now they can just about get by with a little English mainly noun references, but needed a welsh speaking nurse at all times when it was something other than "tea" with hand gestures. Now that is not a scientific study, its observations. I doubt it will be true for much longer but we really need a reference. If there was a newspaper article that would do it.
Thanks for that observation. Appreciated. Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I spent three months there as both my parents died of cancer within a few days of each other. My sister and I did six hours on and six hours off for the whole period. Net result we got to know the nurses very well. It was fascinating to see the speed with which the welsh speaking nurses, could link with district nurses to resolve bureaucratic issues which they couldn't outside the language group. When I questioned them, they said it was all about trust, and the ability to say something which would convey meaning without the wrong sort of accountability. I had other things on my mind but it would be a fascinating study in anthropology for someone who was bilingual ----Snowded TALK 18:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(TPS again) Second-language attrition caused by age? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Island confusions

Hi, long time no speaky. Thought this snippet (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18983558) from today's Beeb website might amuse you, in case you haven't already read it. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"The English are British and lots of people think the British are English but that annoys the Scottish and Welsh because although some think they're British and some think they aren't and some think they are but don't want to be, they all agree that they definitely are not English. The Irish mostly think they are Irish, apart from the ones who are Northern Irish. Some say that makes them British and Irish. But others disagree and say they should just be Irish and then some say they aren't British either but part of the United Kingdom. People from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can all play cricket for England because they're British as can those from Ireland even though they aren't British. So can South Africans. The English play football for England unless they aren't that good when they might try to play for Ireland. Those from the Isle of Wight are English, from Anglesey are Welsh and the Orkneys are Scottish, but although that means they aren't from the island of Great Britain they're still British. The Channel Islanders depend on the crown which is what the Queen wears but they aren't in the UK and those from the Isle of Man are the same, apart from their cats."

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

NLP

Hey. I get it. You're a veteran Wikipedian. You've been policing NLP crap for a long time. I'm not trying to push any kind of POV. I really am trying to fill in a comprehensive history that flows clearly through the 80s, 90s, and 00s. I took it to the talk page at the NLP page. I'm sure this is just a slight misunderstanding, and that whatever wording you're taking issue with, we can rephrase to adequately reflect the sources and provide proper context. Thanks for your vigilance. Vcessayist (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And policing the sudden appearance of single purpose accounts on NLP! However when I looked at it you do look to be aiming to improve the account, hence I made changes rather than a revert and "take to talk". I'll contribute on the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 04:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

WP policy

Also...

you're in violation in reverting stuff from my own Talk page....against WP policy....please refrain... I have a right to remove ANYTHING from my own Talk page. Without someone like you putting it back. Were you even aware of that? Or don't you even care? You're disrespecting me now, mate. I advise against that. (Otherwise it'll be escalated to notice boards. And you reverting stuff on my own Talk page...is patently against WP rules.) Leave your "you're engaged in an edit war" crap off my page, when I violated nothing...I always keep to 3RR. But you're ignoring Talk, while saying "go to talk". Why do that? I took the time to state the case at length in the article talk page. Though you have not. Thank you. Jots and graphs (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

I DID engage in Talk quite extensively. Unlike you, though you reverted and removed anyway. Perhaps for agendas or "I don't like" or whatever reasons. I did go to Talk quite a bit. But you have not. Also, I know that there's more than one way to "edit-war" besides 4RR. But 3RR is significant, otherwise why even have it as a written policy if it means nothing...and as you say "is not a right"? Of course it's a "right" in a sense, because what's the point of even stating it as official policy? The point is I never break that. Ever. I respect that. But to borrow your point (which I stated already basically) there's more than one way to "edit-war". You think that meat-puppetry reverts and ignoring Talk (like you did) is not an arguable way to "edit-war"? Why couldn't you leave the thing alone and engage in Talk yourself, before doing anything? Just curious. Jots and graphs (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"disrespecting you" OMG, how old are you? If you check the talk page you will see two comments from me on that issue. Otherwise when I didn't see the warning I assumed an edit conflict with another editor warning you on edit warring - see your talk page on that, and on your rather silly assumption that keeping to three will prevent you being banned. If you read the policy you find it explicitly states that three is not a right. You might also read the comments of myself (and others) on that talk page. If you think meat puppetry is taking place then raise that at ANI, stop splatter random unsubstantiated accusations around. In fact in general try and read and think before you post or delete comments ----Snowded TALK 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said that I think "only" violating 3RR will cause someone getting blocked. I'm just saying that it's interesting how you had to gripe on my page because I reverted a couple of times (within WP stated bounds) while you reverted (even if it was not actual "meat-puppetry" in the sense of conspiring, it was done by different editors to avoid "excessive reverting" by one single editor)...even though I had written extensively on Talk...took the time out to make points there, and speak to the issue...while you did not, not even a little bit. Though you said to me "take to talk", as if I never did. And though you hadn't at all (except for one-word "concur" and did NOT answer anything I wrote on it.) And yes, it IS disrespectful to revert someone else's own talk page, because they are removing stuff they don't want on their page. WP policy is fairly clear on that one. WP User Talk reverting. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Three reverts while a discussion is ongoing is edit warring, and a warning is needed before a 3RR report is given. Otherwise writing on a talk page, is not the same thing as reaching agreement on the talk page. It does not entitle you to edit war. Of course saying that people have not made contributions there when they have, may mean you are simply blind to views that don't agree with you, or that you are simply not bothering to read just reacting (as illustrated by your ignoring two responses on your talk page deletion issue). ----Snowded TALK 00:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm gonna say it again, bro. I said clearly that you did not write to ME on that section, "to anything I wrote". That's what I was (mainly) referring to. Meaning you did not really "engage" in any discussion, to the points made, that I took the time to go into (and another editor there, right after to me, agreed with me...). Saying in that section "concur" with no further elaboration hardly qualifies as what I was referring to. And again, my main thing was that you simply did not respond to or address anything I took the time to go into at that Talk section. And even if you didn't, your one-word "concur" with no explanation or exposition or reasons hardly qualifies as any full extensive "engaging". Not in that section anyway. As for 3RR, again, I already knew that "edit-warring" can be done in other ways. But I was NOT trying to edit-war, but was wondering why you had to revert when nothing was settled yet, and when you never answered what I wrote. Just because you personally are biased with wanting that info LEFT OUT of the article. Your reverting was not some neutral dispassionate objective by-stander edtor type thing. Your "concur" (though not very explanatory) indicates that you had a pony in this race. So your reverting with no real engaging in talk ("concur" is hardly anything, and not anything all that meaty or substantial) and not answering any of my specific words and points in Talk, and just summarily removing the thing while still un-settled, could be looked at (in a way, as some of this subjective) as a type of "edit-warring". You didn't even care what I wrote in Talk (and that other editor after me). But just reverted anyway. That was my point. Good day. Jots and graphs (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so in your evidently interesting universe:

  • Three reverts in less than 24 hours is not edit warring
  • People should not 'concur' but repeat the comments of other editors
  • By implication (and by the evidence of your own contributions) long polemics with many capital letters constitutes discussion
  • Editors with a long engagement with this article (see its history) are meat puppets
  • Editors who disagree with you are biased
  • You are not expected to check the talk page for comments before accusing other editors of not making a comment (the concur was some time ago, there is a more recent proposal after the revert)
  • You are not expected to abide by WP:BRD
  • Other editors should let your changes stand until they have answered your arguments to your satisfaction

I assume this universe is a comfortable place, for you. Forgive me if I remain engaged with reality ----Snowded TALK 01:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So much for WP civility and sanity. You don't read (or grasp) much carefully. I said farther above these words "I never said that I think "only" violating 3RR will cause someone getting blocked." DUHHH, I know that there are other ways, and various factors, and like maybe the nonsense you did. You think that "concur" is such "engaging" in "DISCUSSION"? That's not a "discussion" or "rationale" on Talk. But just a one-word whatever. Also, again, as far as answering "my" arguments, that's the point of discussion. You claimed I never took it to talk or implied I never did yet, in one of your edit comments, though I did.
And by your action there, and your glib dismissive remarks here, you showed that you did not care at all about that. But reverted anyway, regardless of what points were raised in Talk.
You didn't care what points were raised because whatever it was IT WENT AGAINST YOUR POSITION OF "remove this thing". So it didn't matter what arguments or specifics were raised if it didn't conform to your already-made position. Hence why you reverted without bothering to check out what was further going in Talk. Cuz you were not neutral in this.
You WANTED that information gone, from that article. So you simply didn't care to really truly "engage" in Talk about it. By the way, I was not even the original editor to even put that stuff on the article to begin with. Obviously other editors on this nonsense besides me think a passing few lines of who Rand has influenced etc is at least somewhat fitting. Jots and graphs (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sign, note to self: There is no point in trying to reason with conspiracy theorists, Randinistas or Teenagers, you just live with it ----Snowded TALK 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Further note to your uh "self"...there's no point in my trying to reason with rude arrogant hypocrites who want to preserve a certain position, regardless of what is said in "Talk", or what points may be raised, if they conflict with already-made position. It was obvious what type of person you were with your very first whine and hypocritical sanctimonious barf and snarl on my Talk page. (That I promptly removed, and then you put back in violation of WP policy about personal talk pages)
Again, matey, you did not bother to truly engage in Talk BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY DID NOT CARE what points were raised. You didn't bother even checking out the points raised by me and the editor after me. You were not neutral on this. Your one-word "concur" before that was a joke and no real explanation, and you never cared to answer any of the points I raised, but just rudely reverted and removed...when things were still unsettled. Snowy, you could have left it alone until maybe REALLY going over it in Talk some more, and seeing if any new points or arguments were raised there. But you obviously didn't care. And that has nothing to do with "conspiracy theory", Snow, but just observable fact. You never really engaged. And then reverted rudely...stuff that you simply personally didn't want on the article. Though it was all sourced and accurate, and pertinent to who Rand may have influenced. Whatever, kid. Bye. Jots and graphs (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting to note that each of your rants, takes about 4/5 edits by you to get it right. Sad really ----Snowded TALK 01:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Whining again, kid? Ayayaya, and dodge city?
You like to evade everything said, and harp on PICAYUNE trivial crap (like the silly whiner that you are) like "errggh, takes 4 or 5 edits for you to get it right". Well, if I see typos, which can happen, I simply try to find and correct them. Is that ok, cry-baby? Anyway, kid, stay away from me...after this. Don't worry...I won't disturb your over-bearing silliness on Rand article...as it does not mean all that much to me in actuality.
But please don't post whiny junk on my Talk page, that I remove only for you to disrespectfully put back in violation of WP User Talk reverting. Ciao (I'll be waiting for another evasive comment from you, and another juvinile horn-toot with no substance or maturity. Par for your course, obviously, Snowy.) Jots and graphs (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll let your own words stand .... ----Snowded TALK 01:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No surprise. Jots and graphs (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Travellers speak English

Hi,

Everyone knows that Irish Travellers speak English. They speak English when there's documentaries or reality shows made about them, and they speak English in the videos that they make as part of feuds with other Traveller families.

