Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 13 May 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
• Archive to 03 March 09
• notes and working

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I only wish to use ROI in text, because that linking article continues to be Republic of Ireland. If it gets moved to (for example) Ireland (state)? then I'd prefer using Ireland (state) in text. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry reference was to mooretwin not you! --Snowded (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious Snowded. What's your take on the reason for some editors not agreeing to Ireland(State) Ireland(Island) with Ireland as the disambiguation page? No matter how much I think about it, I just don't get it (maybe it's just me). Jack forbes (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Motivations are difficult to assess but I think there are four (i) editors unaware of Irish History who just see ROI as an easy option (ii) editors wanting to perpetuate sectarian language who wish the GFA had not happened (iii) Editors who are paranoid about nationalists and (iv) innocents. --Snowded (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The first three I can see being a reason for their stance. The fourth one? I've yet to see any innocents on that article talk page. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but 'assuming good faith', its a possible (generous) explanation for some rather odd statements. :) RashersTierney (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free Rashers, but I am not sure what you are saying! --Snowded (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Only that there are probably editors that don't fall into the first three categories and honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Genuine Innocents! Maybe! RashersTierney (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that, although some would come into category 1, My good faith levels are pretty low with (ii) and (iii) however --Snowded (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. Seriously. RashersTierney (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Mind you compared with Ayn Rand the Irish naming controversy is a edwardian tea party --Snowded (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand! Jeezz... now I need a hug.:) RashersTierney (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche

(sorry my bad English)

Hi. Why did you revert my edition on this article? Could not be so important thing, but very biographies in Misplaced Pages contain sections about how popular culture featured these peoples. Examples: Oscar Wild#Biographical films, television series and stage plays, Albert Einstein#Effect on popular culture, Mozart in fiction.There are many films and references about Nietzsche in popular culture and I don´t know what we culdn´t write about this. Well, it is my opinion. A hug from southern. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You should really take this to the talk page. I think there is a space for a section, but one canadian film is not notable. Why not put together a section on the talk page and get buy in from other editors? --Snowded (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Allright. Thanks for attention. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Like... this film, Saint Ralph, explores Nietzsche´s ideas (such as God is Dead and Übermensch), so I think this very important. I know other film that portrait Nietzsche in person. The idea was creat the section "In popular culture" for more people add information about this. Anyway, I took this to the talk page. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Im puzzled! What do you think is Controversial? Wgh001 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing "civil war" and the later NATO removal (someone else reversed that) was also unexplained --Snowded (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Free Entrprise

Why? There are only two pages for Free Enterprise: Capitalism or Free Enterprise (film). It will take one page to reach Capitalism, and another to reach Free Enterprise (film). That's two pages maximum. With a disambiguation page, it is two pages for either article. By the looks of it, most of the incoming links to Free enterprise refer to Capitalism, so we don't need to have one unnecessary page. If there were three or more possible pages for the term, then a disambiguation page would help; but not in this case. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just get this nasty feeling that we could end up with lots of such comments on the top of what is a political page. I don't feel that strongly about it though --Snowded (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I undid your edit. If there is another article that uses "Free enterprise" in its name, then feel free to create a disambiguation page. Gary King (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Sorry. I added another option which might have messed up your vote. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary at Flag of Ireland

When I seen British english is used in this article in the edit summary I got worried for a minute. I know their isn't much difference between British and Hiberno-English but can you consider using Hiberno-English is used in this article or even WP:ENGVAR is used in this article which covers all situations Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm Ok with that although I can't get worked up about it. They (the English) did create the language, even if the welsh, irish and scots have made better use of it :-) --Snowded (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland Act and description of the state

Hi Snowded

I was puzzled to see that you chosen to declare an abstention on Proposition 4 of my statement, about the Republic of Ireland Act.

Obviously, it's your right to take whatever view you choose, but I found this one puzzling. The proposition is not about whether any of us approves or disapproves of that Act, merely that it defines the official description of the state.

