User talk:Snowded

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 click on this link.
You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Wales: destination of the intro pipe

I agree that the wording in the Wales first line should be left for a while (by us at least), as consensus was indeed hard won. But how do you feel about changing the link destination in the pipe to Countries of the United Kingdom now? Is anything in its way? The text in the now extended Subdivisions of the United Kingdom is still being debated, and it looks like the merge with that and Countries of the United Kingdom (when it happens) will be relatively low-key: and the two articles will co-exist. I am cross-linking Countries and Subdivision now (as it will need to happen sooner or later), so all the information will be accessible on the link path. The main thing is that we explain the country situation.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would get the merge agreed then the changes will be automatic and not excite comment. Good news on getting the Constituent Countries stuff out by the way. I sense a unionist or anti-nationalist (they seem to be different groups) backlash building however. --Snowded (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One 'pro' of doing it before the merge is that nobody can wonder why it isn't done already, or think that we are laying a path towards doing it (ie we can't quite get it in now). If it sticks it's also a support for the support - and nowhere else yet links to the article, as it's so new. It would be interesting to see who, if anyone, would want to revert from an article so similar in effect to the one already being used.

A 'con' I suppose is that it could be reverted - but maybe it's best to see any future dissent now? And also encourage those people to vote in the merge poll too. Supposing such dissent is there. Nobody has an excuse then! And we could argue the position now.

The poll is going OK for the supporters I feel, though there could be a backlash building, as you say. If there are a couple more 'redirects' suddenly added we may wish there was some new blood around. Finding it then though, could be viewed as 'seeking'. In my view, many wide-ranging participants are far better than a few involved ones. I think we should open the door to some more interested and potential voters now via using the link in Wales. They will vote how they vote, but we I feel we can be confident the majority will vote our way (if any actually do follow the links). If they don't support it, so be it.

I haven't really thought about 'canvassing' the poll yet, probably because I've had my fingers burnt before - the other camp can cry foul if you merely try and tell other relevant groups (who would clearly be interested) what is going on. Considering how few people usually vote in these often very important polls (very often just the people in the discussion), the canvassing rules are far too unclear IMO. It seems to me that all the UK countries are relevant, and the UK wikiproject at very least. I doubt anyone could get in too much trouble for canvassing in this manner (ie non-abusive canvassing) as it is so subjective (and is allowed, with provisos), but biased admins are the worst for kicking up a fuss in the poll. we actually have a number of admins involved, though. If any WP:CANVASSing is done (just a note and link to "discussion here" is best) it might be better if it wasn't me (ie the poll creator) now the poll has started, just in case a group of 'redirects' do suddenly turn up and it looks worse than it is. I've written the article too, and alhough its obviously mostly written itself, I might look a bit over-involved if I do too much, I don't know. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note on the Merge poll for people to specify which way any suggested 'redirect' should go - we might have been assuming one of them is outgoing when it could be incoming. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be bold, but I would caution against canvassing. As you say we have the light side and the dark side of the admin force involved so I would not give any excuses (aside from the fact its wrong anyway). I would leave it a couple more days but its not essential. If you want me to make the change let me know and I will if you feel you are too involved, but there again I am not considered a neutral party by some. Might be an idea to chat to ddstretch who is impartial and gives good advice. --Snowded (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be bold and try the pipe in Wales. I don't think I'm duscussing doing anything incorrect in canvassing (I'm a lawful man!) - per the guideline, WP:CANVASSing is clearly needed at times - it's taking it too far that is wrong. But it's subjective of course: what is too far here? It's no doubt best done before the poll takes off (I didn't think to do it), but it's started now which could make it more problematic perhaps. I'll see what DDstretch thinks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its lasted a few hours!

British Isles usage

Run for cover Snowded; I sense a coming storm. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect so, but at least I can claim a NPOV between this and the BI article! --Snowded (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

Blanking contributions is normally taken to be vandalism. We can ALSO discuss them of course... I've started a thread, as per your request.

Docmartincohen (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reversing a controversial entry when the general area is also under discussion on the talk page on the other hand is not. Thanks for taking it to the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SesquipedalianVerbiage is a troll.

