Redking7 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
- Archive to 29 May 08
- Archive to 21 July 08
- Archive to 30 Nov 08
- Archive to 03 March 09
- notes and working
Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I only wish to use ROI in text, because that linking article continues to be Republic of Ireland. If it gets moved to (for example) Ireland (state)? then I'd prefer using Ireland (state) in text. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious Snowded. What's your take on the reason for some editors not agreeing to Ireland(State) Ireland(Island) with Ireland as the disambiguation page? No matter how much I think about it, I just don't get it (maybe it's just me). Jack forbes (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Motivations are difficult to assess but I think there are four (i) editors unaware of Irish History who just see ROI as an easy option (ii) editors wanting to perpetuate sectarian language who wish the GFA had not happened (iii) Editors who are paranoid about nationalists and (iv) innocents. --Snowded (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- The first three I can see being a reason for their stance. The fourth one? I've yet to see any innocents on that article talk page. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in but 'assuming good faith', its a possible (generous) explanation for some rather odd statements. :) RashersTierney (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free Rashers, but I am not sure what you are saying! --Snowded (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Only that there are probably editors that don't fall into the first three categories and honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Genuine Innocents! Maybe! RashersTierney (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with that, although some would come into category 1, My good faith levels are pretty low with (ii) and (iii) however --Snowded (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Illegitimi non carborundum. Seriously. RashersTierney (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mind you compared with Ayn Rand the Irish naming controversy is a edwardian tea party --Snowded (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ayn Rand! Jeezz... now I need a hug.:) RashersTierney (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Illegitimi non carborundum. Seriously. RashersTierney (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free Rashers, but I am not sure what you are saying! --Snowded (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in but 'assuming good faith', its a possible (generous) explanation for some rather odd statements. :) RashersTierney (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- The first three I can see being a reason for their stance. The fourth one? I've yet to see any innocents on that article talk page. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(sorry my bad English)
Hi. Why did you revert my edition on this article? Could not be so important thing, but very biographies in Wikipedia contain sections about how popular culture featured these peoples. Examples: Oscar Wild#Biographical films, television series and stage plays, Albert Einstein#Effect on popular culture, Mozart in fiction.There are many films and references about Nietzsche in popular culture and I don´t know what we culdn´t write about this. Well, it is my opinion. A hug from southern. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- You should really take this to the talk page. I think there is a space for a section, but one canadian film is not notable. Why not put together a section on the talk page and get buy in from other editors? --Snowded (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Allright. Thanks for attention. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Like... this film, Saint Ralph, explores Nietzsche´s ideas (such as God is Dead and Übermensch), so I think this very important. I know other film that portrait Nietzsche in person. The idea was creat the section "In popular culture" for more people add information about this. Anyway, I took this to the talk page. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ireland
Im puzzled! What do you think is Controversial? Wgh001 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Removing "civil war" and the later NATO removal (someone else reversed that) was also unexplained --Snowded (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Free Entrprise
Why? There are only two pages for Free Enterprise: Capitalism or Free Enterprise (film). It will take one page to reach Capitalism, and another to reach Free Enterprise (film). That's two pages maximum. With a disambiguation page, it is two pages for either article. By the looks of it, most of the incoming links to Free enterprise refer to Capitalism, so we don't need to have one unnecessary page. If there were three or more possible pages for the term, then a disambiguation page would help; but not in this case. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just get this nasty feeling that we could end up with lots of such comments on the top of what is a political page. I don't feel that strongly about it though --Snowded (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Straw Poll
Sorry. I added another option which might have messed up your vote. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit summary at Flag of Ireland
When I seen British english is used in this article in the edit summary I got worried for a minute. I know their isn't much difference between British and Hiberno-English but can you consider using Hiberno-English is used in this article or even WP:ENGVAR is used in this article which covers all situations Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Ok with that although I can't get worked up about it. They (the English) did create the language, even if the welsh, irish and scots have made better use of it :-) --Snowded (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland Act and description of the state
Hi Snowded
I was puzzled to see that you chosen to declare an abstention on Proposition 4 of my statement, about the Republic of Ireland Act.
Obviously, it's your right to take whatever view you choose, but I found this one puzzling. The proposition is not about whether any of us approves or disapproves of that Act, merely that it defines the official description of the state.
