User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 25

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

Mensch

The Mensch's Barnstar
I just spend way too much time reading about the NLP wiki-drama, and you obviously deserve this. Wasbeer 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! --Snowded TALK 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Londonderry

I corrected the Lononderry page to put the city's official name before its nickname. Why did you accuse me of vandalism for this? That's quite a serious accusation, and I don't think it was justified. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring previous discussions and agreement and failing to follow an arbcom ruling after notification. You have also been edit warring, not using the talk page etc. etc. Also I think you need to read previous discussion on Common Name and also what is an official name. You best bet is to self-revert fast before you receive a block. --Snowded TALK 10:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
And you are ignoring facts. The city is called Londonderry. Alternative names can be mentioned later in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that you think you are right on this, and everyone else who took a different position using evidence is wrong. That aside you have to use the talk page, you have to folio rules and you have not only broken 3rr, but also an ArmCom restriction to 1rr. So if you don't self revert you are going to be blocked. Actually you maybe even if you do --Snowded TALK 10:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

sandbox for NLP revision

What did you mean by sandbox and how do you create one? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You create a page (for example I could do user:snowded/NLP working area) and work there then send people the links --Snowded TALK 14:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry David....

Remember this [1]? It told me everything I need to know about the motives of those who contributed to it over a 3 month period. Leaky Caldron 15:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. If you check lots of editors controbiuted to that as GoodDay has been long term disruptive. You do yourself no favoours by associating with that behaviour. Otherwise you really need to put up or shut up. If you have a case make it at ANI or elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, it told me about the motives of those who contributed to it. I'm aware it wasn't entirely your own work, which actually made it worse as an attack page. I do not support GD's behaviour when he's disruptive and I'm certainly not looking for favours. ANI doesn't come into this. RFC/U is a request for the community to contribute and I'm fully entitled to do so - without fear or favour. Leaky Caldron 16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
A large number of editors, including several who could not remotely be labeled as nationalists, have been frustrated over the last two/three years - the page was set up for them to gather evidence. If you check back you will find GoodDay himself contributed and was happy with it. What is wrong, for you to make a series of accusations which you are not prepared to back up by taking them to the community. Hence the putup or shit up comment. Unspecified accusations against the motivations of other editors, which you are not prepared to subject to community review are personal attacks. --Snowded TALK 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If I have made a personal attack the way forward for those concerned by it is clear. Maybe they will commence another WP:UP#POLEMIC. By the way, how long do you intend to keep the latest GoodDay laundry list? As for shit up. I'll assume that you are using iPhone again. ;) Leaky Caldron 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Leaky caldron, you should specify the motives of those editors who have commented at the RFC. As the editors are from a wide spectrum of political beliefs it would be interesting to hear what you think they all have in common. Carson101 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec)You are playing the inuendo card, making accusations without being specific and without the basic courage to make those in such a way that they could be reviewed by the community. I and others have used the RfC process which puts things up for community review. If you are too cowardly to do the same, you should have the integrity to confine your comments to facts. --Snowded TALK 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Returned sock

[2] - looks familiar. I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it might be rejected. Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I just clicked through (have been busy the last 24 hours) and pleased to see the blocks - your alertness paid off! --Snowded TALK 06:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Help

Some editors (POV pushers would not be inaccurate) have started a vendetta against me now look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Re:_Sheodred, note that Marcus has asked for the involvment of two admins that wrongly blocked me before and then had to revert their blocks, hence they have an axe to grind with me, one might worry that they might leap at an opportunity like this.Sheodred (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll watch it, but I suspect it will go no where. I suggest you self-impose a 1rr rule (but no need to declare it) by the way, that way you will make yourself less vulnerable to this sort of thing. --Snowded TALK 06:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, good advice, I will follow it for the time being, I unwatched that thread about me for the moment, its bad for my blood pressure. Sheodred (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please Request SemiProtection

Hi, Can you please request semi-protection for Desi Boyz as there is persistent vandalism for a longtime.Thanks.Abdul rajaT 18:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Its noy sn srticle on my watch list. Suggest you do so yourself, its part of the menu drop down --Snowded TALK 18:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comments

I'm glad you said "teacher on my side". Because my next thought is to actually contact UCC and advise them that one of their students has been harassing me, which is abuse of their systems. All Unis have such usage terms for their systems. Give them some of his late night login times here, and some examples. Wouldn't take them long to match it to a student login and turf him out or discipline him. I know you two are matey, so don't think that your perverse rhetoric to make me seem to blame helps matters, as you attempted on AN/I. You're being the "dick" by giving me reason to take off-Wiki action. Which isn't a "legal threat", just my choice to contact his Uni and resolve things in a severe and very long-term way. So keep commenting if you want to put your mates University studies at risk. You might be so stuck in Wiki that you forget about the real world, and consequences. I'm not.. and I will do it if provoked, believe me I fear no one. My response was in reply to his persistent "small text" snide remarks. If you can't see that, then you're a bigger fool than he is. So yeah, one more insult like that and I'll be in the phone. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 09:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to grow up. This sort of petty minded response is, like your hounding of an editor who has made mistakes, obsessive and really not helpful. Your threat of off wiki action is however serious. I have several real world meetings over the next few days, but I will think about making an ANI report on it tomorrow when I get home. --Snowded TALK 09:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I would be careful about that if I were you. I would consider it vexatious. Wiki, and especially not you, cannot control what people do off-wiki. If I choose to report a student for abusing their systems, AN/I, Jimbo, the Queen herself can't do anything about it. You'd only push me into doing it faster. It's legal, and not a legal threat.. I'm not threatening Sheodred with legal action. If the UCC refused to do anything, I might consider threatening them with legal action, but I don't think it will come to that.. these Unis have tight budgets. I suggest you stop trying to tell people what they can and can't do, so obnoxiously. The ball stops rolling when he stops pushing it. And you're the one not helping matters by giving him support, despite his actions. I suggest you mind your own business, you've been in mine too many times this week. AN/I is for Wiki affairs. If I contact UCC, AN/I are powerless. Don't threaten me with a voluntary website page, I ain't impressed. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 09:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This petty-minded vendetta needs to be nipped in the bud. There are surely enough admins watching this page for someone to take a bit of initiative. RashersTierney (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It pretty pathetic to be hoestt, evidence of a deep and unhealthy obsession and an inability to listen or act co-operatively. If its not deleted I will write an AN/I report when I get home at the weekend, --Snowded TALK 14:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Seasons greetings