Don't waste your time with him - I'll inform an admin. He just deleted my comment from his talk page and is trolling on Wales. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give him a chance, it might be innocent --Snowded (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that he made another edit to Wales - then when I saw he changed my "Wales is not a Principality of England" to "Wales is a Principality of England" I thought he must be a troll. I can see his latest edit to Wales was harmless (though not useful - the grammar was fine as it was). But why did he make the principality edit twice in two days? And why change my heading on his talk? I won't report him, but I certainly am wary. I see he's now changed the heading again to "is/isn't" - by my definition he's a troll! --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all tend to forget that a lot of people in the world know of Wales through "the Prince of Wales" god help us and a single reversal is sort of OK if you don;t know the history. We were in a much better position with admins to deal with all the sock puppets by assuming good faith. --Snowded (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see his mistake on that - but him changing his heading to "Wales is.." was a moments trolling at very least. If it wasn't for that I'd have applied a bit more faith - he simply trolled on me with that though. And he hasn't changed it back properly now. He needs to learn to start arguing his case- before and after he messes up. Not sure what you mean about admins/socks/agf.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the more those of us on the side of light are seen to be reasonable in the face of provocation the easier it is to get an admin to deal with vandalism and initiate a check user. Best to avoid giving them an excuse for "a plague on both their houses" type responses. --Snowded (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales

Sorry if I came on a bit strong, and thanks for your understanding. I was surprised by the reaction. Verbal chat 09:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of prior pain! Good suggestion on the note and I have actioned it

Like the new moniker posting, Snowded. Cool stuff. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I owe SesquipedalianVerbiage for the idea however. --Snowded TALK 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message!

Thanks for the comment - nice to feel that we are all working together to improve things! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London

Hi there. London does not have law making powers any more than than local councils passing by-laws. What it has is a huge budget and a system of governance with a mayor (and his team), and as Assembly. It would be wrong to compare the Scottish devolved powers with the London situation. London works under UK government departments, the Scottish government doesn't - it has its own government departments for the areas it has power. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Hi there. You really can't just make mass changes like this to a major article without discussion first. The opener has basically been the same for a long time now, give or take a few minor tweaks. You need to raise it first on the talk page if you have issues with content or wording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several established editors have been making small incremental chages throughout the day - that is in the spirti of Wikipedia --Snowded TALK 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Wales

Hi there. I have not read any mention of the Norman conquest of Wales being seen as an origin of the British Empire. Can you provide any, to show that this is not your own original research? All the books I have on the British Empire begin with the plantations of Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you appear to have "followed" me to the British Empire article after I reverted your edits on the UK page. This action may be viewed as an attempt to harass. Please be careful. If you really feel that the British Empire began with Wales, then state your case on the talk page and provide references for that claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, when an editor engages with a subject I am interested in I tend to check their other edits. Its one way to find pages that interest me! Its only stalking if I follow you everyone and disrupt what you are doing. As it is I am pleased to have found the British Empire (the section on the Indian Mutiny for example needs work). I was building a series of edits to get the domestic experiment bit right but you kept reverting! Either way I have not provided references which I think are enough to establish a pre-empire experimental period on Ireland and Wales. I think its good enough to stand while details are sorted out on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Also please remember that you are not "allowed" three reverts in 24 hour period. You can be blocked for that or less. From WP:3RR: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Obviously, what constitutes disruptiveness depends on the admin looking at it. :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Shannon

Hello Snowded; I put the responses to your ..just use Ireland counter-proposal, into it's own sub-section. Thus seperating it from Matt's proposal. Hope ya don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, no problem --Snowded TALK 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see IP 86.xx.xx has returned, with more of his/her hate posts. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen

Hello Snowded,

I was hoping that you could spare a moment to add your opinion to a discussion taking place here. Talk:Ysgol_Gyfun_Rhydfelen It is only a short discussion and will only take a moment to read and to get into. Thanks for your help. Harris578 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Images

Hello Snowded, I need help. User DrFrench is deleating Crown Copyright images of Plaid Cymru members on History of Plaid Cymru and on Plaid Cymru across the board, dispite that Crown Copyright images are free use here. Can you assist in mediation?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn family

Was it you that asked me about the Wynn family on my talk page?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Yep![reply]

responded on my talk page, ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again on my talk page, by the way i really like your signature!!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Docmartincohen alias wooly sheep alias 86.220.119.55...