Could you perhaps use the statement's talk page to explain why you take that view? Have I misquoted the 1948 Act, or do you believe that some other piece of law has repealed it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated over that one to be honest (and I thought you did a great job with the multiple propositions). My reason was the elapse of time and the GFA, of you had said that the 1948 Act described the state as a republic or similar I would have agreed. Not Ireland, unlike Britain has a constitution so the evolutionary nature of law etc is different. However in this case I felt that time, the use of names as political labels didn't permit a yes. I also remain convinced that for some editors the GFA either didn't happen or they are trying to pretend it was a temporary aberration before we return to sectarianism. My reading of the process was that commentary would have to be a statement but happy to state the above! --Snowded (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, do u think you could tell me please why you support this statement - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 ?. Perhaps i and some others are reading it wrong or something but i cant understand how anyone can agree with it. Theres an island called Ireland, a country called Ireland and yet hes saying the word Ireland is not ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with several of the statements (and this is one) is that they contain a lot so determining truth or otherwise is difficult and to some extent you have to go with the overall thrust. Here I think the point is that Ireland can be used without any real ambiguity if care is given to the contextual phrasing. --Snowded (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh i see thanks, agreed it does depend on context and wording used in the articles, although it seems like that statement is arguing theres only one meaing to Ireland and there for no ambiguty when it comes to the article titles. Anyway i can now see why some people agreed with it which puzzled me before. Thanks :) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I split things out into a series of simple one-item-at-a-time propositions, and I'm glad you liked the idea.

But the Good Friday Agreement didn't repeal the 1948 Act, which remains on the statute book, unamended. The GFA did lead to constitutional amendments, but those did not address the name of the state.

You're right that law evolves differently where there is a written constitution, but that doesn't mean that an Act of the Oireachtas can somehow ceases to be law without being repealed or amended. I can see nothing in any part of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 which even mentions either the 1948 Act or the name or description of the state. So I don't understand how you think that the 1948 Act does not still apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Act of the Oireachtas still applies. However the constitution does not (I think) reinforce it which you might have expected and also history has moved on. Also the way this act has been used in the debate so far has at times been toxic. An adjacent sentence on the agreement between the governments of Britain and Ireland on naming conventions would have meant I would have said yes as then the complete picture would have made been presented. Actually the addition of a well worded statement on language change agreements following the use of 1948 language for unintended purposes during the Troubles, would mean I I would be happy to agree.

I do think your list demonstrates the need to someone with knowledge of the history to provide the structure for resolution. Its difficult to see conventional dispute resolution techniques working. You might remember I left a message on your talk page suggesting that you might consider taking this on some months ago! --Snowded (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge

Can you please explain why you are reversing my edits? The section has a formatting error (phantom bullet point), there appears to be a disconnect between the two parts (separated by the bullet points) under 'Defining Knowledge' and the latter part of that section contained some unconnected quotes and references. Bang ton (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the phantom bullet and I agree that the whole article needs improvement. However inserting a heading for a couple of paragraphs does not make sense. Also the text changes you made meant that citation support was lost. You appear to be a new editor which is why I put up the welcome note. I suggest you propose changes to the section on the talk page and get agreement. You will find people very willing to support you --Snowded (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

realm descriptions etc

Opened a new discussion at Talk: United Kingdom. You might want to help decide the point. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) --Snowded (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.
• Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem. I rolled-back on the edit-summary alone, when I took a closer look I couldn't see what change they;d actually made to your talk page but I figured it was worth a rollback to remove that nonsense from people's watchlists. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a troll was it? ;) Tumblin Tom (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cardiff

Good afternoon Snowded. You might be interested in joining Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cardiff that I have just created. Its main aim to improve Cardiff-related articles, but you can see its other goals on the project's homepage. If you are interested in joining, please add your name to the project page and {{User Cardiff project}} to your user page. There are already requested tasks to be done but also feel free to add your own to-do points to it. I look forward to working with you. Many thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining. I'd like you to be a co-ordinator on the project. See the project page for details on what this entails. As there are few other members yet, you'd be appointed without consensus. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK have self-nominated --Snowded (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