Hi. As in 2011 we have had our fair share of fall outs, I wanted to let you know that I respect your contributions to the project and respect you as a person. Moving forward, when we meet on the project I will make an effort to improve our editing relationship. So .. Happy holidays to you and best wishes to you for the New year 2012. Rob - Youreallycan (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to move forward. Even when I have disagreed with you I have tried to be at pains to point out the respect I have for the work you do on BLP articles. Looking forward to a new year, I will reciprocate --Snowded TALK 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Great, many thanks - Rob - Youreallycan (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Good wishes for 2012

Hope you get to have a good one! :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, dealing with the NLP meat puppet farm is one objective ....
Same to you! Have not seen you around on articles recently --Snowded TALK 12:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Been hard at work on a new contract, working with a university in the North-West on content management issues. Very full-on for the last few months. I've dropped in and out but nothing serious. Just had a peek at the NLP sagas - surprised really that it still attracts serious "adherants", it's long been discredited, just one of those past psychotherapy fads. Then again, I note that the "Apollo Landings Never Happened" folks are still at it, despite clear images of the landing sites showing the lunar rovers, base modules, etc, coming in from several non-US space agencies. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good news (the contract), if it was my old place (Lancaster) remind me to it! All cults continue past their sell by dates .... --Snowded TALK 12:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sadly not Lancaster, somewhere much less pleasant scenically! That's true about cult longevity - someone should do a book on that sometime. I think quite a few of the big ones from past centuries have peaked but are still pretty large, I think of the Mormons as being the first really big NRM cult to take off. Does NLP have psuedo-religious overtones, I haven't stuck my head in the babble much. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
In many of its manifestations yes, so we attract cultists to the pages --Snowded TALK 12:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy Christmas, Snowded!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Snowded TALK 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

National emblem

I'm not concerned about the British entries of that article. AG's expanded the discussion to include the UK's constituent countries. My concern is Quebec's inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The section on criteria for inclusion starts with this statement by you: Quebec, England, Scotland & Wales don't belong in this article. We should limit this article to sovereign states. Why did you include anything other than Quebec? Its provocative and a pity cause I think you may be in the right on this one --Snowded TALK 22:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
E/W/NI/S (along with Quebec) was my concern before my RFC/U. Quebec's entry is my 'lone' concern now. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for page-stalking here, I just noticed the discussion on the relevant talk page, my two cents here; The definition of nation has perhaps two contextual usages, one for nations that possess varying degrees of autonomy, and ones that are not defined in terms of international relations, but are more defined by community, culture, heritage etc, I do not see the problem here.

PS. I recently stalked you also GoodDay after reading your concerns, your mentor might not approve of what you said very well, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric a small bit to alleviate their worries. WinterIsComing (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That rhetoric occured before my Rfc/U & thus before I had mentors. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok no problem, my bad, but maybe you should strike some of the comment? WinterIsComing (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bringing all the country list discussions into one place

Following on from what I said at the emblems page, I was thinking. We know an RfC will never work, because there'll never be consensus. We know a full blown Arbcom case is unlikely to achieve anything, because on a sitewide basis there isn't a clearly defined status quo.

If however it became manditory to discuss eligibility changes to these lists in one place (presumably WP:ECCN) then while real progress is unlikely in the short term, it would solve some problems. Uninvolved admins tend to keep a passing eye on these noticeboards, which should hopefully ensure discussions don't get out of hand as they have in the past on individual talk pages. Equally, if going through the noticeboard before making changes were enforceable, it would cut down on edit-warring (regardless of whether 3RR is breached or not). Who knows, if a consistent pool of people contribute to these discussions, we might one day even get a consistent methodology.

What do you reckon? —WFC— 21:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

its no where near an arbcom case. Lets see how the "list specialists" respond, I hope they are open but whatever formulating the question will be key. I'm inclined to give it a day or at the current level of discussion.--Snowded TALK 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Re Arbcom: lists are no better or worse than other areas, but the general issue of what constitutes a country/ in what contexts isn't a million miles away from it. —WFC— 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Snowded how are you? I do not mean to to cause any trouble but I recently noticed a recent comment by a familiar editor here User talk:Snowded#Your comments, a threat which disturbed and upset me a lot, went completely ignored, I will not pursue it, but its an absolute disgrace that an admin did nothing about it, I will personally not file an AN/I even though I should but I have no confidence in AN/I no longer, or wikipedia for the most part if an editor who threatens me in real life does not even get a warning. Sheodred (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the block of Sheodred and the behavior of MarcusBritish. Thank you. --RA (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Oxford English Dictionary definition". Thank you. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Persistent Deletion of POV Dispute Tag. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification

As a courtesy notification for your consideration, your name has been referenced by me in a recent post to User:DGG. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

FYI - Courtesy Notification

As a courtesy notification for your consideration, your name has been referenced by me in a recent post to User:Atama. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, you are not the first editor to go there so the page is on watch. I hope you have taken note of the fact that determinations cannot be made in the way you envisaged--Snowded TALK 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