There's a bazillion youtube clips to confirm this. But no individual youtube clip is proof, and it's impossible to link to them all. But this is just patently obvious, so a source isn't required. Gronky (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work from what is blindly obvious to an editor but on sourced material. If its not sourced it doesn't count. What you are talking about above is original research and/ir synthesis ----Snowded TALK 02:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
We both know my edit is correct. If you think that the blatantly obvious fact needs a source, then by all means add one, but please don't re-add ridiculous stuff to Wikipedia. Gronky (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No we don't its correct and statements about tarmac etc are just folk stories. If you add material the onus is on you to source it, if its reverted then you DISCUSS, you don't simply put it back in and leave assertions like that above that bear no relation what so ever to wikipedia policy ----Snowded TALK 09:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi,

Aside from the other problems (intro, languages) with your revert,[1] you reverted other changes that I made to the article.

Please be careful when you revert. You shouldn't have reverted any part of my edit, but in particularly you shouldn't have carelessly reverted the parts you don't have a problem with. (Like me noting that information about their economic contribution was from a pro-Traveller organisation.) Gronky (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the whole thing and you were inserting unsourced material. Try and learn to use the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 09:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

UK Independence Party

I don't want to get drawn into the right/centre-right/far-right content dispute, but this edit of yours has a misleading summary: the edit it's undoing is not 'removing referenced material' but rather adding material (which may or may not be referenced). If you want people to AGF, particularly on a controversial topic, it's generally a bad idea to use misleading edit summaries. Also the summary is not describing the edit so much as making a request; this isn't really the right way to summarise an edit. PT 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically its "modify" rather than "add" or "remove" but the edit was a variation on what is a running attempt by multiple editors to make remove the far right designation. I saw it as a gamed variation on those past attempts I am afraid. So I think its more than reasonable for the edit summary to make a request. The same editor also made a change on Labour Party which also ignored prior discussions. ----Snowded TALK 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Harrods memorials

You asked for a discussion, so here we go It is hardly relevant to the article, that a former owner (of dubious repute, one might add), placed a memorial to his late son, and a former tainted member of the British Royal Family. Harrods is full of murals, artwork, decorate features, and it appears quite pointless to single out this unremarkable memorial. It would be fitting to include in a piece on famous UK Memorials, but this is not what this article is about. I'm not doubting that the deaths of these two persons, who were killed in the prime of their lives (in a car being driven by a drunken member of Mr Al-fayed's staff), is not tragic, but it has no relevance to this article Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Raise it on the talk page of the article concerned ----Snowded TALK 00:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dave Snowden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Socialism

I believe that an RfC/U instead of ANI should be used, because it provides a better forum for discussing cases of long-term abuse. I would certainly be happy to write up a report. TFD (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy to go with that, less the offender goes to ANI to complain first! ----Snowded TALK 03:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Troll

As Ive stated we should seek an ubaised person to contiune the Socialism discussion. You believe me a troll and I believe you a bully. On your page you state you hate nazis and classify yourself as a Socialist. So I understand how this discussion poses problems for you. I also agree, I hate Nazis nor believe they are pure socialists.

And I now better understand what you refer to original research but help me out with one thing, If All boys wear shoes, and Bob is a boy, then is it original research to come to the conclusion that Bob wears shoes. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would be OR I'm afraid. You can't draw conclusions. Simple word association is all you get. As to my or your opinions, they have no bearing on participation. All that matters there is behaving in accordance with the various wikipedia principles. You are not, and you are persisting in failing to do so - troll ----Snowded TALK 03:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The whole socialist page is vage and really a poor article. The page even admits it has no clear idea what socialism is. I was told Mein Kampf was not a reliable source but the Social article contains Communist Manfestio as a source. Come on man you don't see the bais nature of this. Both works are blue prints of a movement wrote by two men in prision. I believe you and I are to close to the socialist page to fairly edit it. You can call me a troll, it changes nothing. I was willing to work with you and others to get an unbiased opinion on the page. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, this is a fact that can be verified. I was taking Wikipedia seriously and after you alerted me to the process I realized it should be taken with a grain of salt. May the motherland always give you strength, I'll stick to caffeine. AKA THE TROLL 24.101.172.61 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If you stick to using sources rather than synthesis other editors including myself will be happy to work with you ----Snowded TALK 05:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

CBT Image

Sorry but the decision in DRN has not been made yet meaning there currently isn't a consensus. And again I'd suggest that for the sake of avoiding a 3RR dispute you self-revert the material. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you are plain wrong. See comments on the talk page of the article, at ANI and also on your talk page ----Snowded TALK 04:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK that would be 2 editors in the previous dispute and 1 editor for the dispute now, not a consensus from the previous dispute. And if it was the consensus then why are we even having a DRN right now for the image?
But again for the nth time, 3RR is not subject to whether or not you're right. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Very true and you trapped Widescreen with that between the two of you last time. I'm not that naive. You are also making misleading statements. Its not clear that we have a DRN for the image. You have added a comment to the DRN but that is it. See the quotes on your talk page (and I have also placed them at ANI): the image idea was also rejected. Now DRN cannot resolve the issue but the clear consensus (three to zero) was that text was enough. THat is the default position until you can change it. As I say I am dubious about the text as well, its not balanced but I will address that next week. ----Snowded TALK 04:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I never "trapped" anyone nor forced Widescreen to edit war nor did I say there's a consensus for the image, what I said was there was no consensus not to include the image (which you mistakenly think there was even though one of your citations is from the current dispute) in the last one. If there was, we wouldn't be having the DRN righy now.
That aside you already violated 3RR and by not reverting the violation. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If you check the comments I summarised on your talk page you will find your wikilawyering over images and tables was covered. ----Snowded TALK 05:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Catholic Church Sexuality Issues