Could you perhaps use the statement's talk page to explain why you take that view? Have I misquoted the 1948 Act, or do you believe that some other piece of law has repealed it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I hesitated over that one to be honest (and I thought you did a great job with the multiple propositions). My reason was the elapse of time and the GFA, of you had said that the 1948 Act described the state as a republic or similar I would have agreed. Not Ireland, unlike Britain has a constitution so the evolutionary nature of law etc is different. However in this case I felt that time, the use of names as political labels didn't permit a yes. I also remain convinced that for some editors the GFA either didn't happen or they are trying to pretend it was a temporary aberration before we return to sectarianism. My reading of the process was that commentary would have to be a statement but happy to state the above! --Snowded (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Snowded, do u think you could tell me please why you support this statement - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 ?. Perhaps i and some others are reading it wrong or something but i cant understand how anyone can agree with it. Theres an island called Ireland, a country called Ireland and yet hes saying the word Ireland is not ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- One of the problems with several of the statements (and this is one) is that they contain a lot so determining truth or otherwise is difficult and to some extent you have to go with the overall thrust. Here I think the point is that Ireland can be used without any real ambiguity if care is given to the contextual phrasing. --Snowded (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh i see thanks, agreed it does depend on context and wording used in the articles, although it seems like that statement is arguing theres only one meaing to Ireland and there for no ambiguty when it comes to the article titles. Anyway i can now see why some people agreed with it which puzzled me before. Thanks :) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I split things out into a series of simple one-item-at-a-time propositions, and I'm glad you liked the idea.
- But the Good Friday Agreement didn't repeal the 1948 Act, which remains on the statute book, unamended. The GFA did lead to constitutional amendments, but those did not address the name of the state.
- You're right that law evolves differently where there is a written constitution, but that doesn't mean that an Act of the Oireachtas can somehow ceases to be law without being repealed or amended. I can see nothing in any part of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 which even mentions either the 1948 Act or the name or description of the state. So I don't understand how you think that the 1948 Act does not still apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the Act of the Oireachtas still applies. However the constitution does not (I think) reinforce it which you might have expected and also history has moved on. Also the way this act has been used in the debate so far has at times been toxic. An adjacent sentence on the agreement between the governments of Britain and Ireland on naming conventions would have meant I would have said yes as then the complete picture would have made been presented. Actually the addition of a well worded statement on language change agreements following the use of 1948 language for unintended purposes during the Troubles, would mean I I would be happy to agree.
- I do think your list demonstrates the need to someone with knowledge of the history to provide the structure for resolution. Its difficult to see conventional dispute resolution techniques working. You might remember I left a message on your talk page suggesting that you might consider taking this on some months ago! --Snowded (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- One of the problems with several of the statements (and this is one) is that they contain a lot so determining truth or otherwise is difficult and to some extent you have to go with the overall thrust. Here I think the point is that Ireland can be used without any real ambiguity if care is given to the contextual phrasing. --Snowded (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Snowded, do u think you could tell me please why you support this statement - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 ?. Perhaps i and some others are reading it wrong or something but i cant understand how anyone can agree with it. Theres an island called Ireland, a country called Ireland and yet hes saying the word Ireland is not ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Knowledge
Can you please explain why you are reversing my edits? The section has a formatting error (phantom bullet point), there appears to be a disconnect between the two parts (separated by the bullet points) under 'Defining Knowledge' and the latter part of that section contained some unconnected quotes and references. Bang ton (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the phantom bullet and I agree that the whole article needs improvement. However inserting a heading for a couple of paragraphs does not make sense. Also the text changes you made meant that citation support was lost. You appear to be a new editor which is why I put up the welcome note. I suggest you propose changes to the section on the talk page and get agreement. You will find people very willing to support you --Snowded (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
realm descriptions etc
Opened a new discussion at Talk: United Kingdom. You might want to help decide the point. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
- TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
- SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
- Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
- Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
No problem. I rolled-back on the edit-summary alone, when I took a closer look I couldn't see what change they;d actually made to your talk page but I figured it was worth a rollback to remove that nonsense from people's watchlists. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was a troll was it? ;) Tumblin Tom (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff
Good afternoon Snowded. You might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff that I have just created. Its main aim to improve Cardiff-related articles, but you can see its other goals on the project's homepage. If you are interested in joining, please add your name to the project page and {{User Cardiff project}} to your user page. There are already requested tasks to be done but also feel free to add your own to-do points to it. I look forward to working with you. Many thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for joining. I'd like you to be a co-ordinator on the project. See the project page for details on what this entails. As there are few other members yet, you'd be appointed without consensus. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
HighKing
User:HighKing refuses to engage in correspondence with me and removes my (admittedly confrontational) messages on his talk page, ostensibly because I am not a registered user and apparently this warrants treatment beneath contempt. Would you mind speaking to him on my behalf and asking him why he insists on behaving in this manner? --89.242.111.56 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- People are entitled to delete whatever they want from their own talk pages. The IP address you used here has only two edits neither of which are on HighKing's page so its impossible to tell what you are talking about (except by guess work). If I have guessed correctly then your remark was deleted for its incivility which (reading it) seems a reasonable thing to do. --Snowded (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- What makes you think it was incivil? He had already removed a previous message, which, judging by the edit summary, was on the basis I was not registered, so I think I am perfectly entitled to confront him about it. Anyway the principle I am trying to bring up is that if someone refuses to engage in dialogue then it is impossible to avert the escalation of edit wars. He may be entitled to remove what he wants from his own talk page, but that's the equivalent of burning letters that come through your front door. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It a lot easier to relate to people when they have an identity. If they choose to use an IP address then at least use one or you never know who you are dealing with, can't check for 3RR etc. I would strongly recommend that if you want people to engage with you then you should use a less aggressive tone that you did on HighKing's page --Snowded (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll post once more on his talk page (where I shall be all sweetness and light), and if he deletes my question a third time, I will expect you to help me. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well its an improvement but its highKing's choice what he does on his talk page. As to your edit, you are entering a controversial area. That paragraph has been much debated and you should make a proposal for change on the talk page otherwise expect most editors to revert you. This history if IP addresses and sockpuppets is not good, and your using different IP addresses will trigger suspicion. You should also be aware that there is a Arbcom mediated attempt to resolve issues over Irish naming and there is at least a tacit agreement to leave things until that is resolved. --Snowded (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not playing any of the partisan games over that article like HighKing is, I'm just another Wikipedia editor who happened across the article and attempted to improve it. There was nothing controversial about my edit; go and look at it again. I really couldn't care less about HighKing's quest to defend Irish sovereignty; I just take umbrage at an innocuous edit being reverted with no explanation. That's all.
