Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:20, 13 January 2009

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Snowded}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

• Archive to 29 May 08
• Archive to 21 July 08
• Archive to 30 Nov 08
• notes and working

Ireland

I guess it's time for Arbitration now. -- Evertype·✆ 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(from Republic of Ireland RM), what's transclusion? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a computer science term "the inclusion of part of a document into another document by reference". --Snowded TALK 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, Mick's copy of Taskforce votes at the RoI RM request. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep and that's improper behaviour --Snowded TALK 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All this talk is making me thirsty. I propose a toast to the Emerald Isle.Lestrade (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute

I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved editor opinion

Hi Snowded, I seek your opinion as an uninvolved editor whom I respect. If you have the time please have a look at Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area#Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I would just like to know: 1. if you think the position I'm arguing is right or wrong and 2. if you think the position I'm arguing is correct, but that I should just give it up anyway. Please let me know if you if you either don't have the time or the interest. Thank you in advance for you help. Daicaregos (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How odd. That is the very reason I am visiting here (on a totally unrelated matter to Daicaregos). Am working on an RM which has already been changed (under dubious circumstances imo) by 2 admins. It could get sticky and would appreciate your advice, as a non-involved rock of sense. RashersTierney (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Which RM Rashers? Happy to get involved and thanks for the "rock of sense" comment! Cheered up a lonely wait in the departures lounge at Boston. --Snowded TALK 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves #Other proposals 1st December Roma people to Romani people. There was probably a better direct but I'm a bit knackered. Thanks.RashersTierney (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK flight will be called shortly so will look at it when I get back to the UK tomorrow --Snowded TALK 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Pleasant flight! RashersTierney (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an update. All quiet so far...maybe a little too quiet, or maybe its just the paranoia again. Oh well...

Belated thanks for moral support on successful RM. RashersTierney (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really do anything. I looked at it a couple of times and it seemed to be going in the right direction. --Snowded TALK 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

All that was needed! RashersTierney (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd luv to enter that discussion. But, I won't. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also much appreciated.:) RashersTierney (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sooo... shall we light the blue touchpaper - with a RFC on the Scotland page perhaps? Daicaregos (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am begining to think that the UK is a basket case on naming --Snowded TALK 08:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The UK suffers from multiple identity crisis, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Much easier when you were the conqueror rather than the conquered. Daicaregos (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. I still have my support & oppose 'votes'. So let me know if the article has a straw poll. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Added englands coat of arms

England has no coat of arms. It has been decided it has to be removed like Wales & Scotland. Thanks --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on the talk page to that effect - the discussion appears ongoing. Your comments o the Scotland page were largely ignored and you are also a suspected sock puppet. --Snowded TALK 22:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actuatly there was a discussion on the England talk page and Jza84 thought it should be moved

I read the discussion and Jza84 expressed an opinion, but there is no agreement per your comment. Take it to the talk page and ask for agreement --Snowded TALK 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was just my opinion, and unfortunatly for Misplaced Pages, my opinion does not equate consensus just yet!

Snowded, it's pretty clear this is Nimbley, but I'm not blocking as it's easier to manage if he has a single account we can rollback. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he hit several pages while I was waiting for a plane last night so I simply monitored and reversed until he stopped. Easier that a checkuser, block and yet another ID!--Snowded TALK 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (episode II)

Spainton is suspected of being the grate Nimbley6. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that on the user page, but it was pretty self evident from the edits. The latest on sub-headings a dead give away --Snowded TALK 19:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I wonder if Nimbley6 & Wikipiere are cousins (one British, the other Irish). GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley6 is just stupid, Wikipiere is irritating as he could be a good editor --Snowded TALK 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I reckon a CU is headed Nimbley/Spainton's way. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're over-reacting at Lo2u page. I still have no intentions of fiddling with those 4 articles or the related countries lists. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, my nose hurts again. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you are making some strong statements that four pages have a nationalist bias. Now I don't think you have any evidence for that. Aside from the involvement of several admins (such as DDstrech and JZA) who can't possibly be called nationalists, I think most of the active editors go out of their way to avoid a POV position. So for you to broadcast an accusation without backing it up is a form of failing to assume good faith. It doesn't matter if you intend to edit the articles or not. On the Misplaced Pages you are what you say, and its you who are saying it! --Snowded TALK 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'll scratch out my PoV there. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Ya really got me, with the AGF thingy. That's my weak spot. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

wicked  :-) --Snowded TALK 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scorpions

I don't know if you are up to date with the furore of the Scorpions record cover with the little girl. Well, I feel a little, no, a lot uncomfortable with it. I made comments to that effect on David Gerard talk page and the Admins noticeboard. Like me, I would have thought the vast majority of wikipedians wouldn't be comfortable with it. I fear that if this is permitted it may go down a road where I may find I don't want to be a part of a wiki that is happy with these images. I'm not mad on censorship but do believe there should be a line drawn somewhere. Sorry, I had to get that out. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of Child Porn is a major issue on Misplaced Pages to be honest and one that has got at least one editor banned by Wales (whose record in respect of the glamour industry is not good). Look up the Peter Damian case if you want an example of someone being punished for taking a moral position in an anything goes environment!. I'll look up that example --Snowded TALK 11:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That was as good as a blank! (on Gerard's page). Titch Tucker (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems is the rhetoric used, and, like many other situations on wikipedia, there is inconsistency and distortion in bucket loads as a result.

The mantra that many are trotting out is "Misplaced Pages is not censored" when of course this is so false that it becomes ludicrous: there is mass censorship of undesirable false information, when desirable false information is allowed (like the mantra itself, for example); vandalism is removed, in an act that is censoring, although it is normally said to be something else, and easier to claim this by using the term "vandalism"; actual pictures of child abuse and child sexual abuse would not be allowed (and rightly so), and that would be censorship; personal attacks upon others are censored, critical comments about people are sometimes allowed in places where it is said that they should not be made, and little is done about it, and ad hominem arguments are certainly allowed in some places (like RfAs where the issue of whether candidates are trustworthy or not is clearly an argument about the persons) and not others, and so they are (partially) censored.