Dear Snowded: I don't understand why you keep reverting my edit. You had said that the paragraph was fine, and no one else had objected on the talk page despite the fact that the topic was nearly three weeks old. Is there a modification you want me to make? As far as I can tell, you are acting in bad faith, since you keep undoing my edit without suggesting any improvements. [[User: WikiCatholicIndiana] [User talk: WikiCatholicIndiana] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCatholicIndiana (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I said the existing text is fine, yours sounds like an apologia. Why should I suggest improvements? Get agreement on the talk page before you make changes and stop using misleading edit summaries ----Snowded TALK 04:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Braveheart

Actually, it was you who initiated the first revert and you have not used the Talk page to explain why. On the other hand I have discussed this on the Talk page and there is good support for why this should be clearly worded. Instead of reverting it you should have discussed it first there. TheLou75 (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You have some support and you have opposition, there is no consensus that your edit is an improvement but you seem determined to impose it. That is edit warring. ----Snowded TALK 07:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
At the same time, there is no consensus that you could just remove it without any discussion what so ever. TheLou75 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Try reading WP:BRD and then try complying with it ----Snowded TALK 07:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
BRD is not an excuse for reverting changes that you don't like. Instead, you should have used the Talk page to give a valid reason why you think it should be reverted. Additionally, your own Talk page seems to be filled with discussion over contentious edits between you and others. 07:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLou75 (talk • contribs)
I patrol a lot of pages dealing with people who think they can impose their views - they (like you) post on my talk page. The talk page has several reasons why your changes are not desired and I support them. Check out the page and you will see my contribution. Now please get to grips with the fact that you are not the arbitrator of when WP:BRD applies and when it doesn't. You were bold, you were reverted now discuss. Oh and that also means you have to reach agreement before you reimpose your preferred solution ----Snowded TALK 07:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh and you are now the arbitrator of when WP:BRD applies? Also, WP:BRD is not policy. Also, list out these several reasons as I only see one. Your reason that is it is "excessive and unnecessarily lengthens the article" is quite ridiculous as we are talking about the addition of several words here. TheLou75 (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
And those words (as other editors have said) are unnecessary. Now please get to grip with the fact that you need to work with other editors rather than simply insist you are right. If you don't understand WP:BRD then you will end up in a lot of trouble. You have to seek consensus ----Snowded TALK 07:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, WP:BRD is not policy and also should not be used to revert changes you don't like nor it is intended as an excuse to revert changes over an extended period of time. Perhaps you should take a look at this this. TheLou75 (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I know the article well. Not sure how a previously uninvolved editor can be held to have ownership issues but given that your compression of proper behaviour here is on a par with Braveheart's historical accuracy I am not surprised you think so.----Snowded TALK 07:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Stating that you know the article well and then calling yourself a previously uninvolved editor is laughable to say the least. Secondly, to say that you are uninvolved would be less than truthful as you reverted an edit by user, Erik, here just a few days ago since you did not like his change. TheLou75 (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Try and keep up. "know the article well" was a reference to your "Perhaps you should take a look at this". The following sentence is pretty clear. I suggest (generally) a little more time reading and ideally comprehending before you react. ----Snowded TALK 08:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take a little more time writing out your thoughts then as they are as clear as mud. TheLou75 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I tend to write for the literate I'm afraid. I don't really see the need to compromise. Now please go away and either make an argument on the talk page of the article or give up. Oh and stop the personal attacks as well, it won't help you case. Future comments by you here will be deleted unless I find them amusing enough to respond.----Snowded TALK 08:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapies ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Psychotherapies and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

EDL

Please do not re-add content to pages that have failed verification. The onus is on the include to provide valid links and the ones used do no mention the EDL. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I pulled it back to the stable state to allow discussion of any changes thats normal on contentious articles ----Snowded TALK 11:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
No, negative BLP issues (the twit pick mentions names) are NOT to be included unless backed up by genuine reliable sources. It fails verification therefore needs more proof. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 11:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like some of the original links are broken. But point taken on BLP issues. Its fairly normal on this article to get sudden attempts to sanitise the record so revert and discussion is a norm ----Snowded TALK 11:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mirror article took me four attempts to load but did run eventually. The others should be ok. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 11:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be a service if someone just summarised that whole section to be honest! ----Snowded TALK 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

NLP

Reaction onto: Undid revision 512136666 by 89.176.145.36

You have not specified reason for editing and left the misleading resource there. Please tell me why should we leave that non relevant resource, or say why is it relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.145.36 (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You commented on the source rather than reflecting the source ----Snowded TALK 12:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Response

As far as I see it the following "Some of us have jobs to do" and "Oh, and I was being ironic on the "purports point", sorry I thought that was clear" classifies as cheek. Yes nothing major, but cheek none the less that was uncalled for, isn't required, and isn't helpful towards the discussion. Mabuska (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Also it doesn't help when you claim "the three days you mention coincide with a double red eye at the end of a four week round the world flight" is the reason for not responding to a simple question, yet where able to make 16 edits including various talk page comments during that three day period. Just to clarify I counted from the time I posted the question to your next response in the discussion. Mabuska (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
But I'll let it slide, as after all it is very minor and I only asked you to assume good faith. Mabuska (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
And you wait over a week to assert your rather idiosyncratic definition of 'cheek' and the assertion coincides with your asking an admin to close. Pull the other one Mabuska, its got bells on. ----Snowded TALK 09:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Participant Observation