HighKing

User:HighKing refuses to engage in correspondence with me and removes my (admittedly confrontational) messages on his talk page, ostensibly because I am not a registered user and apparently this warrants treatment beneath contempt. Would you mind speaking to him on my behalf and asking him why he insists on behaving in this manner? --89.242.111.56 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

People are entitled to delete whatever they want from their own talk pages. The IP address you used here has only two edits neither of which are on HighKing's page so its impossible to tell what you are talking about (except by guess work). If I have guessed correctly then your remark was deleted for its incivility which (reading it) seems a reasonable thing to do. --Snowded (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it was incivil? He had already removed a previous message, which, judging by the edit summary, was on the basis I was not registered, so I think I am perfectly entitled to confront him about it. Anyway the principle I am trying to bring up is that if someone refuses to engage in dialogue then it is impossible to avert the escalation of edit wars. He may be entitled to remove what he wants from his own talk page, but that's the equivalent of burning letters that come through your front door. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It a lot easier to relate to people when they have an identity. If they choose to use an IP address then at least use one or you never know who you are dealing with, can't check for 3RR etc. I would strongly recommend that if you want people to engage with you then you should use a less aggressive tone that you did on HighKing's page --Snowded (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll post once more on his talk page (where I shall be all sweetness and light), and if he deletes my question a third time, I will expect you to help me. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its an improvement but its highKing's choice what he does on his talk page. As to your edit, you are entering a controversial area. That paragraph has been much debated and you should make a proposal for change on the talk page otherwise expect most editors to revert you. This history if IP addresses and sockpuppets is not good, and your using different IP addresses will trigger suspicion. You should also be aware that there is a Arbcom mediated attempt to resolve issues over Irish naming and there is at least a tacit agreement to leave things until that is resolved. --Snowded (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not playing any of the partisan games over that article like HighKing is, I'm just another Misplaced Pages editor who happened across the article and attempted to improve it. There was nothing controversial about my edit; go and look at it again. I really couldn't care less about HighKing's quest to defend Irish sovereignty; I just take umbrage at an innocuous edit being reverted with no explanation. That's all.

Well if HighKing continues to be stubborn, and you refuse to help, I shall just make my edit once more. If I am reverted again, then I bear no responsibility for any edit war that may ensue, as I have already attempted to open a dialogue. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You've had an explanation and I will revert if you make the edit without first gaining agreement on the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Every edit requires discussion? That's ridiculous. --89.242.111.56 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No only controversial ones. Now please stop this, I've done my best to explain things to you but from the above comment you are not reading or thinking about what I am saying. I therefore conclude that I am wasting my time. Goodbye --Snowded (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus??

May I point out that there is no consensus on the BI article, as the word is understood in normal usage. There is a majority imposed POV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but that does happen sometimes. Also I think the best approach on this page is to treat it as geographical. More important is to achieve the renaming on Ireland. --Snowded (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've replaced the word "many" as there wasn't a consensus to remove it. I've checked the Talk page - if I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate consensus-reaching discussion. Not picking on you in particular or anything, but you've been involved in reverting to remove the word "many" so perhaps you can quickly put me right if I'm missing anything. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed recently HighKing, if I have time I will look it up, that aside if you want to change it explain why on the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out on the last edit and the consensus appears to have been reached here, although judging by the subsequent discussions, many people object....  :-) --HighKing (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied

Talk Wales

Hi Snowded. You have probably observed my thread on the Wales talk page talking about the meaning of the name Welsh. Trust me, I thought long and hard before I even brought the subject up over whether the Anglo-Saxons used the word to mean slave. I would be keen on your opinion on the subject and would not be offended if you told me I was talking nonsense. Jack forbes (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Accidentally used rollback while clicking back to my watchlist after some vandalism work. Sorry bout that. :) Cirt (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) There but by the brace of God .....