So, without much thought, the mantra can be shown to be clearly an oversimplification that glosses over things.

The problem then is that people can point to this incident in the light bof the restrictions such as those I've mentioned, and argue about inconsistency in a way which actually does support the idea that unsavoury images are protected from being deleted from wikipedia in certain contexts.

The problem of having administrators who are below the age of majority in many jurisdictions, no checks on the age of people accessing the information, and anonymous editors merely makes the matter more of a mess, I think. In other contexts, there would be positive action required by readers after a notice that says that the content may offend and that they should not access the material if they feel this would be the case or if they are below 18 years old.

What really happens here is that wikipedia as an organisation has developed forms of control of admissable content that can be called censorship on an independent, objective analysis, but when it runs into another organisation whose view of admissable content differs from its own, it yells "Unfair! Censorship!" in the same way that some "disruptive editors" are criticized for doing towards wikipedia. So long as wikipedia maintains the fiction that it is truly uncensored in an absolute way when it is clearly not, then there is little hope of reasonable negotiated solutions in situations where it disagrees with other organisations over admissable content. Essentially "censorship" means that the two or more parties disagree over what is acceptable content, and that some content is not allowed by one party which would be by another.

Finally, the point is being made that the image concerned would not be found to be illegal. Ok, in that case, there is a need for a court case to test the claim, and those who propose a claim must provide the evidence, and so I suggest that the most vocal proponents of "wikipedia is not censored" and "the image is not illegal in the UK" to put their money where their mouths are and offer themselves up to the full force of the UK's police departments who are concerned with child protection and pornography by laying their head on the line. I suspect they would shy away from that when the full realisation of what would then happen hits them coupled with the risk that a jury would convict them. I also they take on the task of countering the amount of vandalism that the wholesale chaos of maintaining this position has provoked. What I am suggesting is that it is cheap to appear to take a principled stand on this matter, coming out with cute soundbites about "wikipedia is not censored" and similar comments to "the image is not illegal", but when the chips are down and the ruination of one's life is on the cards after having to face a sexual offences prosecution in the UK, I bet you wouldn't be able to see very many of them for dust!

I think wikipedia ought to simply change the image used to the less objectionable one that was used in many other countries for the album, otherwise, I guess people will start to call it "wikipaedia" or some such rubbish, and the associations that this incident will bring about will lead to people, such as myself, not being particularly happy continuing to work on it.

Ok. Rant over!  DDStretch  (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Great set of comments - mind if I use some of them in a blog I am preparing on the subject (with acknowledgement to your pseudonym or real name if you prefer! --Snowded TALK 13:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Just wanted to warn you about User:Welshleprechaun#The_List I don't think that this is acceptable. Pondle (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Its unusual! However he is saying that he thinks I am a nice guy, not that I think he is so its difficult to know if one can/should complain --Snowded TALK 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just looked at the edit history - yes I think its wrong to list "bad" editors, but I see that has been removed --Snowded TALK 12:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

UK reversion

The fact is that i've learned much more abt WP by keeping my ears open, and remembering the mistakes i've made, than by pursuing the tutorials. And that should soften whatever harshness you read into this correction of your practice:
You must explain when you revert, even if only with "rv v". Even if you were misled by my jocular phrase "inquiring minds" in this case you also owe the article the questions "Is the year the UK came into existence a first order fact about it, that's appropriate to the lead?" and "How should one learn which people had "British" as opposed to "Scottish" or "English" state identity?" I just figured out i could harmlessly re-establish what i'd forgotten about the "undo"-tool's messages and options by trying to revert what you already reverted; i see the message is

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.

I do not think you can claim that that implied exception frees you from AGF, and your unfounded guess stands far from conforming to that standard.
I am reverting back, and i expect you to start a discussion on the talk page of the article if you still have misgivings.
--Jerzy•t 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I explained it the first time if you bother to check. (I thought I had, checking I hadn't so apologies for that. However it is now explained The UK was not founded by the act of union. Sorry I will revert, the de facto position does not have that date. --Snowded TALK 07:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the 2nd rv, repairing the effects of my careless ignorance (i.e., i should have been able to figure that out, even tho i don't know the dates). My 1st thot on seeing it was "c'mon, that's easy to work around", and my 2nd thot after abt 30 sec. was "Hmm, i guess it isn't at all!"
  Thanks also for your conscientious handling of your need to "expand and revise remarks" (Congressional jargon for shamelessly falsifying the Congressional Record", tho the concept is a good one, with proper annotations such as yours.) Since you are conscientious in that, i hope i won't be too annoying in demonstrating my extension of what you INTENTIONAL died aborning above ERROR. (It may not be obvious that it uses the ~~~~~ quasi-sig thingy.)
  --Jerzy•t 20:54 & 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  

No problem --Snowded TALK 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst/while

FYI - the result of the peer review at B.E. was that while is preferred over whilst, so I've changed it accordingly. I'm sure that neither of us would want this to prevent it reaching FA article status. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A blow for the diversity of language, but agreed on FA. --Snowded TALK 07:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock: help needed

If anyone is monitoring this page (I know you are) then would then please ask User:Elonka to remove the autoblock she has imposed - text below: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias". --Snowded TALK 08:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just found this - hopefully it will work. --Snowded TALK 08:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

((unblock-auto|1=194.72.9.25|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias".|3=Elonka|4=1248271))

Sorry about that, you should be good to go, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Its just been put back in place - what is this admin playing at? Can't they read? Anyone around? its taking a long time to respond! --Snowded TALK 13:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 194.72.9.25 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Viridae 13:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, I've heard this Auto thingy, blocked out all UK Wikipedians. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you mentoring me? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Me? Would I take on that awesome responsibility? --Snowded TALK 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Guess who

Hi - yeah, agree absolutely. I'm coming slightly late to the party; the latest sock has already been indef blocked. Thanks for the heads-up, This flag once was red_deeds 15:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Closeupon

Absolutely - and this time I was a wee bit quicker! I filed a RfCU, which has come back likely. Closeupon has already been blocked. Thanks for spotting this - it feels like the Nimbley6 tide is turning (and to quote a NZ advert "it ain't turning way").