NLP

You're either dealing with a Sock-master or meat-puppets, good luck. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its a mixture. Most of the evidence assembled, will aim to report it soon. Thanks for the good wishes --Snowded TALK 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded: Firstly, my intention here is to make constructive editors. I believe I am within my rights to use a separate account because the NLP topic is HIGHLY controversial and I do not want my colleagues to know that I am editing this article. I cannot disclose to you what my work is. I will do my best to search through the archives to minimize repeating points as you pointed out. I assure you that I have no idea who created the web site that attacks you for your stance on the NLP article. I'd prefer that you answer my queries thoughtfully rather than make accusations of sockpuppetry. I do respect your guidance and experience in academia. You normally give quite insightful replies. I openly admitted that this is a single purpose account created in line with the privacy provision of WP:SOCK: "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no objection to the user's right to privacy, only to his use of multiple accounts which contravenes WP:SOCK. This is a blatant admission of sockpuppetry and should be included in your report to the ani when the times comes. ISTB351 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see this is the fourth account you are using. You are also returning to material which has already been agreed. So the way it looks is that when you loose one set of arguments you change identity and start again. Also, assuming you are the same editor then there is evidence of your links with a meat puppetry site, the appearance of new aggressive SPAs who support you is an issue. At the moment I plan to make an ANI report as it has been going on for too long. I'm open to holding that if the repetition stops but the disruption of the other SPAs and uncivil behaviour is becoming a real issue. To be clear it would take a radical and immediate change in your behaviour to stop me making that report --Snowded TALK 13:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no connection with a meat-puppetry site and have never written about NLP in twitter, a blog or forum. A quick google "NLP+snowded" found a few results. The first couple results is actually to your own web site where you show support and connection with the now banned editor PeterDamian/Flavius. You also refer to editors at the NLP article as "NLP cultists" - hardly civil. There is a discussion thread at NLPconnections called "Master Sock Puppeteer Outed?", and a google site called "sockmasterouting". I suspect those sites are the ones you think I am connected with. That is unfounded and untrue. It is more likely that this "sockmasterouting" site was created by someone from the NLP community who participates in these forums. I want an article to be balanced yet critical of NLP. Given the unwanted attention you have got, you can imagine why I want to remain anonymous. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yet your editing style and focus is identical to two previous editors where there is a connection, and you have more or less repeated the start up pattern of one. I am not remotely worried about the attention I am getting, its a mess of silly conspiracy theories and absurd connections that any admin is welcome to investigate. None of your previous IDs have received such unwanted attention so I am sorry I don;t buy that as a motivation. --Snowded TALK 05:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

"I do not think that ISTB351 is independent of Snowded so his comment should only be taken lightly" says 122.x.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears that I am your sock! The irony... ISTB351 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Well its all part of the NLP conspiracy theory isn't it. There is nothing they can do wrong, so if anyone disagrees .... --Snowded TALK 08:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. The one good thing to come out of the ANI farce is that Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been certified as a sockmaster, and banned. I doubt it'll be the last we see of him though... ISTB351 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That was fast. I'm encouraged by that it indicates someone with the appropriate authority is at least looking at the problem. --Snowded TALK 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, There is an account Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you presented as evidence to allege that I was trying to add commercial links to wikipedia. Please look the edit history of Sydactive more closely and see if you can detect that it is fake. --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Deal with the issues raised on the ANI report and try not to distort what people are saying, but reply to their points directly rather than restating them (falsely) to make your indefensible position appear more reasonable than it is. You have engaged in long term disruption of wikipedia and its got to stop. ----Snowded TALK 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree that "Sydactive" is fake? --122.x.x.x (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Please respond to the questions raised of you at the ANI case and stop wasting my time here ----Snowded TALK 08:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Outing

Hello,

A user mentioned on this page has complained to me that this page User:Snowded/nlp_case violates WP:OUTING. Even if the intent is to track down behavioral problems, we can't post real world identifiable details on users publicly on the wiki, even for problematic users. Please refactor the page to remove real world identifiable information, such as real names. henrik•talk 16:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Action Potential (the predecessor of the current 122.x.x.x) linked to comaze.com which in turn links to the said person. If you check my user page, it links to my web site which in turn links to me. So referencing such a link would not be outing in either case surely? In fact the name is key to links between multiple users and at least one site which is organising meat puppets, which is why it is all at ANI at the moment. Its very difficult to see how long term abuse can be handled other than by this sort of detective work. I have no great objection to refactoring as the material is now elsewhere and hopefully will result in some proper investigation of one of the longest term disruptive meat puppet farms we have seen. However lets clarify first if it is outing, given that it is only picking up on public links. Also I think we have some obfuscation here. The "name" is very publicly linked to a particular form of NLP on various web sites. Their protestations that they have something to fear is a nonsense given that real world link. What we do have is multiple attempts to use wikipedia process to hide or confuse proper investigation. It would be nice if a few independent admins would actually take up the evidence placed at ANI by several editors. --Snowded TALK 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I can sympathize, but WP:OUTING is fairly clear. If a user hasn't volunteered personal information on Wikipedia, it can't be posted here. The sort of evidence can still be disclosed privately to arbcom and checkusers. henrik•talk 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
My point was that they had volunteered it through the links from their user page so I'm not sure I agree with you. But not to worry I will remove the one sentence - its all at ANI anyway. There is a wider issue here you know. Long term abuse of this type is difficult to discover, and as difficult to get the community to pay attention. Look at the involvement in the current ANI case and its difficult to know where else to report meat puppetry etc. If some check users etc. were fast to volunteering to check up on this stuff as they are on SPI cases there would be few problems. ----Snowded TALK 08:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wales

Howdy, I thought it was Daicaregos again, but this time you did it. Please, please, stop moving my posts at that article's talkpage. My post was in response to GGJ, not Daicaregos. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't read like that and should post in sequence anyway. Use colons to indicate what you are replying to ----Snowded TALK 17:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to GGJ & indented as so. Then, Daicaregos moved my response & changed the indention, to make it appear as though I was responding to him (Dai). I don't mind Dai responding to 'my' posts, but he shouldn't have moved my post. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think he did the right thing and to be honest I am not sure what you are attempting there. You are back to your old mantra of constituent country, making statements not entering into discussion. ----Snowded TALK 18:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Anon