Thank you for taking the time to read the Participant Observation page that is currently the subject of an educational assignment. I appreciate your feedback and would find it beneficial if you would explain in detail your reasoning behind editing/removing the content from the Types of Participant Observation section. My main concern with the revisions you have provided is that the table does not go into enough detail about the different types of participant observation. If you could provide these explanations on the article talk page or my own user talk page, it would greatly help my understanding of your decisions and would help in the development of this Wikipedia article. Again, I thank you for your interest and suggestions. M.devia.psych. (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The material was unreferenced and read like a 101 qual methods essay. The table was a useful summary, but it might be an idea to add a sentence or two to the descriptions (but not the whole paragraphs). You have commented here, so I have replied here ----Snowded TALK 22:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Narrative Inquiry

Thank you for your time surveying the page as we in are progress of building onto it. I appreciate your concern over the Methods section. I understand your reasoning for removing the Methods sections we had published and agree that a more exhaustive and balanced list of methods and explanations would be ideal. As my partner and I are currently in a semester long introductory qualitative course, we are unable to fully fulfill your suggestion. Would offering up an explicit prologue to the Methods section explaining that the offered information is not a complete list and will need to be added to suffice due to my partner and I not having the time to offer up a completely exhaustive list of all methods suffice? Thank you again for your time and concern. Anbingham (Anbingham (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

I suggest you use a sandpit to prepare material. WIkipedia is not a notebook for a WIP. The entry was unsuitable anyway, at best it should be a summary. ----Snowded TALK 21:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Snowded, thank you for working with us to better the information available on the narrative inquiry page. In the spirit of Wikipedia’s spirit of inclusiveness, my partner and I would like to reach an agreement with you concerning the methods section for the article. Although it may not be an exhaustive list, we believe that some information is better than none. We have expressed in the revised methods section that the list is not complete nor are these the only methods that should be used. We would like to invite you to add to the list of possible methods to utilize while performing narrative inquiry. Furthermore, in my sandbox you will find the draft of the methods section my partner and I would like to add to the page. We would appreciate any feedback from you that you deem an issue to avoid further problems. Thank you in advance. (talk) (Anbingham (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
You need to understand that what you propose is called original research and/or synthesis in wikipedia. Its not just a matter of editors agreeing a list neither is it a matter of listing a method's steps (as you did) but providing a more academic summary of what different approaches and associated
There are various sources and some summaries of different approaches in these articles, although I am author or joint author so you should look for others as well:
  • Snowden D (2010) Naturalizing Sensemaking' in Mosier and Fischer (eds) Informed by Knowledge: Expert Performance pp 223-234
  • Oliver, G.R./Snowden, D.J. (2005): Patterns of narrative in organizational knowledge sharing: Refolding the envelope of art-Luddism and techno-fabulism. In: Schreyögg, G./Koch, J. (Eds.): Narratives and knowledge management. Exploring the links between organizational storytelling and knowledge management. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 15-72.
If you want copies then let me have an email address. Please also note that I indented your text, per style guides for talk pages. Hope all of that helps----Snowded TALK 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Trying to move forward with this project, the students have separated the various methods of inquiry into three approaches, Labov, Polkinghorne & Riessman. This should address your concerns with the previous synthesis. They have also engaged in a careful correction of their citations. This would address Banaticus (talk) primary point of emphasis, that all statements are verifiable. Thus, I would like the students to move this content on to the live page, so they can receive feedback from other users, but I do not want you to charge them with vandalism. As part of this concern, I am uncertain what you mean by stating these sources are original research, as all three are methodology pieces. The students will work with the sources you sent them, but those articles do not negate the work of these other authors, but rather would be appropriate to add to it as the project continues. Thank you for your time and attention. Heather Adams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Please stop making that accusation that I charged them with vandalism, it was a mis keystroke and corrected within seconds. What you can't do with wikipedia is just find sources and summarise them yourself, you need to find sources which do that for you. Its not just about sourcing. So to have a method section you need sources which summarise the field. That means the major players must be there. So anything in that field that ignores Boje, Gabriel and Czarniawska is really not representative. Yes Wikipedia is a work in progress, but we still have to start from something which is representative of the field. I'm sending them those sources by the way for the reference lists more than the content. ----Snowded TALK 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Students