Re: Bristol: mostly visiting close family - though I'm on leave right now for the first time in a long time, so sort of a holiday, too - I grew up mostly in the South of England, despite being a Kiwi, but moved to Glasgow for university and stayed there - with the exception of the past 18 months - ever since. Clear as mud, eh?!

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Impressive turnround! Given a choice between Bristol and Wellington I would choose the latter anytime! I get our there three/four times a year and its always a pleasure. --Snowded TALK 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin

Can I point out that it would be entirely appropriate, and probably for the long-term good, to issue formal templated warnings about personal attacks. Mooretwin has begun to allege that I am engaged in a personal vendetta against him for warning him, but I feel it is in the overall interest of wikipedia to not allow this to happen. There is a thread about this on WP:AN (The "Can someone counsel User:Mooretwin" subject) where you can see that anyone who tackles him is being accused of vendetta, thus preventing more action against him by them, as they then become "too involved".  DDStretch  (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, will do (although I see he is deleted them) --Snowded TALK 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin is currently blocked for 1-week. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been on the watch list for some time, but thanks --Snowded TALK 16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

England

Hi Snowded! Just wondering why you reverted my grammatical corrections to England and why you didn't leave an edit summary to explain your action. Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well one of them changed it to England's is which is just plain wrong and I am pretty sure that it should be tribes who not tribes which. To be honest the England's is was so badly wrong I didn't see the need to explain the edit. --Snowded TALK 11:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As it stood it read "England is the world's oldest parliamentary system...". This is wrong: England is not a parliamentary system, it is a country which has many characteristics, one of which is its parliamentary system. If we're talking about England's parliamentary system we must say so, for example "England's parliamentary system is the world's oldest parliamentary system...". This structure is overburdened and either "parliamentary system" could be deleted. Perhaps it would be more acceptable to you if I changed it to "England's parliamentary system is the world's oldest...".

Regarding "tribe who" versus "tribe which", "who" relates only to people who are explicitly mentioned; if only the collective is mentioned then "which" applies. Thus we can have "a tribe of people who"... because the "who" refers to the people but we can't have "tribes who settled" any more than we can have a "club who plays at White Heart lane" or a "church who meets to pray every Sunday".

Hope this explains things adequately and accurately; perhaps you can explain the distinction between "which" and "that" - that's something which / that I'm not so sure about. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotlands opening sentence

I see you have agreed to the change in the opening sentence, and whilst I won't lose any sleep if it does change, I wonder where it will all end, and what will be the next suggestion to improve the Scotland/Wales articles. I've given my opinion on the matter and will step back again, but I'll watch with interest over the next few months. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that agreement as a necessary step in making sure that country status is not challenged again. People like Jza and other neutrals will defend the current Wales/England position as citable. The Scottish lede is nationalist (and as you know I am one) but WIkipedia needs to be neutral and we are stronger if we demonstrate that neutrality even when we like existing text! --Snowded TALK 11:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope your right Snowded, I'll try and show a little faith. I'm off, the in (out)-laws have been ignored enough :) Titch Tucker (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Butting in, because this broadly seems to be my position too - though for different reasons (I'm not a nationalist, but I don't see Scotland's comparatively recent involvement in the UK as being that important in the millenia-long history of Scotland). One thing I've been ignoring until recently, and that Jza and Snowded have brought home to me, is the need for - and advantages of - citations. That's driven my agreement with the recent proposal, though I can't say I view it as ideal. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as Scotland is in sync with Wales, England & Northern Ireland, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in British and American English

It surprised me that what I'm sure is your favo(u)rite word isn't listed here, just after "coulee" perhaps. Would it help to add it, do you think, or not? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I give up, I don;t get it! Mind you its late at night and I've just driven home from Rodney Parade in the rain so I have some excuse. What is the word? --Snowded TALK 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Country - there seem to be different interpretations (!), and if they're transatlantic differences it would be appropriate that it be listed in that article. (apologies for being obtuse!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Interesting one will think ont. --Snowded TALK 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help and support. Hopefully all that is now behind us. If there is anything I can do to help you, just say the word. Peter Damian (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure Peter and I managed to create a bit of a stir in the blogosphere which was useful. Just help knock pseudo-science entries like NLP (maybe spiral dynamics is next on the list) on the head and keep people honest on philosophy and history pages - that will be thanks enough. --Snowded TALK 11:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Spiral Dynamics. That looks like a good one. Is there a three-headed monster guarding it? Peter Damian (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with these is once you start following the links you find a whole nest of evil toxic material e.g. Integral movement, Ken Wilber and so on. Where will it end? Peter Damian (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Its very toxic. Ken Wilber leads you to all sort of interesting places and his current links with the Arlington Institute, Beck and others are shall we say "interesting". You get some craziness here such as the return of Quetzalcoatl. Trouble is you look at the popular end of a management "science" section of a bookstore and what do you get? NLP guides, Spiral Dynamics, simplistic recipes and books on leadership by people who couldn't make it past stage one of the republican nomination process. We live in scary times but I am reliably told it will end in 2012. Apparently the Green feathered serpent God of the Mayans will return to restore peace and universal harmony. Now peace and harmony are not usually associated with Mayan Gods, but I suppose that we should assume good faith even for Quetzalcoatl --Snowded TALK 12:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite. On the other hand (I have a long list somewhere) I don't see anything particularly harmful in stuff like Ascended Master Teachings. It's fairly entertaining and clearly no one who doesn't already take it seriously is going to take it seriously. The dangerous stuff is what looks plausible and convincing and scientific but isn't. NLP definitely falls into that category. I am going to take another look at Spiral Dynamics. Best Peter Damian (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a lot of people confuse it with complex adaptive systems, although why I cannot understand its got no real basis there. --Snowded TALK 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by population