[Discussion about the identity of a Wikipedia user has been redacted] User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the "anon" has returned to our Wales talk page... twice, now that nobody has (wisely) responded. It's worth looking at his (just created by another editor) talk page, and the postings on the admin's page. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dublin based IP - we have been there before. ----Snowded TALK 23:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I was going to ask you if you knew the location. Hope you had a good evening. Any luck? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No luck, lack of protection by Admins a real issue and I have a lot of sympathy. We had a good time though, and I reported it here ----Snowded TALK 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just read a sense of belonging. Keen observation and an excellent essay. Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (I'm sorry for choosing your talk page to post this Snowded, but I hope you understand why. Fred's talk page is fully protected, ironically I don't use email for reasons of identification, and it would clearly be inappropriate to draw undue attention by posting at a noticeboard) While I agree with Fred's actions above on WP:OUTING grounds, a fairly serious accusation about an organisation was made in the now redacted discussion, which if true would be relevant to Wikipedia. I'm deliberately not naming that organisation, because I'm not yet up to speed with the circumstances. But if there is substance to that allegation, the situation needs to be discussed somewhere. Quite possibly off-wiki, if the evidence itself is unsuitable for Wikipedia. —WFC— 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't really take it seriously as it did not manifest in itself in any edits or proposed edits. The removal of the inaccurate "Principality" and its replacement by "Country" is shared by most political parties in Wales, and as I said most historians. The fact that it has and is referred to as such is in the article and I haven't seen anyone propose to remove it. Happy to look at anything if you want to post or email it. ----Snowded TALK 06:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be worthwhile going back across Wales-related article histories and searching for removals/edits to the context and usage of Principality to see if it having an impact. Clearly, as I described, a deliberate WP-target campaign by a political party is relevant and just saying its shared by most political parties in Wales isn't relevant - we are talking about the way in which the historical usage of the term is represented. It also isn't up to a consensus of political parties in Wales to define what WP articles say about history, cosy or otherwise. I suspect an attempt to rewrite history. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Please show me the evidence of a "deliberate WP-target campaign" ----Snowded TALK 10:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well that newspaper article seemed to strongly suggest one exists, therefore we should attempt to check out the situation. I will be taking a close look at it myself to see what's been going on. I am not surprised personally to hear that Plaid (and presumably other nationalist parties) are attempting to co-ordinate Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Provide the link. The material I have seen reports that having seen a factual error (the use of Principality) the issue was taken up with the standards body concerned for clarification. That seems to be responsible behaviour by the editor concerned. Without evidence its nothing and I am afraid I am increasingly intolerant of unsupported accusations of nationalist conspiracies, especially when dealing with simple and previously determined, issues of fact. ----Snowded TALK 10:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well given that the link has been redacted, apparently I am not allowed to link to a published newspaper article! But you saw the link yourself already, so I'm not clear why you're asking. As for the unsupported allegations bit, I'm simply pointing out that the article described what looked like a Plaid campaign to modify Wikipedia, so it's not exactly some wierd conspiracy theory by me. I'm not paranoid about it, just pointing out that it's something to be vigilant about. If I see more evidence I will take it further. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the newspaper article and listened to the piece on BBC Wales. Neither support any such allegation. Even if they did, no one has attempted to edit here to make any changes to long established consensus positions.----Snowded TALK 20:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? From the article, which reads like a Plaid press release (presumably it was), Leanne Wood sounds closely involved in the whole campaign. I would suggest that this is a Plaid campaign and so there should be back-checking to see if it has had an effect on articles. I'm obviously not expecting you to do that. End of really - you obviously feel everything's fine, you are entitled to your opinions. An objective look at the facts suggests Plaid involvement. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Lets look at the facts shall we. An error was found and raised via an Assembly Member by one of her constituents. It was raised with the appropriate authorities and corrected. Disputes in Wikipedia brought the matter to the fore which was reported in the press in Wales. It came years after we resolved the naming issue on country ages, and none of the attempts on country lists has succeeded. So there is nothing. When you have some actual evidence of something lets look at it, until then its closed as far as I am concerned. ----Snowded TALK 05:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
For sure, it was closed already - did you just want the last word? It is your talk page! On the "facts" though, call me a cynic, but I just find it a little stretching of the old credulity cells that a Plaid AM just happens to get notification of an "error" from her campaigning member in Llantrisant and then, oh gosh, she feels absolutely impelled to release it and, gosh, surprisingly it involves a long-running correction campaign right here in Wikipedia and, oh, fantastic, it's all just a simple error! Principality should never have been used! Thank goodness that's cleared up, as they say in the Eye. Over to you now for the last, last, last word. 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool it James, I did you the courtesy of a response and I am doing that again. And its not at all surprising. A wikipedia editor finds an error, he raises it with his AM, the issues is resolved, its reported in the press. You should be commending him for his respect for the sources, rather than making up some conspiracy theory. I wish more editors would take sourcing that seriously ----Snowded TALK 09:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Chuckle

You are making an accusation of plagiarism and that is your affair, but I caution you against doing it in a public forum...

— Snowded

--Karbinski (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the context of your comment here! I know the source, just not sure what meaning you are, as they say, making ----Snowded TALK 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lord, give me strength

Life really is too short, and I can hardly believe that I am wasting yet more of it on one of the world's least significant problems, so I apologise in advance to my wife, children, family, employer, God, cancer research, development in Africa, and all the other topics and aspects of life which deserve more of my focus and attention than one of the planet's most infuriating wee internet nyafs.

Due to my disbelief that I am actually sitting here wasting yet more time on GoodDay, I intentionally omit diffs, which are time consuming, and I'm sure that you'll take my word for it, being the fine, upstanding chap that you are. (If you really want to plague me, I can of course plough through the Histories and retrieve them for your perusal, simultaneously no doubt losing the will to live.)