I responded to your post on my user talk page at my user talk page. In a nutshell, these are students. I don't think it's that they don't know how to write a research paper and cite their sources, I think it's just that they're used to dealing with really permissive systems where nobody really cares about their sources or how they put together what they're writing, as long as the bibliography at the end is well formatted. Let's cut them some slack, guide them where we have to, and I'm sure they'll be up on their feet running along soon. Banaticus (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Banaticus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again, with an invitation. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response on Banaticus (talk) to the issues raised concerning students in my qualitative course, along with my feedback to students regarding your feedback on the various content pages. Heather Adams (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Anbingham's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please see my response to your most recent comments on the Narrative Inquiry page before you begin editing. Heather Adams (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Snowded, the students generally didn't seem prepared enough; they should follow Wikipedia protocol. I think that we should sort of act like more of an eventualist with them, rather than an immediatist. Feel free to disagree with me if you'd like. :) If the students don't go wide enough in their research, I think we need to look at the articles and ask, "Well, it's not what we'd really want a finished article to look like, so are they making decent edits, is this good referenced verifiable non-plagiarised material which advances at least one aspect of an article?" If so, then we should keep it and work to improve the articles more afterward. If not, like there was this crazy plagiarism problem with almost a whole semester of students about a year and a half ago, then we should revert it. Otherwise it's my opinion that we should see what we have to do to try to keep the contributions there and build off of them. I think that requiring "all" methods of narrative inquiry to be listed before "any" can be listed is a bit much -- the students seemed to have put together a good well referenced synthesis of information which didn't violate WP:NOR because it seems like the sources cited would generally agree with the synthesis that the students put together. Anyway, I'm going to step back from this now and I'm not going to get involved any more unless either of you emails me or responds on my user talk page, in which case I'll be more than happy to respond. :) Good luck, have fun, and all that jazz. Banaticus (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been very very clear that they don't have to cover all methods, but they do have to be more representative. At the moment they are missing three of the major players and that is not good enough. ----Snowded TALK 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As I posted on the talk page of Narrative Inquiry, I think that we are experiencing a disagrement in who are considered key sources due to our different topic areas. You work in knowledge management, and as I said, I have already got some interesting ideas from your articles, but we are working in the social sciences, where different authors are key players. Several of the authors the students are using were part of a cutting-edge panel at the International Qualitative Congress My 2012 (or in Polkinghorne's case a topic of serious conversation). Narrative Methods in the Social Sciences , by C. Riessman, is the core text in my graduate course on narrative inquiry, and her methods are cited in multiple qualitative studies in psychology and sociology. Thus, the sources students are working with are foundational and still leading in the social science venue of narrative inquiry. I must admit that neither myself, nor several of my colleagues who employed narrative analysis in recently published articles, have heard of the people you are citing, leading to my conclusion that permutations specific to the topic of inquiry have radically shaped what probably started as singe approach. I would like to resolve this issue peacefully, so I hope you will consider the possibility that the differences of approaches and key players is due to topic areas. Heather Adams (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
And I have responded there. I must admit to being surprised and little depressed that you are not aware of those authors. Although the increasing narrow specialisation of education might lead to it. WIkipedia however has to reflect those different perspectives not one and that is the way to resolve this without conflict. Otherwise FYI my field is a little broader than knowledge management, I'm credited for example with the first viable methods and tools for distributed ethnography, but that is a little cutting edge for WIkipedia at the moment. The field is a broad one, we owe it to the readers of WIkipedia to reflect that, at least to a degree. ----Snowded TALK 23:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears we were commenting on different pages at the same time. I would like the students to go through your suggested articles, and would like to read them myself. Would a clear label of "approachs within the social sciences" address your concern of universality, while the students and I read through your recommended sources? Heather Adams (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Well you could start them on the Sage Handbook of Narrative Inquiry - Czarniawski and Boje are both featured and would clearly be situated within the social sciences. Yiannis Gabriel's books are more clearly in the management sciences but are examples of deep thinking in the social sciences. I provided those articles as a way of giving your students references by the way not more. The issue is not the title, but the need to (i) make it representative of the field as a whole and (ii) where it says methods to have methods not stages in a method. I'll look at the article again in the morning - I am jetlagged in Washington at the moment and want to listen to the "debate" anyway. I don't think you should worry too much. Let me edit it and then see what you think. ----Snowded TALK 00:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I meant not the title of the whole page, but a clearly labeled subsection within the page, as I have seen that in other topic pages. It is interesting that I have never heard of Czarniawski and Boje, as I often use Sage as a good source for high quality qualitative books. Boje appears to work primarily in business and communication, which might explain why my instructors did not use these source, nor have I heard them mentioned before. As I said on the NI talk page, Riessman's text is considered the premier source in the social sciences, as is work by Mark Freeman. However, as I said before, I look forward to reading them and drawing from their expertise. I will be going over their pages this weekend as well. Heather Adams (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Which all demonstrates that the field is a wider one than currently covered by the students. Social science may also be wider than your use here. Is there a source which established Riessman and Freeman as the authorities in the field? ----Snowded TALK 14:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Play nice

Now, now. Play nice my friend. I'm keeping up fine thanks. ;) Jonty Monty (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something else. I'm not in the least bit upset with your comment.  :) I'd like to think that I have thicker skin than that. Jonty Monty (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I did put a smiley face on it, but I think there was a danger of a wrong impression being given ----Snowded TALK 23:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Antenarrative

Is that Weick quote about antenarrative cool or what? You should check out the article!

Anyway, thanks for helping keep up wikipedia standards on these articles. Its more embarrassing to have a low-quality antenarrative article than it is to have none at all.

Saylors (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

WSC at ANI (again)

It seems this is mostly about his edits to the psychotherapies, although his edits at Eysenck were brought up too. Seeing that you are active on that page, you should probably comment on the former. Thread is here. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

comment on WP:FRINGE guidelines

Hi Snowded, I think that it is possible to improve the articles related to NLP. I would suggest that you read closely the WP:FRINGE guidelines. Do you think that it applies to writing an article on NLP? I'm trying to find fertile ground in editors can work collaboratively. -Reconsolidation (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Own up to your previous identities and we might be able to ----Snowded TALK 09:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the referral to Sandy Pentland. I'm really into that sort of thing. That is the way that social communications should be researched. I watched a couple of his lectures and interviews on youtube. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

GF6 removal on the Lancaster University article

When editing out a section, you should probably place a comment on the talk page. Major changes to articles like that are not so easily done, especially when it is effectively removing the only controversial information on the article, without discussion. I have re-instated. If you wish to remove it, discuss why.