- Well its an improvement but its highKing's choice what he does on his talk page. As to your edit, you are entering a controversial area. That paragraph has been much debated and you should make a proposal for change on the talk page otherwise expect most editors to revert you. This history if IP addresses and sockpuppets is not good, and your using different IP addresses will trigger suspicion. You should also be aware that there is a Arbcom mediated attempt to resolve issues over Irish naming and there is at least a tacit agreement to leave things until that is resolved. --Snowded (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll post once more on his talk page (where I shall be all sweetness and light), and if he deletes my question a third time, I will expect you to help me. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- It a lot easier to relate to people when they have an identity. If they choose to use an IP address then at least use one or you never know who you are dealing with, can't check for 3RR etc. I would strongly recommend that if you want people to engage with you then you should use a less aggressive tone that you did on HighKing's page --Snowded (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- What makes you think it was incivil? He had already removed a previous message, which, judging by the edit summary, was on the basis I was not registered, so I think I am perfectly entitled to confront him about it. Anyway the principle I am trying to bring up is that if someone refuses to engage in dialogue then it is impossible to avert the escalation of edit wars. He may be entitled to remove what he wants from his own talk page, but that's the equivalent of burning letters that come through your front door. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well if HighKing continues to be stubborn, and you refuse to help, I shall just make my edit once more. If I am reverted again, then I bear no responsibility for any edit war that may ensue, as I have already attempted to open a dialogue. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Every edit requires discussion? That's ridiculous. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus??
May I point out that there is no consensus on the BI article, as the word is understood in normal usage. There is a majority imposed POV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well yes, but that does happen sometimes. Also I think the best approach on this page is to treat it as geographical. More important is to achieve the renaming on Ireland. --Snowded (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I've replaced the word "many" as there wasn't a consensus to remove it. I've checked the Talk page - if I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate consensus-reaching discussion. Not picking on you in particular or anything, but you've been involved in reverting to remove the word "many" so perhaps you can quickly put me right if I'm missing anything. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was discussed recently HighKing, if I have time I will look it up, that aside if you want to change it explain why on the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talk Wales
Hi Snowded. You have probably observed my thread on the Wales talk page talking about the meaning of the name Welsh. Trust me, I thought long and hard before I even brought the subject up over whether the Anglo-Saxons used the word to mean slave. I would be keen on your opinion on the subject and would not be offended if you told me I was talking nonsense. Jack forbes (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Accidentally used rollback while clicking back to my watchlist after some vandalism work. Sorry bout that. :) Cirt (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- :-) There but by the brace of God .....
Arbcom new comments
User:TallNapoleon has opened a new discussion on misconduct on the Ayn Rand talkpage. Here is a link.[1] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ayn Rand's IP Editor
As far as I can see, the IP editor who has put in a huge amount of work on the Rand article over the last few days is also the primary author of Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism, which is about 80% a personal essay. The editor clearly has a staggering amount of knowledge about all this stuff, and all kinds of cites at his/her fingertips. Right now, he/she is proceeding as if there were no Wiki policies or other editors. I think we need to get his/her attention somehow, but I can't characterize the work being done as disruptive. Just kind of solipsistic, I guess.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- That same editor did a great deal of POV pushing back in December. I'm not going to go through his edits since I can't edit the main space, but he definitely bears watching. Idag (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, the pattern seems to be that he does lots of useful edits (references) then sneaks in a POV and waits to see. --Snowded (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed he/she has now adopted the "see also" language instead of the "for a rigorous defense" so he/she is paying attention.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- Agreed, the pattern seems to be that he does lots of useful edits (references) then sneaks in a POV and waits to see. --Snowded (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Tongwynlais
Hi, I notice that you patrol the Tongwynlais page. I live near there and I kind of disagree with the temperatures that have just been added to the article also the last few edit by the same IP regarding schools and forests ect! Sorry to bother you. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)