To cut a long story short, I have not really had much to do with User:GoodDay for several months. His rfu took so long that I stopped following it, and even today I have not read he final version (another "life is too short" decision). Predictably, the Talk page became clogged with him trying to hoodwink folk that he was a reformable character. (The fact that the world is seemingly jam packed full of hoodwinkable people must be a source of endless joy to salesmen the planet over.)

Anyway, from what I can understand, he apparently promised not to "ban" users from his Talk page. Well, he breached that promise yesterday, both implicitly and explicitly. Now he wants me to only go direct to his 2 (!) mentors if I object to an aspect of his editing.

Secondly, the whole reason that a User rfud him in the first place was that he was caught going back and performing the same disruptive edits after he had been caught and pointed to policy/consensus. Guess what, he has done exactly that in the last few days too. On 9 feb, I caught him breaching wp:overlink. I pointed out his error, and... yep, you guessed it... he reverted me. The following day, another user pointed out his error, but this time, after much predictable whining, GoodDay conceded that he was wrong, and even started doing edits the opposite way. I then pointed out that he had already been told about this, and... yep, you guessed it... he deleted my comment from his Talk page. Then, astoundingly, he starts doing exactly the same overlinking again. Now banned from his Talk page, I approached the other editor and pointed out a diff, whereupon GoodDay reverted himself. In summary, a complete waste of everyone's time.

I have third and fourth concerns, but I really can't be arsed wasting your and my time on this any longer than absolutely necessary.

Is it worth pointing out to Admins his breach of his own rfu promise? Is it worth pointing out to Admins that he has fallen back into his old pattern of disruptive behaviour? Or should I just kiss and cuddle the bairns, prepare breakfast for the family, say sorry to God for wasting a chunk of my life on tackling wee nyafs, and go for a walk in the forest to think about nice things instead.

I miss Dai. If you ever see him about, tell him we appreciate his fine work. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

One of GoodDay's tactics (and I suspect it is not purposeful or deliberate) is to provoke editors to the point where frustration makes them forget that those who do not have to deal with GoodDay on a day to day basis really don't understand the disruptive nature of multiple low level edits. I've fallen for it as well and I think the secret is [[KISS principle|KISS], namely report the transgression as fully as possible once, then leave other people to deal with it. The minute you get into a tit for tat response it just plays into his hands. ----Snowded TALK 06:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a bit hard to "report the transgression as fully as possible once" when I am a) banned from his Talk page, and b) am referred directly to not one but two "mentors" (crikey, I feel sorry for them).
By the way, I forgot to mention that he got blocked yesterday, for tangling with an Oversighter. His capacity for disruption really does know no bounds. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Generally its likely that other editors will spot when GoodDay gets out of hand so I think it can be left after the first response, better if others pick up the secondaries. I did look at that exchange, but there were simply too many comments flying around to make sense of the material. Both his mediators are experienced, I recommend simply paying out the rope ... ----Snowded TALK 07:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that the thousands of tiny edits, even on Talk pages, is part of the strategy to make it next to impossible to follow the diffs. And don't even get me started on his lack of Edit summaries. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think he wants to be loved. so he does all that work but gets it wrong, then finds it difficult to cope. He has been told a hundred times or more to make one edit before launched on multiple ones but he still ignored it. Sooner or later, and it will be a pain living through it, he will either understand that or (more likely) one of the mentors will decided its a dead end cause and a block will ensue. ----Snowded TALK 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. A friendly word goes an awful long way. I note that he even this morning he told one of his mentor's a blatant porky. The situation is entirely unsustainable, and even his sympathisers will see the horrid truth one day. I'm off to buy a Valentine's present. I may be gone some time. Sometimes the real world really does look wonderful compared to the seemingly endless crap on here. I am beginning to think that the Admins are never going to wake up to the tragedy that is going on all around them. My sympathy for them is very limited: they have created this mess through years and years of complacency and sheltering obvious trolls, thugs and bullies, even among their own ranks. I fear that the Wikipedia dream will soon be forced to rest in peace. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think WIkipedia will survive GoodDay! However I am off for today as well, a little matter of going through the stages so we can beat England for the triple crown in a couple of weeks time ... ----Snowded TALK 09:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

A strange coincidence

Hello, Snowded. Since I was myself accused of being the sock of a certain banned editor, I have taken a bit of an interest in said editor's depredations . I'm not quite sure what to make of this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANeuro-linguistic_programming&action=historysubmit&diff=476699489&oldid=476695192

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIrvine22&action=historysubmit&diff=326097765&oldid=326097365

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIrvine22&action=historysubmit&diff=326769043&oldid=326768298

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIrvine22&action=historysubmit&diff=326565540&oldid=326493206

- but it seems a bit of a coincidence, don't you think? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Read the diffs as they are now placed in order above then tell me it's a coincidence! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had informed me that I was involved in this discussion. I appear to have used wording very similar to a banned user. I was surprised by the similarity myself, and can only say in my defence that it is a coincidence. Given the banned user's apparent long history of disruptive editing, I can see why this would be of concern. If you feel that an ANI/SPI report is warranted, then I would welcome it to clear my name. I am not a sock of Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I think that over 2000 constructive edits, especially in countering vandalism, have shown as much. ISTB351 (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ivor - why have you deleted my responses? ----Snowded TALK 08:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowded - I wanted to make the diffs a bit more organised. Your initial reply came when I was still gathering them. ISTB35 - First, I should say that Snowded was skeptical of any link between you and this banned editor. Second, I have no intention of making any kind of report, and I fully accept your assurances in this matter in good faith. The reason I didn't inform you of the discussion was because I was unsure myself and wanted to get the opinion of an experienced editor who has a track record of involvment in this matter. I have myself been accused of being a sock of Irvine22, which is how I became aware of him. I found the experience quite unpleasant, and I certainly wouldn't want to inflict it on anyone else. But it is a conicidence, as you alow! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert of edit to User:Ivor Stoughton