Arbcom new comments

User:TallNapoleon has opened a new discussion on misconduct on the Ayn Rand talkpage. Here is a link. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's IP Editor

As far as I can see, the IP editor who has put in a huge amount of work on the Rand article over the last few days is also the primary author of Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism, which is about 80% a personal essay. The editor clearly has a staggering amount of knowledge about all this stuff, and all kinds of cites at his/her fingertips. Right now, he/she is proceeding as if there were no Wiki policies or other editors. I think we need to get his/her attention somehow, but I can't characterize the work being done as disruptive. Just kind of solipsistic, I guess.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That same editor did a great deal of POV pushing back in December. I'm not going to go through his edits since I can't edit the main space, but he definitely bears watching. Idag (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the pattern seems to be that he does lots of useful edits (references) then sneaks in a POV and waits to see. --Snowded (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed he/she has now adopted the "see also" language instead of the "for a rigorous defense" so he/she is paying attention.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Tongwynlais

Hi, I notice that you patrol the Tongwynlais page. I live near there and I kind of disagree with the temperatures that have just been added to the article also the last few edit by the same IP regarding schools and forests ect! Sorry to bother you. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the IP lives there too and is a user who was previously banned for insertion of un-referenced material there and on Cardiff and elsewhere - if you look through the talk history you will see it. --Snowded (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Randism vs Objectivism

Yo, pertaining to the comments you made on the distinction between Rand's philosophy and Objectivism, I wanted to ask what you thought about the merger of {{Objectivism}} (see here) and {{Ayn Rand}} that happened a while back. Skomorokh 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have it under watch, but have just added a comment agreeing with you. I think the separation is important, hence my suggestion of finding a way to rename Objectivism. The various disputes around here have meant I have had to read more in an area (which I would have preferred to avoid), but if nothing else has come from that its been increasingly obvious to me that Rand is an author who inspired something, but did not create it as a coherent system of thought, others are engaged in that work. --Snowded (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the swift response. Skomorokh 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Collective (Ayn Rand) Nominated for Deletion

Discussion here.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Suggestion

Hello Snowded. Public rebukes on talk pages (like you have done a couple of times recently to Wiki-Ed at B.E.) can be counterproductive. I humbly suggest that you either let sleeping dogs lie, if noone has taken the bait, failing that a quiet word on the user's talk page would get your point across without risking a round of snipe and countersnipe on the article talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A public rebuke may actually have prevented a public reply, better I do it than someone more extreme and in the case concerned its a regular pattern. Its not helpful, maybe the suggestion would be better coming from you? --Snowded (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

{{Article issues}} is an umbrella template. Editors need to specify what are the issues the article has in order to be fixed. Moreover, if the problems can be issued by WP:BOLD or by discussion in the talk page is no need to add a cleanup template in the article's page. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk page shows the history of the issues, a major POV table and generally poorly written with partial representation of the field. At the moment the original creators of the page (I think it was a university project) show no interest in improving it and it has little or no interest. Until someone works on it then a tag is more than legitimate. If you want to to suggest a different one fine - otherwise I will reinstate. --Snowded (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So we have to add the POV and copyedit parameters. Am I right? -- Magioladitis (talk)

Probably attention of an expert as well, it could be an important article if someone would come along! --Snowded (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think we have it now. Please free to adjust it they way you think it suits better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate the help I hadn't realised how to use that template. --Snowded (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Ahhhhh, I've been deleted. Anyways, the bickering on that article, does tend to be entertaining (for its political mud slinging). GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It will be good for you --Snowded (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher

In light of your revert on Margaret Thatcher, I have made an amendment to my original version so that the article now both maintains its original content, and introduces the subject as being a living person. When anything begins with "was", it is not the case. Compare the following former heads of state and government from their intros:
John Major, Tony Blair, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Paul Martin, Ayad Allawi, Janez Janša, Željko Šturanović, Ion Iliescu, Guy Verhofstadt, Yves Leterme, Wim Kok, Yawovi Agboyibo, Eduardo Rodríguez, Carlos Mesa, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, Said Musa, Konstantinos Stephanopoulos, Paul Bérenger, Seydou Diarra and Paavo Lipponen. These are living people and so their introduction is invariably "...is", even if only to say that the subject is a "former" or "retired" statesperson. Whilst this practice stretches far beyond international politics, you may care to examine the following presentations in this list of deceased leaders:
John Compton, Saddam Hussein, Levy Mwanawasa, Canaan Banana, Zoran Đinđić, Thomas Klestil, Zurab Zhvania, Rafik Hariri, Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Laurent-Désiré Kabila and Taufa'ahau Tupou IV. To which category does Thatcher belong? Atleast for the time being? I am following a code of practice here so I'd appreciate it if you accepted the article on Thatcher as it now stands. Many thanks. Evlekis (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked it an hour ago and was happy, sorry should have left a note on your page to say so. Thanks for the examples above, I look forward to the page being amended to reflect your second example of deceased leaders at some stage in the future :-) --Snowded (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the hen wrach has dementia. She probably has numerous other medical problems. I hope she lives for many more years, perhaps well into her hundreds. She has already outlived contemporaries, whose politics she so admired (and probably would have emulated, given the chance), such as Pinochet. Wouldn't want to wish her into an early grave, now would we? Daicaregos (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, while she is alive criticism is easier and we are saved the lobby group wanting to build an statue of her in Grantham to rival the planned horse in Kent --Snowded (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bizarrely, there's already an effigy of the hateful woman in the Senedd. Did we ever discover who's bright idea that was? Daicaregos (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same people (or their descendants) who supported the "coronation" of Charles, every society has its class-traitors! --Snowded (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But George Thomas is dead and had no children (quelle surprise), Garel-Jones doesn't care enough about Wales to actually live here, and Kinnock's only allowed back if he keeps his anti-Wales mouth shut (I hope). All the others left Wales after Thatcher put them out of work, didn't they? Daicaregos (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably no, the petite bourgeoisie are always suckers for the Windsors and working class Tories are the worst. That said I would be interested to find out who allowed the effigy (unless it has a Guy Fawkes function) to be placed there. I do some work for WAG from time to time, I will ask around --Snowded (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your diplomacy, and glad you like the revision. If we chatted in real life, I'd tell you what I too honestly think about her!! But I'm worried that if we continue to exert our feelings out in the open as we've so far done (I did too in my original revert summary), we might all get the bullet for inciting negative sentiment! But if it's jokes you want, I recommend Sickipedia; it's the last place in the world that we can all share gags and nasty remarks about people in such a way that PC now forbids (atleast in the UK where I'm assuming the two of you live). Evlekis (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think both of us would see ourselves as Welsh, rather than UK. As such we saw the impact of Thatcher on the community --Snowded (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the Thatcher legacy is likely to live longer than the carcass. Daicaregos (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, I see. I must admit I hadn't previously looked at your user pages. Now I detect the Welsh connection :-) ! Not truely UK here either; Wiltshire born and bred but to parents from Balkans (former Yugoslavia). Yes we all have our little issues with each of the heads of government, and I can certainly see why as proud Welsh citizens, you both feel bitter towards Maggie. Let's just all wish for a brighter tomorrow rather than reflecting on a gloomy past, for Wales and for the world! Cheers!! Evlekis (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor old Maggie, I'm sure she was just misunderstood. Poll tax (tried out in Scotland first, it makes us so proud), pit closures, high unemployment, letting us all know there is no such thing as society, selling off council houses by the thousands. Poor old Maggie. Jack forbes (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anwyl of Tywyn Family