I'm largely unwilling to block an IP range over it. I could semi-protect his target articles of choice. What are they? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment Chinese Philosophy , he has given up on Philosophy I may have chased him off - will report if he comes back (or I get into danger of 3RR to deal with it!)

Reverting edits of a banned user does not count toward 3RR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we stop this sockpuppetry, now 86.220.119.55 (talk) ?--Philogo 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like by protecting pages he pops up on (see Chinese Philosophy. I suppose we need to patrol most the philosophy pages (sigh). Give the guy is a published author the behaviour is strange to say the least, mind you I have never read the books and the title/cover of each would not encourage anyone who knew the subject to pick them up. --Snowded TALK 06:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really beleive he is actually that author? Seems more likely that he may have looked at one of the books and adopted author's name as pen-name. None of his posts on talk/philosophy page indicate study beyond a 1010 course, if that; e.g. he did not appear to understand what post hoc ergo propter hoc meant--Philogo 12:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the books looked sub 101!--Snowded TALK 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may not be the author, but if you geolocate his IP address range, it comes out as the part of France where the actual author says elsewhere that he lives... --99.232.75.237 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undo changes in Knowledge Management section

Greetings Snowded. I noticed you undid my clarifications in the Knowledge Management article. Surely it must have been the way that I formulated my addition, as the factual information was correct. Many companies locate their knowledge management neither in HR nor in IT, but in their core business where their critical knowledge resides (i.e. when they make their money with engineering they opt to have their knowledge manager report to the chief engineer). Buckman Laboratories, the long term number 1 in knowledge management, could be an example. Can you please let me know what you are looking for so that I can reformulate my comment? Many thanks, --Helgex (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would need to clarify the statement, it just didn't make sense as it stood. "KM may also report directly into line function or to a member of the board" would be a reasonable statement. Not sure you are right about Buckman by the way, but I will ask Bob next time I see him. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, many thanks. I only met Bob once, hence he would not remember, but was in regular contact with Melissie. Sure she would have liked our conversation.--Helgex (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TFD

Can you double-check this edit? It's just that when I look at your recent contributions, and the comments immediately above yours, I can't help but think that Template:Cherrypicked wasn't the debate you were looking to comment on. :-) 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY! Have corrected

British Empire

I posted this on the talk page but you ignored it. Please discuss there first to reach consensus. You are changing a long-standing piece of the article. It is totally reasonable for us to reach consensus in the talk page before changing the text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am playing fair. I have said to you four times now that I am not opposed to inclusion of the Norman conquest of Wales if you can show that it's consensus to do so in the context of the British Empire. I own pretty much all "the" books on the British Empire, and none of them connect Wales to the British Empire. (Incidentally, it didn't use to mention the Norman conquest of Ireland, but someone added that in against my wishes. It should, I believe, begin with the plantations of Ireland.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on talk. If you have the Normal conquest of Ireland, then you have to have Wales. One solution is to remove both (I would not oppose that), but I think the economic model para I added has value. --Snowded TALK 12:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with removing both. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will do that, seems more reasonable to start with Elizabeth and avoids political issues between Normans, Anglo Normans etc. --Snowded TALK 12:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