Note that the non-inclusion or mis-categorisation of information are not valid reasons to remove other information. They would be reasons to add more information and re-title it to another section. Thanks 86.184.10.58 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A one time IP giving lectures? Read WP:BRD ----Snowded TALK 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Please take it to the talk page of the article-86.151.187.72 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

hello

Hello Snowded, could you please observe and follow this when editing please. Also can you please change the NLP article edits so that it is NPOV. Much appreciated. WP:COI. Enemesis (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking through your two attempts to edit this page I assume "this" means COI? If so either you or one of the other coitere of SPA NPL advocates to arrive every time Comaze manifests himself with a new identity have already attempted that. If you check the acccusation was rejected by the community. The fact that you make it again demonstrates that you have not put the time and effort into understanding WIkipedia policy. The NPOV point is further illustration of this - we are neutral between the sources, not between pro and anti- factions. I suggest you do three things. Firstly look up WIkipedia policy on editing, Secondly in respect of the COI accusations look up Matthew 7:3, thirdly try and find some sources that support your view rather than constantly spouting your own opinions and making specious accusations against other editors ----Snowded TALK 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder, could Enemsis & the other SPAs, possibley be socks of Irvine22? GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty sure not. We have one editor Comaze, who was warned by Armcom, who appears every six months or so with a new name and the same agenda. We have proof of one act of meat puppetry but I am pretty sure that the cluster of SPAs (All NLP practitioners if you look) who appear at the same time are in the main meat puppets. There are web sites, some of which have been found that provide "evidence" and advice on how to intervene here. Comaze does have a commercial interest as well. I'm putting it all together over Christmas for Arbcom enforcement as its gone on too long now. ----Snowded TALK 00:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Hedd Wyn

Thanks for your intervention at List of World War I films. And for reinstating the correct production country information for Hedd Wyn which, I'm sure you will have noticed by now, has been reverted – with the erroneous edit summary “You are the 3rd biggest "contributor", so-called, to this page due to the frequency of your obsessive vandalism.”. What's to be done, eh? Daicaregos (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the issue with a previously involved admin. If that doesn't worked its ANI, but he will end up with an indef if we go that route and he does contribute useful stuff. ----Snowded TALK 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't want that. But nor do I want editors to delete reliably sourced material, agreed at the Reliable sources noticeboard, and adding their own opinion. That's a dilemma. Daicaregos (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Given his block log there is no learning taking place. DId he really ask the BFI for an opinion on you? I'm a member so tempted to ask! ----Snowded TALK 10:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Even if he did, which is most likely another of his fantasies, would they really have responded that I “was full of shit”. Why would they disagree with their own website anyway? The BFI reference states Hedd Wyn's production country as Wales. Interesting that he seems so proud of being a contributor to IMDb, which Wikipedia do not consider a reliable source – most likely due to rogue editors providing their own opinions, rather than providing facts, as here. Daicaregos (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay

Good luck! RashersTierney (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have lifted hisr topic ban, per the restrictions you have outlined. If you could keep me updated on how he goes, I would most appreciate it (I will keep my eyes out for any problems as well). Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Dave!

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Season's greetings. I hope you and your family have a great Christmas. Yours, FruitMonkey (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For upholding Wikipedia policy at Neuro-linguistic programming‎‎ in the face of countless socks and single-purpose accounts. All hellbent on presenting the topic as something other than pseudoscience. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: NLP

This is twice now that I have approached you about a COI and also NPOV issue in the NLP article. Can I please ask and instruct you nicely to reformat the article to something that is both informative and educational as well as being descriptive of your views?Enemesis (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The COI silliness has been raised before (twice) and dismissed. The article is NPOV in respect of sources, its nothing to do with my views or yours. Get more sources and we can look at it again, otherwise you are continuing to waste everyone's time ----Snowded TALK 08:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL, just seen that you are are not asking, you are instructing! Comical, you really have not put any effort into understanding Wikipedia have you? ----Snowded TALK 08:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think any negative commentary about NLP amounts to a review of the subject and is not really the subject itself. It may just need it's own section to give the article clarity and remove any abstract understanding about what it is. would you believe this is fair? Enemesis (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
also I don't really know if the COI has been raised twice before and dismissed. Enemesis (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the lede summarises the article and the third party sources are substantially negative. Its not a POV in wikipedia terms. Otherwise I gave you one link, you are as capable of searching the archives as I am. ----Snowded TALK 12:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The article isnt about the points of view on NLP it's about NLP, I hope this helps Uw-coi Enemesis (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If you have finally realised that we might be getting somewhere, the fact that you still link it to COI however implies a perverse persistence of a more basic misunderstanding of what POV means. Oh, try reading links given to you before you make a complete fool of yourself ----Snowded TALK 13:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The lede summarises the article that you have contributed to and abstracts the subject matter. Enemesis (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
So? ----Snowded TALK 06:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedias function is not to be abstract or convolute the understandings of any subject matter. It alludes to poor writing or POV editing. In each case the article would need to be rewritten in parts to give an understanding of the subject or we are not really doing our jobs as editors. Enemesis (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, your opinion. Look Enemesis, until you come up with some sources to back this little homilies of yours nothing is going to happen. Well that is not strictly true, you might end up with some topic ban if you continue to waste everyone's time. Any more comments like that above are just going to be deleted. ----Snowded TALK 05:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In your revert, I think you may have accidentally missed this edit. "Borrowed a few terms" is POV pushing. For a contrary view, see doi:10.1037/h0088527 --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see I was not involved in that change. However if you want to raise it on the talk page do. By the way, you are menat to inform everyone of an ANI case. Fortunately I am acting as a mentor to GoodDay at the moment so I check his edits first thing. Otherwise I would not have seen you latest attempt at obsfication of the real issues around your multiple identities and commercial promotion of Grindler's "new" NLP ----Snowded TALK 05:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You already posted on ANI before I could notify you. I do not have multiple identities and I am not engaged in any promotion of any form of NLP. I'm just aiming for NPOV with an emphasis on majority scientific POV. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Pull the other one its got bells on. ----Snowded TALK 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