See this? Happy now? Daicaregos (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ID as assertion

The issue is in talk. ID is not an assertion for the same reason a boat is not an assertion. The quote might be called an assertion. An assertion is a statement with truth conditions. Compare to something like a question "is ID correct?", or a command "close the door", both of which have no truth conditions. You don't have proper truth and falsity in science: you talk about facts, and what's a theory, and what's real. Compare to mathematics, where you can and do talk about proper truth. This is why searching google for uses of assertion brings up comparatively many math/logic pages, but no related pages (except our ID page). Our usage is highly uncommon, and just wrong. –M 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An assertion is a statement based on a set of assumptions and is different from a scientific hypothesis. Your statements on science, mathematics etc represent a position in philosophy of science but not the only one. Whatever you should be raising this on the talk page concerned. I reversed because it needs to be discussed on the talk page concerned. --Snowded TALK 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(It is being discussed there. I'm following WP:BRD in talking to you directly. I'm working under the assumption that if you revert, you're willing to discuss the disagreement and work out consensus.) My statements are only examples, and not arguments, so that's not really relevant. I'm not saying that we should write hypothesis - a thesis is very different from a hypothesis. As for your main point: I've checked several dictionaries, and all of them present 'assertion' as 1) a (speech) act, or 2) a statement given without attempt at proof, or both. Your definition, oddly enough, seems to be the definition for thesis (an argument being a conclusion derived from a set of assumptions). If that's the definition you think is correct, and 'thesis' fits while 'assertion' doesn't, then would you support the use of 'thesis'? –M 09:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the discussion and I see that you do not have consensus for the change which I think justifies my reversion. It seems to me from reading the exchange that others have handled the points you mention above and I have nothing greatly to add to them. Given that you have been banned once for reversion on this I suggest you take your own advise on discussing disagreements and working our consensus. --Snowded TALK 09:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to do my best - if you could offer me advice it would be appreciated. See it from my point of view: I think the article could use a lot of work, so I'm trying to fix it. I think that I've made many strong arguments for removing "assertion". Misplaced Pages:Consensus tells me right up front that silence implies consent, so it seems that there's no longer a consensus against my proposed change. I don't think it's helpful to revert and expect others to do the discussion/consensus-building for you. I'm asking you something specific about something you said that was never brought up on the talk page. You said that an assertion is a statement based on assumptions. What are you basing this on? –M 11:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Silence can also mean that people have had enough of saying the same thing many times and repeating arguments. I think the points were well made on the talk page and you were in a clear minority. This happens. As the page - yes it needs radical improvement and it might be best to try and build an alternative somewhere and invite comment. I don't think this aspect is one of the things that particularly needs fixing --Snowded TALK 11:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's possible, but I have trouble finding a response that suggests that others there understand the point I'm trying to make, so I think it's more likely that I'm not making myself clear in some way. Would you mind helping me out by telling me what you think my objection to the use of "assertion" is, so I know what I'm getting across to other editors? –M 11:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can do justice to the various arguments on the page. But from my perspective using language which implies any scientific basis for ID is wrong on this article and "thesis" does that. As someone says its not testable or refutable. I also don't think you handled the "feline animism" argument well, that made the point that in this context "assertion" was valid. I might (like you) have some sympathy for belief as an alternative, but I can see the objections to that as well in particular the issue of religion or not a religion. Sheffield Steel came up with the best suggestion on 9th December. I don't think you are not making yourself clear, I think its simply that people don't agree with you. --Snowded TALK 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

<ud> So you think that something like feline animalism is an assertion? I don't think I'm making myself clear at all then :/ Your page says you have a BA in Philosophy - are you familiar with much philosophy of language? Perhaps you'll like seeing a more formal argument:

1. Assertions are statements: things that can be true or false (cf "is it raining?", which is a question not a statement)
2. A common, sensible, and relevant use of ID is "we came about through intelligent design, not evolution"
3. That makes no sense if ID is a statement, so ID can't be a statement (cf "we came about through one phenomenon, not the other")
4. If ID isn't a statement, then it can't be an assertion (QED)