insert title for editor who does not seem to know what they are doing

Hey there! Yeh you guessed right. i am back but editing with reliable sources which ive learnt to do. My source does match the one i put it, i didnt put any random number in and it does say on Cardiff Uni site that its the fastest growing city in Europe which i dont believe, its one of the fastest. So can i ask you what is wrong with my source? By the way i can spell i just cant be assed typeing full words ect talking to someone on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.122.142 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are not making a good start. Changes on other pages reversed and the old pattern of inserting numbers not backed up by sources. The number you used is referenced in the source but as a previous estimate which proved wrong. Please note you have been banned from editing. You need to request that the ban be limited not just use an IP address. --Snowded TALK 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do i request? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.122.142 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you put a request on the talk page of the Admin who wanted to support you last time. I have already [1] told him you are back. Otherwise you go back to your talk page and follow the instructions in the last block notice. --Snowded TALK 21:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowded. I too am following the vandalism by Cardiff123098. When I come across multiple edits by the same user what is the best way to undo them? I got into a bit of a pickle last time :) Do I undo one at a time or re-type it all myself? Thanks for your help. Harris578 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can undo a range - i.e. select the last good one, the current one and simply undo the difference. Or ping me and I can use Rollback (an admin granted me the right) allows me to unravel all the entries by one user. --Snowded TALK 05:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the help. I will give it another go as I enjoy undoing vandalism. I will send you a note if I am still unsure. I have been given Rollback as well but haven't really used it because I can't see that its much different than Undo? Thanks again. Harris578 (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I just selected 2 histories and can see what you mean now. I used to just click undo on the history page without selecting the edits first. That way I had to undo one at a time in the right order. What am I like! Harris578 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce on British Isles usage

Hello Snowded. If (for example), the River Shannon/Severn is the longest river in the British Isles, is misleading? then so is Dublin, Ireland, to the everyday reader. It's time to haggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative? On the contrary, I prefer to keep the discussion of my idea at the Taskforce page. I don't won't it held on any of the disputed articles talkpages (like River Shannon, Dublin, etc) GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are saying here GoodDay. Ireland is the official name for what others call the Republic of Ireland. A sensible compromise has been reached where the political article is called the Republic and the geographical article Ireland. Given that those are both valid names you either have to pipe link or use a phrase like "island of Ireland" or possibly "state". None of this impacts on my belief that most people overseas do not include Ireland in the British Islands, and it is therefore confusing. Whatever I cam getting increasing pissed off with the level of provocation evident in the recent postings, in particular those under the recent heading of "Compromise". Wikipedia is not about some sort of primitive dicker, that would just provoke people to raise the stakes and its already infantile enough. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with the article Ireland; but articles like Dublin are questionable. Besides, making a deal between usage of BI & RoI isn't totally impossible. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even looked at Dublin yet, spending too much time chasing down POV pushing of British Imperialism! :-) Still don't buy the idea of a deal, need more than that --Snowded TALK 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, it can be claimed British Imperialism is behind adding/using British Isles on Wikipedia. But, it can also be claimed that hiding Republic of Ireland via pipelink is backed by Irish Nationalism. Why not work one off the other? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is in Sarah's latest post. Ireland is the recognised name world wide for the State. British Isles as a name is not universal, increasingly less relevant but still valid. --Snowded TALK 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah & Tharky seem to have given my BI/RoI suggestion, the 'bronx cherr'. Neither liked it. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I don't think its about dickering --Snowded TALK 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography vs. Politics

Kingdom of Strathclyde was always on the island which is known by the geographical term Great Britain. The kingdom was independent from the political entity known as the Kingdom of Scotland, as the term "Scotland" is purely political related to that kingdom in originating in 843, then that is not the correct terminology to use. When the Kingdom of Strathclyde existed nobody called it "Scotland". - The Cavendish (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its poor terminology as the "Great" is a much later addition, it might be a lot better to say the British Isles . You can't argue one case for Scotland (the term is post 843) and another for Great Britain

It was not on both British Isles though, it was on one of them; the one known as Great Britain. That is geographical term by which the island is known, so why should we pretend it isn't, or pretend the island does not have a geographical name? I can argue against Scotland became the Kingdom of Strathclyde has nothing to do with the Scots or their Kingdom of Scotland, since it was ruled by Brythons (Britons) independent from all "Scots". - The Cavendish (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its still in the northern part! Great Britain is the current geographical label as is Scotland so the same argument applies. How about trying to find a better way to describe it? --Snowded TALK 10:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of Scotland

Hi Snowded

In your recent edit(s) to Scotland, you've said that Scotland "was an independent state from the late first Century". I'm guessing you meant first millenium? I haven't altered it because I (a) wasn't 100% sure, and (b) don't want to get embroiled in an edit war ;-)

Cheers This flag once was red 10:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]