dot i e

Can there ever have been so many words expended on a three-character code? Enjoyed all of your inputs. Brocach (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

When BW gets involved ....  :-) ----Snowded TALK 21:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jamie Kavanagh

Were my corrections to that boxer's birth country & his nationality, acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

One web search would have shown you that the Irish Boxing Association is an all Ireland affair, so I would say no. If you are going to Gnome, which is good, then do the research first. ----Snowded TALK 20:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Wales

Is this edit allowable, given the terms of his "return"? We really don't want to start hearing his opinions again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just pondering that! Its marginal I think. Could be interpreted as stirring the pot when its obvious the conversation is at an end. Or it could be an attempt to get people to follow process. GoodDay, I assume you are watching this page. Can you take this as an amber light? ----Snowded TALK 20:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought, do we have any good gnome like jobs GoodDay could get stuck into on B&I articles? ----Snowded TALK 20:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I'm sure you'll agree that my advice to him was sound & accurate (i.e respecting BRD & building a consensus). Anyways, I've no intentions of joining Owain's attempts to adopt his proposed edits. I merely gave him moral support & nothing more. Giving my 'past', I'm sure you'll agree that he would more likely heed my advice. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Casual comments, stirring the pot - they were all factors in the ban. Just be careful! ----Snowded TALK 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I honestly thought I was helping. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hence "marginal". ----Snowded TALK 21:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Procedural advice is fine. But comments like "I happen to agree with you about Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England & therefore personally support your edits" seem to me to be wholly unnecessary and potentially inflammatory expressions of opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Noted. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I'm never sure where you are in Canada, but I am in Halifax all next week. Happily buy you a beer if that happens to be your haunt ----Snowded TALK 21:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm a teetotaler :) GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Snowy, do you think I should withdraw the RM at Deputy First Minister for Wales? Daicaregos' reaction to it, has given me concerns. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I had hoped we had seen the last of GoodDay's disruption on British and Irish articles (though not over the entire Wikipedia, obviously). Should we see anything similar to either this or this again, I will ask those who chose to remit the settled will of the community (without its agreement) to revert to the original settlement; for the avoidance of doubt, that means a return to a complete ban of GoodDay editing or commenting on British and/or Irish articles, broadly construed. Worth a chance, Dave … sadly, that opportunity seems to have been wasted. Daicaregos (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GDs restriction was lifted, with reservations, but that doesn't mean he must edit in an area he found problematic. Better if he doesn't 'gnome' on these topics if it means constant attention/oversight by others. RashersTierney (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't breached any of the 4 conditions. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you have, and I expect that you won't. It was a bit of a 'big deal' having the restriction lifted, so lets keep things sweet. RashersTierney (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OK we've talked about the comment on Owain's talk page and as far as I can see GoodDay has made a proposal on the talk page and is engaging in the discussion in a reasonable way. The whole point of this is that he needs to start editing the pages to demonstrate (and learn) a changed attitude. So if anything I'd like to see him take on a project that would use his attention to detail over multiple articles. If anyone can think of a project there it would be good news.----Snowded TALK 06:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

According to GoodDay, you are the correct go-to guy

Please see GoodDay's Talk. Yesterday he told me that you were the correct leash-holder when it comes to Scotland-related issues, but quite frankly I don't care which one of his carers is the correct one, just as long as somebody gives a good, sharp yank of the choke-chain in classic Barbara Woodhouse fashion. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No one has been more frustrated with GoodDay than I, which is in part why I took on a mentor role. I've given him some advise above, and I am hoping that other editors will help with the rehabilitation. If it fails then it fails but lets try ----Snowded TALK 05:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't tell Mais oui! that you were my "leash-holder". Check my (deleted) post at his talkpage :) GoodDay (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the basic problem is that it's quite apparent that GoodDay still doesn't understand what's expected of him as an editor. I see little prospect of "rehabilitation" - and, anyway, we are not a social service set up to help him. He still makes unnecessary and unhelpful statements of his opinions, and still makes comments along the lines that changes proposed are "unacceptable" (as opposed to explaining why he disagrees with them). It is going to fray the patience of many editors to continue to have to monitor his activities - which I am sure will be repeated in whatever areas of WP he chooses or is compelled to work in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue for me is whether or not he can learn. I f he doesn't then he will be lining up for a permanent ban and hat would be a pity. I'm racking my brains to find a gnoming task that could be agreed and set for him. ----Snowded TALK 10:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I still occasionally come across 'Co.' for 'County' in Ireland-related contexts (see WP:IMOS#Referring to counties). Is that the sort of gnoming task you have in mind? RashersTierney (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_26&oldid=1136140319"