Where do I go wrong? ((Compare ID to lamps, Marxism, and Goldbach's conjecture: "I assert lamps" makes no sense, because "lamps" can't be true or false. "Marxism" also can't be true or false. But "every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes" can be. The reason the lead sounds right is because that is the thing that supporters of ID often assert.)) –M 12:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"X asserted that the moon is made of green cheese" is a valid statement. I can think of no sensible use of ID and I am also a Catholic by the way so don't take that as being anti-religion its being anti-stupidity. ID is not the same thing as "lamps" it is a complex mix of belief, superstition, politics etc. and as such can be asserted. --Snowded TALK 12:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a mix, but that's precisely why it can't be an assertion. An assertion isn't just something you say is real or actual or correct. This floor is actual, but it's downright unintelligible to say "this floor is an assertion". Marxism is also a mix of politics and belief, but "Marxism is an assertion" is equally unintelligible. To clarify - you think that step 2 is grammatically or semantically invalid? Do you think that the steps don't follow? –M 20:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Its valid to say "Marxism is the assertion that ....." and that is the form (followed by a quote) which is used in the article. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that's valid. Do you think Marxism is an assertion? Because "Marxism is the assertion that ..." implies "Marxism is an assertion" in the same way that "Spot is the dog that ..." implies "Spot is a dog". –M 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Marxism is not an assertion clearly, however to say "Marxism is the assertion that ...." is valid and that is the form used for ID. Assertion in that case describes something that Marxism does, while Spot is a dog describes something that Spot is. Get it now? --Snowded TALK 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, this is much more informative than the talk page. Often, large disagreements do come down to a tedious point :) Are you saying that a) Marxism asserts that..., b) Marxism is the assertion of... (ie is an act), or c) Marxism is the assertion that...? If it's a, then great, but that makes Marxism an asserter. If it's b or c, then you've lost me, because when you say "Marxism is X" you say that it is something, not that it does something: that's what did/do/does/done/doing is for, or you could any old verb (see (a)). But we don't do either of these things, in fact we explicitly use "is". This is either not what you mean to say, or you're on the verge of correcting a fundamental misunderstanding of English. –M 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I may have lost you then. I don't see any major issues with a or c, I am not wild about b. I think c describes marxism, while a to a degree implies personalisation of an idea. --Snowded TALK 08:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, A does imply personification. You have already unambiguously stated in your last reply that Marxism (and hence ID) is clearly not an assertion, which is exactly what I'm saying on that talk page. What you're saying now is that C doesn't really imply it's an assertion - yet C describes something Marxism is, and not what it does (on all accounts of English that I'm familiar with). Can you think of any other sentence "X is the Y ..." that implies X is 'doing'? I can come up with "that is the kick that sends the ball down the field", but that's hardly a relevant example. I think you might be confusing C with A ("that" with "of"), and that we don't disagree at all. –M 14:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to remind me of my dislike of English linguistic philosophy and its failure to realise that the language is not a form of mathematics. Marxism is not an assertion per se, but "Marxism is the assertion that ..." is a valid expression. Sentences are to be read as sentences, not a construction based on axioms. In the latter form the emphasis is on assertion, in the former on marxism --Snowded TALK 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

<ud>(I don't know to what your 'latter' and 'former' refer.) So your point comes down to personal taste. The meaning is clear and no amount of subtle emphasis changes it. Is ID an assertion? No. On this point, you agree with me and disagree with others on that talk page. You can't excuse poor wording by pointing out that people will understand it anyway (unlike in math, which is often fully unintelligible if botched). And it is poor wording - nobody uses it, check my survey of 80~ usage instances. I wonder if your position leads you to think that when we say "ID is the theory that ..." we don't actually say or imply "ID is a theory". –M 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

self proclaimed

Hi snowded. I saw your revert my removal of "self-proclaimed" from Ayn Rand. I'm not going to revert that as I thought I was cleaning up vandalism by Edward Nilges posting from an IP. However, you may want to see a list I provided where she is called a philosopher by people other than herslef. One such instance is Robert Paul Wolff in his philosophy textbook. That's actually where I first heard about her. There are other cites as well. I listed them on talk but they are probably archived now. So, if you added selfprocalimed and not Edward, I'm sorry. Hopefully you'll read the talk listing I provided and consider those sources for the title philospher or novelist-philosopher as I think she was more than self-proclaimed. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the other descriptions are clear, and its also true that she was the inspiration behind a political ideology. However, other than the sense in which we are all philosophers I don't think she is. There are cites on both sides here. I think the main section covers that well, the info box on the other hand does not have room for explanation or qualification so its best left as is. --Snowded TALK 13:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page, but I wanted to quickly note before an edit war begins, that you must explain your tags on the talk page and provide valid reasons for the tag's existence. Tags that fail to meet this requirement are removed. Idag (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The tag was explained, you just didn't like it and I am afraid that you are not entitled to decide what is or is not valid. --Snowded TALK 18:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

National anthems

I agree with almost everything you say on GoodDays page, other than your view that only Wales really have a national anthem. It might say on the Scotland article that we have two anthems and have not made our minds up, but ask anyone in Scotland what our anthem is and invariably you will receive the answer Flower of Scotland. Scotland the Brave is a fine song, but hardly anyone here knows the word to it. The only reason some people put across the idea that Scotland are undecided is that the third verse is not favoured by some unionists. I don't see the problem, after all, we don't have a verse boasting of crushing the English. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you on Flower of Scotland, but its not determined ... --Snowded TALK 12:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, if there is no official anthem, then the people through popular use can decide the national anthem, and as I said, the vast majority of people consider Flower of Scotland to be their National anthem. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Flower of Scotland (unofficial) "? –M 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland lede

Be honest with me, I can take it. Do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree and wasting my time putting forward my proposal? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't. We finally got an agreed form that would also us to prevent the attacks on country status that come along from time to time. We did that by proving a NPOV position and getting the neutral admins on side. It now looks like what a lot of them forecast, that once this was conceded nationalists would come back for more. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be getting any kind of consensus anyway. I must say though, I am a little worried when one of your "neutral" admins believes Scotland was not independent before 1707. I'm also trying to figure out what was conceded, those who wanted the UK mentioned in the first sentence got their way, so that was conceded to them. Nothing was conceded, as far as I'm aware, to any "nationalists". If you mean they conceded that country could be used I don't see it, there are enough sources to back that up without having to say it was conceded. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There were huge battles over the use of the word country earlier this year. I think what you saw on the talk page is some kick back --Snowded TALK 11:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be there is now a kick back against those who are showing a blatant unionist POV. I have noticed that on different articles they are the ones who are not slow to change the text or criteria to suit their own point of view. I fear nobody will ever be 100% happy, but that's the world we live in. Anyway, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a good New year. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And thus does conflict escalate. I have been attempting to take a strict citation approach to avoid the pendulum swings. Whatever - all Christmas wishes fully reciprocated and its good to have you here --Snowded TALK 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You said, re Ayn Rand:

Please learn to respect citation and agree contentious issues on the talk page. Some of your edits are approaching POV pushing and/or vandalism Snowded

But it is you who simply revert edits. Each of mine has offered a different attempt at a reasonable wording Kjaer (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you have stated several opinions which is not the same thing as acting reasonably. I have just changed Objectivism (Rand) to correspond with the actual phrase used and make it clear it is Rand's defintiion of capitalism not a definition of capitalism itself. It would have been simple for you to do this yourself. One the Chomsky quote you are reverting from cited material to one based on your own opinion. The third set of edits you are editing against the current consensus on the talk page. As I said you are verging on behaviour that could get you at least a temporary ban. --Snowded TALK 19:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nimbley

Hello there!