I have reverted your edit to User:Ivor Stoughton. I hope that this SPI is self explanatory. ISTB351 (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

yep, it was my bad. I didn't see that you had added material----Snowded TALK 05:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ivor Stoughton blocked as a sock of Irvine22. ISTB351 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kudos to you on that one. Wonder what he will try next ----Snowded TALK 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much, but the similarity of usernames suggested the presence of ducks. That Ivor Stoughton was able to survive two SPIs before today suggests that greater attention should be paid to editing behaviour, rather than a focus on checkuser alone. Irvine22's apparent ability to evade blocks reinforces this point. In answer to your question, who knows! Pov-pushing on British-Irish issues, and a provocative username, will probably give him away again. ISTB351 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think he travels a lot, as he is careful to use multiple IP addresses. Curious character, I almost managed to meet up with him once at LAX and may try again ----Snowded TALK 23:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He may be able to change ip addresses just by resetting his modem. with internet providers that do not provide a static ip for private internet users this is an easy way to get a new ip. Although through trace you can still identify the location and the provider. I was hacked once and went through all sorts procedures in an attempt to remove the offending ip without reformatting my machine, this was some information I found in doing so. I must also say that in checking ip's attached to my network my own ip was located at 2 different locations although in the same state they were unrelated to my home address this could be used by providers as to not give personal information away and also I think there is a function in Internet explorer that might affect this too.

regards...

Enemesis (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Impressed with your knowledge of the subject. By the way, you might want to read WP:INDENT ----Snowded TALK 08:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that he may not be moving about as much as you think. but thank you anyway.Enemesis (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Indeed

Its not often Mabuska and I are agreed on any subject concerning Ireland, but on this we are. ----Snowded TALK 08:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I was getting that feeling myself. Mabuska (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Still recovering from the shock!  :-) ----Snowded TALK 06:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

AN/I Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The AN/I thread relates to a possible sock of banned user Trumpkin (talk · contribs). ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 16:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Snowded. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Distance of Newport from London

Hi there. There is a debate running at Talk:Newport in which you might have an interest. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hedd Wyn

Thank you Snowded. Of course, it is a little irritating. But tbh, I don't think he's all there. It helps that everyone on the talk page (except Irvine22 ... and Ghmyrtle, for some bizarre reason) accept the BFI ref. Do you think it should be noted on the talk page that Ivor Staughton is a banned sockpuppet of Irvine 22? For now though, I'm OK with just reverting and I don't take the abuse in the least bit to heart. Dal ati, iddo fe. Diolch, Daicaregos (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

He's one of those wikignomes with an obsession with uniformity - someone else took him to ANI on it ----Snowded TALK 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Aye, I saw that. It will have to run its course now. He does a lot of good work though, without being truly disruptive, in a GoodDay sort of way. His biggest fault is that he is inaccessable. Do you think it should be noted on the talk page that Ivor Staughton is a banned sockpuppet of Irvine 22? Daicaregos (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You can delete the comments of a sock, that might be best. Nice to see you back by the way ----Snowded TALK 20:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. See you've been a bit of a stranger here yourself. I collapsed Irvine's wind-ups. Daicaregos (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I cut my watch list down by about 80% which made it realistic! ----Snowded TALK 04:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Mine is at 71 pages at the moment. It was well over 1000 in February. I may add your page too, just in case Irvine returns :) Daicaregos (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Just in case? Try and keep up please. 2 lines of K303 07:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Dr Who?! Daleks! The things you miss with a slimmed down watchlist. Daicaregos (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why Dai thinks I "don't accept" the BFI ref - of course I do. What I was (and, for what it's worth, remain) opposed to is the failure to acknowledge, at any point in the article, that a film produced in Wales is, by definition, produced in the UK. I understand the motives behind his position, but those motives are essentially non-neutral. If we're comparing watchlists, I'm at 5,088, by the way (!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
And a film produced in England is, by definition, produced in Europe. So what? Daicaregos (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It goes back to the alternative definitions of "country". I haven't edited that article recently, and don't intend to continue that discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well UK is the name of the state,so while it's a welsh film I don't see any major issue is saying in referencing the UK somewhere ----Snowded TALK 09:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
No, Ghmyrtle hasn't edited that article for a while, although I assume it is among the 5,088 on his watchlist. I note that of those edits he has made, none has been to revert Varlam back to the talk page consensus. So to describe my motives as 'essentially non-neutral', while allowing disruptive edits that conform to his own POV is laughable hypocrisy. As for the reference, it is fair to say that the BFI are considered authoritative. They note the film's production country as Wales. The BBC note Hedd Wyn as a Welsh film too. Both are British institutions. Neither note that Wales is in Britain, perhaps because it isn't relevant. So, if Ghmyrtle accepts the reference as he claims, why would he want to add something to the article that isn't in that reference? By the way, Ghmyrtle, in future, if you use quotation marks to indicate I have said something, please ensure it is something I said, rather than just making it up. It may be what I meant, but it isn't your place to imply I said something when I did not. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my error in punctuation, but you stated that ("bizarrely") I do not "accept the BFI ref"; I did not "make up" the substance of your statement. I "allow" edits on countless articles, all the time; I do not WP:OWN any articles, even those on my watchlist. So, perhaps you might consider withdrawing the allegation of "laughable hypocrisy"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Cornish people talk page