Hello Snowded, its been a long time since we spoke! lol. Ive been away largely. Anywhose, I have questions regarding some deletions on the Anwyl of Tywyn Family page. The original author of this content is James Frankcom, who has done much research on the topic. He cites that the Anwyl family trace their decent from Owain Gwynedd, and gives the history as provided by Burkes peerage. Well, that does not seem original research to me per se. Nor does the claim that they may be the leading contenders to the throne as Prince of Wales and of Gwynedd, as the court case in which Sir John Wynn, then a represenitive of the Aberffraw claim, demonstrates that "had Welsh law" been in effect and static, that John Wynn would have been Prince of Wales. So, by logical extrapolation, so too would the Anwyl claim. Or do you have a different point of view? I know that James doesnt always list in text citations like he should, something Ive recommend he do. But Burkes Peerage is almost beyond reproch in terms of genelogy. What are your thoughts?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing which concerned me was the insertion of links to Royal Family of Wales which is a nonsense and several reverences to the current survivor of this supposed link. If Welsh Law had been in effect and static then all sorts of things might have happened. However it wasn't and at no stage during the history of Aberffraw was there an uninterrupted succession. Priority did not go to the eldest, but the one who defeated his brothers. The Anwyl claim is original research, its OK on the page itself but to insert it elsewhere is simply a nonsense. Having discovered that I found the other changes to the Wynn family. Normally I would have missed those. My suggestion to the editor is that he creates a central area for discussion if he wants to take it forward. --Snowded (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Snowded. I have written to James Frankcom asking he discuss the concerns of the articles. I make attempts to "clean up" the reference and citation of Mr. Frankcom's contributions as best I can. I know that he has been researching the subject for 10 or more years and has a great deal to share. I have contacted historian Gerald Morgan about the articles. Mr. Morgan is contacting Mr. J. Beverly Smith for input as well. Mr. Miles Wynn Cato, (who's mother is an Anwyl of Parc), of the Nanney-Wynn family has contacted me. He has shared a photo of their family crest from 1861 (it matches the depicted crest attributed to Owain Gwynedd) and has an extensive family genealogy to contribute. The Anwyl family genealogy seems well documented; what it means to present day Wales, and where it will or could lead is not clear. Where should this be discussed as you suggest? Keep it on one article talk page, or do you mean a new project? ~Geaugagrrl 22:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article on the Anwyl family is concerned the issue will be the degree to which the material is published in reliable sources. This may mean that James Frankcom has to get some of his material published before it can be used. The issue for me is the implications for modern day Wales which brought me to the Anwyl article in the first place. I can't see any other than as a minor curiosity on a biographical article. Its insertion on Wales or Kingdom of Gwyneth is (as I said to Drachenfyre above) in my opinion inappropriate. As to discussion I think its easy, pick one of the Wynns and have the discussion on their origins there before editing all the articles, on any modern day implications have it on the talk page of one of the articles (if that is to be advocated); in both cases notify other editors on Project:Wales. --Snowded (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded again! Anywhose, according to historican John Davies, the succession law in use in mideival Gwynedd and the Aberffraw family was patently primogeniture by convention, as the eldest surviving son inherited before any junior son. Especially following the Aberffraw restoration with Gruffydd ap Cynan who recovered Gwynedd for the Aberffraw family and Welsh from the Norman Earl of Chester by 1098. Davis argues that the biography on Gryuffydd ap Cynan explicitly cites primogeniture as the source of their claim as the primary Princes of Wales. Only twice between 1098 and the Edwardian Conquest of 1182 was conventional Welsh law superseeded, and that was with the Gwynedd Interregnum 1170-1200 (dynastic civil war) and when Llywelyn II had his older brother Owain imprisioned and thus denying his claim as Prince of Wales and of Gwynedd. Owain sold his claim to Prince of Wales/Gwynedd to his younger brother Dafydd if Dafydd would free him from captivity.