Yes I got through most of their work. At first I was reluctant to block them (we know the cycle), but the account was recreating deleted articles and breaching WP:NONFREE, amongst other issues. I had to stop them in their tracks.

Personally I think they should be range blocked, or at least formally banned from certain aspects of editting. However I understand that the folks with the ability and know-how to make this happen are reluctant to do this unless it's a really serious case (I think User:Yorkshirian would be a candidate!). In short, AFAICT, I don't think there's much we can do just yet - we'll have to do the cleaning up manually. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

Snowded, we disagree about who is editing the Ayn Rand material with less than good faith. An impartial examination of the edits would make it clear that you are failing in this respect while editing based upon an agenda that does not benefit the article. I have consistently been civil, presented reasons for all of my actions, not participated in your edit warring but have participated in the talk pages - I would appreciate it if you refrained from making these baseless accusations. --Steve (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An impartial examination would be more than welcome Steve. Your recent contributions to the talk page do not even engage with the arguments on citation etc. they simply make an accusation against another editor (myself) which you repeat here (an agenda), hence the AGF notice. --Snowded TALK 08:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your agenda stands out like an elephant in the room and becomes mentionable for that reason. I quoted the AGF text that permits pointing out the obvious. And the last entry you made on the talk page was to accuse me of a bias and of being unable to accept a difference of opinion. You need to take your own advice and pay more attention to YOUR lack of good faith. Personally, I'd be happy to stop this nattering back and forth on article talk pages and on user talk pages - it has no value I can see. But evidently you felt the need, so I'll just hope you'll get it out of your system. --Steve (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just playing it my the book Steve. When I see you engage with arguments rather than denigrate the motivations of the individual I'll happily back off. --Snowded TALK 09:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rand being American

Just to clarify my reversion (since this isn't really important enough for a talk page discussion), when Rand moved to the U.S., Soviet law was such that a person who became an American citizen was still a Soviet citizen. Since a lede is supposed to be simple, I think we should try to avoid things that would necessitate an explanation of how conflicts of international law should be resolved. She was Russian-born and she was a writer, that should be enough for the lede and the body of the article clearly states that she then became an American citizen. Idag (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point and as you say its not the most important debate on the article at the moment (thanks for being constructive there by the way)! I think her choice to be American outweighs Soviet Law and she in many ways exemplifies a strand of political and social thought which is American. However its not something I would go to the barricades over. Happy for you to revert it and I will leave it alone and see if anyone else objects? --Snowded TALK 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way its not WP:Synth see here --Snowded TALK 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The secondary sources do it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idag (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

True but its still not synthesis! --Snowded TALK 18:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that is true. Idag (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall

Hi, the IP reverted the article intro to the version of 24th November. . Admittedly a change was made by me after that date but I don't mind further changes to that as long as it is discussed between regular contributors, instead of unexplained, unilateral reverts. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's going back some. I think they made a lot of sense. The current version contains statements like "Kingdom" which has never been the case and is generally messy. Why do you think its preferable? --Snowded TALK 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an article of the Kingdom of Cornwall. I'm no historian (and I don't pretend to be) but from what I've gathered there is no definitive version of Cornish history. The current intro sticks to established style guides for introductions on counties or regions, and tries to summarise the whole article (the very point of intros). It could do with a bit of sentence structure cleanup but if you still feel the intro is inadequate then by all means start a discussion on Talk:Cornwall and we'll get some wider input. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its more a matter of making progressive edits. For example I think you would have been better making changes rather than reverting! There is an article on Kingdom of Cornwall but its very poor and has few if any citations. The only evidence for Kingdom is for the Kingdom of Dumnonia which was not co-terminus with Cornwall and may have referred to parts of Wales. --Snowded TALK 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Multilingual world leaders

As requested Best, --Cameron* 01:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, you learn something new every day (although it is her site!) --Snowded TALK 09:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Yeah, people tend to boast on their personal websites! ;) --Cameron* 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reverted the same edit 3 times on List of schools of philosophy. Please be aware of WP:3RR. Further reversions will be refered to admin and may result in your being blocked from editting. Kjaer (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Very aware of 3RR Kjaer and unlike you I haven't been blocked in the past. Now please be civil and engage in discussion (and please don't tag team with the odd IP that suddenly appeared) --Snowded TALK 17:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You have reverted cited material three times on Ayn Rand regarding William Buckley's catholicism and why it is relevant. The reversions are a violation of WP policy. And the removal of the citations is outright vandalism. Any further reversions will be reported to administration and may result in your being blocked from editing the article. Kjaer (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted once in two moves and then part reverted one item that you reinserted so 2RR at a pinch. I asked you to discuss it on the talk page (giving my reasons for the removal there). Controversial edits should be discussed, inserting them and refusing that discussion is just not on. Kjaer. Please calm down and withdraw the accusation and try and engage with other editors. --Snowded TALK 08:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You tagged text and I supplied some citations to support the text. Those citations do not replace the text, which is accurate and can be supported by further citations. Your reversions due to personal dislike are a violation of 3RR and will be reported to admin and may result in your being blocked if it continues. Kjaer (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and stop issuing threats and attempting to intimidate other editors. --Snowded TALK 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This wrangle is now over and finished. The article has been fully-protected for one week. Please take the time to stop perpetuating the silly edit-warring with warnings, such as some of the above, posted on users' talk pages and discuss the matters under dispute on the talk page of Ayn Rand and other pages, all the time assuming good faith, and striving to reach consensus. I do not expect to see a perpetuation of this dispute by templated warnings about 3rr or other matters whilst the dispute is being discussed.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best way to break the pattern which was creeping in - thanks will aim to work with that as an alternative to simply walking away and giving it up as a lost cause. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nantes, Brittany or not?