Although I appreciate that the contribution you removed here was off-topic and somewhat personalised, can I assume the only reason you left in the previous contributions such as this one, which it was referring back to, was because I had replied to them, hence losing them would break the thread and sense of the discussion, whereas removing a later, post-event comment would not? If we're going to tidy up that page, personal attacks and - yes - borderline racism about "snooty Imperial selves", "Anglo imperialists" and "recent arrivals on this Island" should probably go too, surely. And I don't think, pace your edit summary, that we need to assume good faith on the part of the editor making them either. N-HH talk/edits 10:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The earlier one was silly and you had replied but I can live with "Anglo-imperialists" and "Snooty Imperial selves", mild by wikipedia standards. The other comment was much more offensive, and followed your reply and seemed to be needless escalation. I was tempted to delete the whole thing, but your reply seemed valuable. ----Snowded TALK 10:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
In my experience User:Τασουλα is a good enthusiastic editor, who sometimes gets a little carried away. Maybe a warning, and a request to review her wording, might have been better? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought deleting was a kindness, and a warning. More than open to other ideas on how to handle it, but it was seriously OTT ----Snowded TALK 10:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if she (I think she's a "she") raises it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

NI page

In case there's confusion, the source of debate now is the piece that stated "although none of these is without problem". I think it lacks weight having the statement so high in the introduction — but so long as it fairly represents sources, I don't mind. That's my quibble with removing it. Since "none of these is without problem" is actually the point the sources make. --RA (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the source is OK isn't it? The argument about the lede is different - the last exchange between myself and G I thought made the two positions clear. I do think that more care needs to be taken about editing where there is no very clear consensus ----Snowded TALK 20:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't follow. But, just so you know, the current discussion is about the removal of the "although none of these is without problem" bit. --RA (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Odd that, given that you removed a lot more than that phrase on the article ----Snowded TALK 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Also added a lot. Anyway, I thought from your comment you may not have picked up where the discussion had gone to. Grand if you have. --RA (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Pig / Pyg