Anywhose, as to the issue at hand, the Anwyl of Tywyn claim would have a bearing on other topics as well and be of great interest. The House of Aberffraw page for one, as well as History of Plaid Cymru page which speaks on restoring a Welsh monarchy with Welsh roots. But in the end I do agree the information needs to be clearly cited and sourced.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Primogeniture really emerges in Wales with the Normans although there are precedents before. The two breaks in that are significant, and the history contains many claims from younger and bastard sons across the whole of Wales. The primacy of Aberffraw was also under dispute at times. If there is a cited claim fro Anwyl then I agree it may deserve a sentence but not more on the Aberffraw page. You have a romantic attachment to the idea of Welsh Royal Family, I am afraid I don;t --Snowded (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Snowded! Well, actually John Davies says that primogeniture was appearent in Wales as early as the 9th century, and was following simular succession laws as was appearent elsewhere in Europe such as Anglo-Saxon England and France. When one looks at the succession of the rulers of Gwynedd it is clear it is a succession by primogeniture in almost ever case. Welsh law as codified by Hywel the Good only stipulated that the rulers title passed to the Edling as the primary heir. Once Rhodri the Great had passed away his Edling and heir was his oldest son, though junior sons did not wish to observe this. The claims of junior sons are largely claims for a portion of their father's inheritance, which by law they are intitled to. But they were not entitled to the kingship nor to the majority of the father's lands. Sometimes a junior son was able to assert his own power above the law... as Llywelyn the Last did over his brother Owen... but as result became unpopular as a result. Llywelyn the Last did have to contend with the legality of his position following Owen's imprisionment.

You know I have great repsect for you, but weather or not you or I, or any others... have a romantic attachment to the idea of a Welsh royal family is beside the point my friend. We should follow due dilligence and be sure that what goes in wiki is verified and sourced appropriatly. But we should also not just throw out the baby with the bathwater either and give a chance for those sections to be qualified with an in text citation.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual respect and I agree the position on eldest sons precedes the Normans but I am not sure it is primogeniture in the sense we use the word these days. The tendency of younger sons to contest, and their rights to and consequent dilution of lands was one of the issues that weakened Welsh Princes against the anglo-Normans and was at least a part of the disputes between Llywelyn the last and the other Welsh Princes. Feudal obligation, or the absence of was another fact (all of that is Davies as well by the way). Net result its not a simple situation. Agree on verified and sources, but it also needs to be notable and pass WP:Weight. I don't think the idea of Welsh Royal family is anything other than a curiosity and while it might attract the odd sentence, no more than that is justified. --Snowded (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

NLP edits to 1970s section

Overall there is not much change. I'm trying to clarify the facts and correct some minor errors. Please hold off reverts for a while. I want to reinsert the edits one paragraph at a time then we can see exactly what I changed. ----Action potential 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've rearranged the paragraph so it is clear what has changed. This will make it easier to discuss even if you do revert it. Please let me know what changes you most disagree with so I can make the necessary adjustments. ----Action potential 07:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You have just made one massive set of changes again so its difficult to sort. I will leave it for an our to see if it improves, if not I am going to revert and summarise what I think are acceptable changes on the talk page. It really would be a lot easier if you would start there. --Snowded (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll revert my changes. I've made a list here of the changes and diffs which I can post to the talk page. ----Action potential 08:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (much more civilised than the Ayn Rand pages). I will go through them later today --Snowded (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. There is a disturbing positive correlation between my wikipedia edits and pending assignments. ----Action potential 09:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Snowded, hope you're doing well! Just a quick note to apologize for my extended absence but I've been busy half-a-world away. That said, we have actually been in touch (you may not have known it) as we're both on the KMGOV discussion group and I recently sent you a LinkedIn invite; that said, I prefer to keep my identity relatively unknown to most folks here at Misplaced Pages, I find it easier to keep work and academia separate from cyber-endeavors. More later when I'm back in the more modern world; cheers! Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I know (and understood). Will be in DC towards the end of the month if you want a drink ... --Snowded (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I'll still be an academic trying to help out in a war-torn region of the world (where some of your fellow countrymen are as well, alongside others from NATO, etc.) for another few months, but next time you're in DC and I'm back there too, definitely... we should catch-up; unfortunately I must now renew my Misplaced Pages-absence; best regards Harvey the rabbit (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm over on a related field - small group command and also cultural auditing/preparation for PKO. Let me know when you are next back and good luck! --Snowded (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Anwyl of Tywyn

Hi Snowded, I have replied to the question you have raised in the Project:Wales section. Best regards, James Frankcom (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I have responded there --Snowded (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