Hello Snowded, Before reading my words, excuse me for my bad english: I'm French! ;-)

So, I've just seen you're not agree with my modifications about the "twin cities" section of the Cardiff page. I'm surprised! I'm from Nantes, I leave and work in Nantes everyday! Who are you to write or not what are Nantes inhabitants?

Ok, you're right: my city is the capital of the Région Pays de la Loire. But it's also the most important city of Brittany. I'm sorry Snowded, but Brittany isn't simply an ancient duke. It was a kingdom, it was a duke, and now it's an historic region divided into 2 administrations (or "administrative regions", or “political subdivision”, as you want): 4/5 of my region are in the Région Bretagne and 1/5 (the Loire-Atlantique department) is in the Région Pays-de-la-Loire.

So, Nantes is in an administrative subdivision and in a historic region too.

An other example to talk with you: Biarritz. City of the department of the Pyrénées-Atlantiques, the city of the Région Aquitaine, it depends on no administration identified as Basque. Officially, the Basque country is somewhere else, on the other side of the border, in another State… And nevertheless, who would dare to claim that Biarrots is not Basque? No, we differentiate the history and the culture of the administration. To understand and respect the identical feelings of a population, it is indeed necessary to us to distinguish region of Region. Note the capital letter: Region for administrative subdivision, and region for historic and cultural country.

About the question “Nantes, Brittany or not?”, let me tell you that 10 000 people took the street on September 2008 to demand the administrative reunification of Brittany! (I found this post about it: http://www.agencebretagnepresse.com/fetch.php?id=12288).

So, we have different solutions: 1) We write the administrative region: it’s right but not enough for Nantes inhabitants. 2) We write the historic region: it’s right but you’re not agree with it. 3) You wrote “there can’t be too many images” but why not? Yes we can write the both informations: Brittany and Pays-de-la-Loire Region! 4) We write nothing, just Nantes and France: it’s right too. And no war!

What is the best for you?

Best regard, And happy new year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.215.91 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your English is better than my French so no need to apologise. I have also spent time in Nantes during the World Cup in 2007 and the hospitality was impressive. I am also happy to support the administrative reunification of Brittany, we used to have some of the same problems in Wales but at least UK legislation has legitimised our language and enabled an assembly. All of that aside the Misplaced Pages does not work on what should be, but what is. For that reason I think solution 4 is the most sensible. --Snowded TALK 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BRINT

Greetings Snowded, would appreciate your help in adding references for verifiability, they were added earlier, but another reviewer mentioned there were too many references! Here is a quick question, how to add the following reference, there are too many as I noted earlier, don't want the references to exceed the text of the page though:

Forbes ASAP (April 7, 1997, p. 64) on Intellectual Capital, Tool to Raise Your Company's IQ.

More will be coming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.12.63 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I put the citations into wiki format and simplified the text including the jorunal/magazine change to something that could be supported by the citations. At the moment though I think you might get hit with a AFD as there is little content and its not clear if am institute of this site should have an article. --Snowded TALK 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the notability guidelines. It seems that the coverage of BRINT is consistent with the notability guidelines. Specifically among others, the following notability clause is applicable in this case and establishes notability - compared with many other organizations and institutions specified as 'notable' in Misplaced Pages - in terms of quality and quantity of reviews by third-party prestigious and reputed resources ('major newspapers, academic journals, and academic media' as specified in the notability guidelines): "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.12.63 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be the strongest approach - but don't swamp the article with references that can come out if its challenged. Also if you want to have the tag about "personal involvement" removed then it would make sense to register rather than using an IP, unless you are Malhotra or an employee of BRINT in which case you have a problem. PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS --Snowded TALK 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Quebecois nation motion

Hiya Snowy. I'll have to pull out of the List of national anthems discussion. As a Canadian federalist, seeing Quebec's entry can only be seen as blasphemy. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed that England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are also on that list. Holy smokers, when it rains, it pours. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They had been there for 6 months GoodDay, that was one of the main reasons for the creation of that entire list to find a home for the countries of the UK entries. Ofcourse for those six months there was a see also note to the United Kingdom, which has now also been removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can allow people national identity and still be a Federalist you know GoodDay and the same applies within the UK. . --Snowded TALK 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't allow it. If people wanna leave Canada, let'em. Just leave the provinces & territories be. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