I recognise that both spellings are used, but the article has to choose to use one. This internal consistency is the most important factor. Given that the rest of the article uses "Pig" consistently, please do not change it to say "Pyg" in one place. I trust you also wouldn't think of changing it to "Pyg" throughout. That would need to be discussed and agreed on the talk page before it could be carried out. When writing the article, I carefully weighed up the alternatives, and decided that "Pig" was the most plausible spelling. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pig is not a welsh spelling, that is pyg and it doesn't mean pig. So I can't see how you would see it as the most plausible. Perhaps you could enlighten me? ----Snowded TALK 08:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult while you're edit warring. I specifically asked you not to do this. Your version isn't even internally consistent, let alone anything else. Please undo it immediately. I don't know where your insistence on a "Welsh spelling" comes from; "Pyg" doesn't even appear to be the Welsh name for the path (cy.wiki calls it Llwybr Pen y Gwryd, for instance). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I have undone your edits, because they were making the article les consistent, rather than more. Please now engage in discussion before making any further changes. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not edit warring I'm being bold and I've made it consistent. I have also pointed out the evidence for 'Pyg" both in common use and in official documents which is more than you have. If you had presented any evidence other than your judgement in weighing up the alternatives when you wrote the article. I'm also supported in this by two other editors at the latest count. The welsh point is that its misleading by the way. ----Snowded TALK 08:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
How is it misleading? There is no ambiguity with either name. What is misleading? And you have not made it consistent; you have made it spectacularly inconsistent. There are now roughly equal numbers of instances of "Pig" and "Pyg" in the article (not counting direct quotes), which is about as inconsistent as it could be. You seem not to recognise internal consistency, so I would strongly suggest that you undo your edits and leave it to those who can do it properly. Your edits are clearly making the article worse. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You really have an ownership issue don't you. I have consistently changed 'Pig" to 'Pyg" and vice versa. If that is spectacularly inconsistent then so was your original writing. The argument is that Pyg is the official name and also common name per arguments on the talk page. Maybe you should leave editing to people who use sources and provide facts on the talk page, rather than pontificating about your own judgement and skill? The confusion point is a side bar if yo want. Its too easy for people outside wales to assume that pyg means pig ----Snowded TALK 09:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No, this is nothing to do with ownership. I am talking about internal consistency – how often the article calls it the "Pig Track", and how often it calls it the "Pyg Track". Your version had three of one and four of the other. With mine, they were all the same. That's what consistency means. I'm amazed that you can't see that. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
(e/c)Friendly note to Snowded - the changes you made were not consistent, because you missed several of the examples of "pig", in other sections, image captions, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
OK I will go through and correct those. In the meantime Stemonitis, maybe you would look at the evidence on use and come up with something on the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 09:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to have a look, but as I say, it is difficult when someone is edit warring. I will have a look at the sources I used, but it may take a day or two. In the meantime, perhaps you could revert to the previous, consistent, version, per WP:BRD, rather than merely ploughing on with your edit war. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Your last edit leaves the article still with three of one and four of the other. Despite repeated notifications, you are still failing to make the article any more consisteny. It is now imperative that you revert to the last verion before your recent editing spree. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
In my first comment here, I specifically advised you against your current course of action. You are hardly working in a collegiate and co-operative manner here. You seem to be pushing an agenda, rather than trying to reach a mutually acceptable solution. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest your arrogant attitude is one motivator. Another editor correctly made the change, you have reverted back twice based on your own opinion. I went to the trouble to double check the references and they confirmed what anyone local knows anyway, that it't the Pyg track. Your refusal to provide any evidence on the talk page and patronising remarks above really do not reflect well on you. Otherwise I think I have all the changes now, although I will need to contact the map author. Otherwise, if you can proceed evidence do so. As of today the evidence is very clearly for pyg ----Snowded TALK 09:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I made the map, so you don't need to do that. I have said that it would take me some time to check my sources, and I have repeatedly tried to get you to engage in dialogue rather than edit warring, but you have proceeded to simply muscle through and ignore my requests and my advice. You wouldn't even believe my comments about inconsistency until someone else pointed out to you that I was right. The normal practice, following WP:BRD, is for a change to be proposed boldly (i.e. without prior discussion), and is then reverted if questioned, so that the matter can be discussed. That is what should also happen here. Your edits should be undone until the discussion can be carried out, which will take a few days. It doesn't matter which spelling is right or wrong at this point; the important thing is to let the discussion happen, and your actions so far have been to undermine that. It is not, however, too late. You can still (and should) undo your edits pending the discussion. That would also signal your intention to work collaboratively, which would be very welcome. That wouldn't prejudice any potential outcome, but is an important pre-requisite for the discussion. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
great map. Now stop (sic) making a mountain out of a molehill. Common use and official use support Pyg. This was a small change that you have got worked up about for some reason. Before I made the change I checked all sources, you reverte without dealing with that on the source page. You might want to read up on WP:AGF not to mention policy on names before you carry on preaching here. ----Snowded TALK 13:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I reverted several obviously bad edits that compromised the integrity of the article by introducing inconsistencies. It was you who insisted on remaking the bad edits, and then insisted on making large-scale changes to the article without proper discussion, rather than simply undoing your bad edits. (This is similar to our last encounter here, where you undid an edit of mine, claiming it was vandalism, even though your text made the obviously erroneous claim that Snowdon was the second highest mountain in the British Isles.) Do you at least admit that your edits made the article inconsistent? Do you recognise that that is a bad thing? Do you understand why I undid your edits? Your response above suggests not. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I keep forgetting that one must always accept that Stemonitis is right and the rest of the world is wrong. Look you do really good detailed work and I admire it, but the downside of many an editor is that they get ownership issues. This is a simple issue of naming policy and you are being obdurate in your responses. A few missed changes corrected within the hour is the way wikipedia words, they are not large scale changes, just a simple correction. Now get off your ownership kick and focus on policy please, ideally on the talk page of the article. Oh, and your prior case. As I remember it that was an iPad finger error, you got to it before I could self revert. Do you understand Wikipedia's naming policy and the need for evidence? Do you admit your edits failed to conform with that? Do you recognise that is a bad thing? Do you understand why I undid your edits? Your response above suggests not. ----Snowded TALK 20:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You're still trying to shift the blame from your own obviously bad edits. In that context, no, I don't understand why you continued to make articles worse having been informed that you were doing so. It doesn't matter which name you go with, and I have always accepted that there are two possibilities – I wrote the prose detailing the variants, remember – but you must be consistent. Your edits were thus clearly detrimental. Don't try to pretend that this is at all about ownership, or policy. It was about undoing harmful edits. [I will ignore the sarcastic remainder of your reply, which was beneath you.] --Stemonitis (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake calm down. I missed the 'pig's on the pictures. Ghymrtle kindly pointed it out (I thought that was very collegiate by the way) and I then changed those as well. Its the way things work, the whole thing was done within an hour. Words like 'detrimental' as simply OTT and, forgive me, obsessive. It is about policy I'm afraid and you should have paid attention to that when you first reverted another editor who spotted the error. As to the sarcasm, if you carry on making silly statements like that expect more of it unless I decide to lapse into irony or simply delete your comments altogether ----Snowded TALK 20:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No, you are still failing to understand what happened. Your edits were detrimental; that word is by no means over the top. You made the article worse, and the rest of this palaver followed from that. I am sure your edits were made in good faith, but they were bad edits nonetheless, and did need to be reverted. Both spellings are in fact used, so this cannot be considered a simple "error" or "correction". (Spelling it "Pog track" [sic] would have been an error, but spelling it "Pig track" is not.) There were good reasons for using the "Pig" spelling, which shouldn't simply be ignored. It may be that we would have chosen to use the "Pyg" spelling in the end, but you shouldn't have pre-empted that discussion. The whole time, I was trying to get you to hold back to allow a fair discussion to take place, but you ignored that. This is more serious than you seem to understand, because you refuse to accept any accountability for it. Nobody minds people making errors, provided they accept that they made an error and allow it to be fixed. You made an error; once you recognise it, we can move on. It shouldn't have taken Ghmyrtle's involvement to make you realise that your edit made the article internally inconsistent, and I still haven't seen you admit that obvious truth. Will you accept your error? --Stemonitis (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You have yet to outline any good reason for PIG, your only reference is a Cicerone walking guide, please. Go with the National Park Site and the Ordinance Survey. This is a minor issue of fact easily resolved. Very simply put you were wrong, and the error was corrected. Nobody minds people being wrong, provided they accept that have have been in error and allow it to be fixed. You were wrong, you failed to recognise it and you are not moving on. (damn that sarcasm but it may be the only way to get through to you) There is no need to have a discussion when one side (you) is opining without evidence. Other than that I realise that my leaving four examples of PIG for 45 minutes imperilled the whole credibility of the English Wikipedia and for that you have my deepest apologies. I intend to recite a novena and dedicate a chapel to the Patron Saint of pedantic Geography editors. Will that make you happy? ----Snowded TALK 17:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Both spellings are acceptable, although one may be preferable. That means that all your talk of "fact" and "error" is inappropriate. You still fail to recognise that consistency is required in every article, and is more important than minor orthographical variations, but I recognise now that you are unlikely to see sense on that matter. Goodbye. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I realise that you have worked yourself up over the issue but please don't lie. Consistency is important, and if it's achieved within a hour that is fine. Its the latter point you have a problem with and I worry for the obsessive nature of your concerns he. Overall one spelling is in official material, the other is weaker and weaker sourced. This is something you would hve found with the simplist of searches either (I) when you made your original decision baed on very weak sourcing or (ii) other editors oriented out the error. What you should havea done here, is when corrected you should checked your sources, acknowledged that "Pyg" was better sourced and made the thing consistent yourself. Instead you choose to edit war, issue patronising statements about the profound levels of tout you had given to the subject and now, issue increasingly strident and ridiculous statements on my talk page. If you have that out of your system I suggest that the most helpfu thing you could do is correct the map. It's the one inconsistency left. ----Snowded TALK 09:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(TPS) Pyg means pitch (or bitumen) in Welsh (and is pronounced "pug". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded/Autoarchive_25&oldid=504935312"