Hi Snowded. I have just been involved in a discussion at Talk:Macedonia where it has been changed from Republic of Macedonia. Although not exactly the same I do see parallels to the Ireland naming dispute. I've been wondering if the final decision on that matter will have an effect on the Ireland dispute. The admin who changed it actually wrote the policy on the naming convention, so interesting times may be ahead if the name sticks. Jack forbes (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Snowded, you have obviously got no opinion on it. I obviously wasted my time bringing your attention to it. Sorry! Jack forbes (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I' looking Jack, but I have been working 14 hour days and my two engagements with Arbcom have left me pretty disillusioned. It is similar to Ireland and it creates an interesting precedent. The problem is that Arbcom refuse to intervene on anything to do with content or proposal, they just want to confine themselves to behavour refusing to address underlying issues of policy. --Snowded (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at my post from last night I see now it sounds quite petulant and apologise if it comes across that way. Your right concerning Arbcom not interfering in content issues but if the name does remain it could be an example that could be brought to the Ireland discussion. Jack forbes (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Catterick

I see Catterick has "retired"; can a user retire in order to beat a 3RR block? I presume it will be waiting for him should he ever surface again? Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling he will be back. From the name and the prominent display of St George's Cross one wonders one wonders about the politics and an army connection. Seemed informaed on some issues, but just lost it this morning. --Snowded (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the name Catterick, I too had wondered if perhaps he had a military background. He let rip at a lot of us editors, not just you and Sarah, but GoodDay and myself; and for no particular reason save that GoodDay and I did not agree with him that Louis VIII should be listed as an English monarch! Oh well....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And I thought my opinion of Rand couldn't get lower.

Just goes to show you, never say never. *shudder* TallNapoleon (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless "a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer" is a reasonable expression of self interest which leads to a moral postiion? --Snowded (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And a heroic soul to boot. So much better than being, you know, average. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why can literally hundreds of women get slaughtered in northern Mexico without a gigantic outcry? Charles Manson was a hero of a generation, among them your president' s "best ex-terrorist friends". Colin Wilson' s books on murderers are full of this stuff (Wilson himself existentialist), the more interesting cases really seem to be Nietzsches Übermensch misconstructed and released--Radh (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism

Hiya, Just wondering why you reverted my edit on the groupings in the protestantism article. If you look at Christianity#Denominations, that is where I took the statement from, and as it is sourced and has been in the article for a long period (in what is generally a highly contentious article), I thought that would be OK. I realise I didn't put the sources in when I made the edit, so I'm doing that now. Please discuss if there is a good reason you think it is incorrect (and if so it should probably also be discussed on the christianity talkpage as well). Quantpole (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not a major denomination, it appears to be a collective name for a series of Protestant sects.--Snowded (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so now you've reverted edits and they are different on the two different pages (anglicanism features on protestantism, whereas it's oriental orthodoxy instead on christianity). At the moment you seem to be operating under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why you are removing the reference, which has been stable on the christianity page for a long time (almost a miracle for that article) and then insisting I start a discussion about it is a bit surprising. Hey ho, that's your choice, I've started the discussion. In the meantime, I am reverting to sourced material that has been removed in favour of unsourced. Quantpole (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You tagged my talkpage by mistake. I have removed it now. (Feel free to remove this note.) -- Quiddity (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Messing an article up

Why are you adding fact tags to cited content ? And why are you calling something that people believe hypothetical? Are you going to change the Christianity article to say that it's a hypothetical belief? And why are you removing cited content? I look forward to your explanation. Right now you are coordinating with a stalker and vandal. Some people believe you can learn a lot about a person by the company they keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if other editors are stalkers or vandals. However you are failing to recognise that exopolitics can be used as a hypothesis without having to believe that aliens exist. You initiated the change, you should make your case on the talk page if it is reverted. You have made this change three times now without any engagement on the talk page. As I said in my last edit summary, you should take your ideas here. --Snowded (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Not wanting to delay the bot archiving with off topic discussion, but your comments about systemic issues do make a lot of sense. Durova 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Arbitrator_views

I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request here. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request here. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request here. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)