YOU can't allow it? They don't have to leave Canada to have a clear identity. --Snowded TALK 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"....said the Welsh Nationalist"...sorry couldn't resist... ;) Best, --Cameron* 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, can't allow. Quebec seperatists are free to leave Canada, when ever they wish. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Any intelligent nationalist knows that there are many people who identify with the nation but don;t necessarily want independence. Prior to the UKs membership of the EU I would have taken that position. Such an option is not there for Quebec Hence my comment. I realise you couldn't resist, but felt that some clarification in the face of Unionist banter was appropriate  :-) --Snowded TALK 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The European Union has certainly provided a possible future for many countries or regions within sovereign states that may seek independence. Whilst i hope such a thing will not happen it would be rather amusing if the first country to fall victim to this is Belgium, the very home of the European Union. They have even more problems there than we do in the UK or Canada. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Small is beautiful on matters other than foreign policy and finance. Once a population gets much above 5m it gets very difficult to achieve cultural cohesion. Germany would be better as separate states (and was for most of its life), Catalonia is very different from France or Spain. I could go on. --Snowded TALK 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the UK? Like I said to Matt (months ago), the break-up of the United Kingdom, would make things easier on Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well in the UK there is always the option of the EU if there was a breakup. However that is irrelevant. National identity does not necessitate breakup. Posing an extreme either/or as you are is unecessary. People in Quebec to not have to leave Canada in order to have an identity - they did after all support the existence of Canada between 1812 and 1814. What matters for Misplaced Pages is to keep it simple and citable. Your fears/concerns can be respected but do not constitute an argument. --Snowded TALK 18:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I'm having a 'I Don't Like It' momment. Thus my reason for not reverting Fisher's edit (again). I won't compromise on the nationalism topic (thus my lack of usefullness on those articles). GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen too many times the comment "Scottish Nationalist" or "Welsh Nationalist" used in a way that sounds rather insulting. Well, I actually take it as a compliment, because I am a Scottish Nationalist. I sing my national anthem with pride, follow my national football team with pride and am proud to see my national flag flying. This is the reason I am just a little bit upset over, what I believe, is a campaign on wiki to downgrade the importance of these things. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What d'ya know. I've taken a sudden and new found interest in Quwebek (whatever it is), even though it's none of my f**king business, an I know nothing whatsoever about it. Gee, I can't wait to learn. This'll be fun! Shouldn't take too long to find out which pages I can best help on. Could you guys give me a helping hand to start me off? Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, sorry for butting in but I support the Quebecois' wish to secede from Canada. I would like to see a French-speaking nation on the North American continent, especially after Louisiana was sold to the Americans back in 1804. --jeanne (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing? you're being paranoid, Snowy. Jeanne, I've no prob with Quebec seperatist (as they don't use violence) as a people. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why paranoid? I just noticed you strolling around inviting the odd comment .... --Snowded TALK 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Soulscanner could've easily agreed with having Quebec in the National Anthem list. I had no-way of knowing his approach. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal union

I have yet to see a source stating that personal unions no longer exist. They exist less often for sure...due to new forms of government but I believe they haven't been abolished! :) There are pages of discussion on the matter here. Besides the wording is careful not to state that a personal union exists. --Cameron* 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, feel free to start up a new discussion. But I believe this ought to be discussed before being changed. Best, --Cameron* 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

UK Countries

England, Scotaland, and Wales are not sovereign countries, which is what the first list is intended for. Anyways, I was just suggesting an alternative classification scheme. --soulscanner (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And no one claims they are, and they are not in that section. However calling them regions is plain wrong. Hopefully you are happy with the changes. --Snowded TALK 10:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Good Luck

Thanks... looks like I'll need it. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you made a mistake with that quote

Check out this change you just made. It looks like you made a mistake. The quote is now there twice. Please check it and undo. diff. ----Action potential 10:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

If you email me from my user page, that will give me your email, and I will then send you the papers on the assumption that Heap agrees. I will also try to get a copy of Newbrook's paper in the same issue which addresses the linguistics side of NLP mostly ignored in all the academic literature. Peter Damian (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing posts or section titles on article talk pages.

Snowded, I see what you have done with the Talk page reorganization and it is a better arrangement than the one that grew up haphazardly, but it would be best to make a post to the effected parties user talk pages and ask permission before moving their posts around or changing the titles they gave a section they started. Thanks, --Steve (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, although being bold on this is normal practice, they can always revert! --Snowded TALK 09:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but why take an action that invites a revert if we are trying to eliminate an edit war? --Steve (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed obvious to me, I didn't imagine a reversion as I was not altering the meaning in any way. Its not an edit war if someone reverts a format change. Looking at it I think that Kjaer thought I was rejecting Machen and responded accordingly but I could be wrong. --Snowded TALK 10:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer asked me to do something about this on my talk page. WP:REFACTORing is allowed, but it might have been better, given the charged nature of that page, to inform people clearly about what was being done. Of course, it goes without saying that any refactoring should not distort any editor's messages. Better to post a message about refactoring first in future.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You can see the conversation above. I think part of the problem maybe that Kjaer thought I was opposed to the inclusion of a "notable name" and was somehow changing the headings to support that position. In actual fact on that name I was supporting his position. Refactoring is a normal part of structuring a discussion but now I know his sensitivities I'll avoid it.

Pnawnd da

Hello Snowded.

I am new to Misplaced Pages and saw your profile links on the right hand side of your page. Could you tell me please how to add them to mine?

Diolch yn fawr iawn

Richard

Richardeast (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

.... Sorry - I have just worked out how to do it (if it is ok, I have borrowed some of your panels). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have borrowed them from other people over the ages so I can hardly complain

Welcome to WIkipedia --Snowded TALK 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Snowded, I was reviewing comments on the Ayn Rand talk page, and I was curious who you think the most influential philosopher is of our times? Are you willing to give a top 3 or top 5? I suppose the criteria of what is meant by "our times" is important. I consider Rand more modern, if you will (post-modern?), while Marx and others seem to me to be from a different era. But perhaps that's just my bias. Rand's ideas were promulgated after WWII though, so how about using that as a cut-off? Is that fair? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)I

Its an interesting question although I am not sure how valid! For example you can look at the influence of Hegel on many thinkers of modern times and he had an influence on Marx who is less of a philosopher. In philosophy schools develop in the main around several people with some divergence. Existentialism for example is often better portrayed in literature (compare "Roads to Freedom" with "Being and Nothingness"; but although Sartre is there he does not define the movement. DItto in ancient times; there were many Stoics. After WWII you can look at Rawls, Hare, Blackburn and many others all of whom have contributed to the field. Rand is (in my opinion) a novelist with poorly thought our philosophical ideas who created a cult. Philosophers rarely do that. Marxism (assuming Marx was a philosopher) was propagated by Lenin/Stalin in the context of Russia, but by Liberation Theologians in the 70's & 80's in Latin American. You also have to have influence outside of a particular culture. Rand is a US phenomena, and a minority one at that. The citation support comes from the height of free market capitalism and Greenspan's acknowledgement of the failure of that ideology is significant. --Snowded TALK 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at ]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)