Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 7 April 2013

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 Mar 09
• Archive to 18 Oct 09
• User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 16
• User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 23 latest

• notes and working

Articles for deletion

Hello again, I noticed in your contribution history that you don't spend a great deal of time starting or contributing to Articles for deletion discussions. That's probably a good thing, but you do need to know that there are some procedures that need to be followed when opening such discussions. There is a 3-step process at WP:AFD, but I readily admit it can be confusing to someone who doesn't open many AfD discussions. Since your contribution history indicates you have Twinkle enabled on your account, the easiest way to ensure AfD nominations are properly completed is to use Twinkle to create them. That way, all you need to do is type up your rationale and the script takes care of the formatting and technical aspects for you (you should always follow the steps at WP:BEFORE whether you use Twinkle or open AfDs manually).

I have correctly re-nominated Meta-epistemology at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Meta-epistemology (2nd nomination), properly formatted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Metametaphysics, and added both to the 21 March AfD log. If you have any questions please let me know. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri 04:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate you doing that. Its a process I am familiar with but I now know what to do! ----Snowded 16:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Easter Rising

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

• News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee

• WikiProject report: Making music

• Interview: Meeting in the middle: Misplaced Pages and libraries

• Featured content: Misplaced Pages stays warm

• Arbitration report: Richard case closes

• Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Would I be allowed to 'vote' in Rob's poll? GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but avoid the sort of comments you have made in the past - OK? ----Snowded 05:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There won't be any comments, just my name appearing in the poll itself. GoodDay (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That is precisely the sort of behaviour you should avoid. You need to explain any comments you make, and not simply "!vote". This has already been explained to you many, many times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it alright to explain to Rob, why I voted the way I did? His questionaire was incomplete. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

But comments like this don't explain why you think the way you do. Just saying that you're for something or against something, without giving a good reason, is precisely the sort of behaviour that gets you into trouble. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My reason was, the Kingdom of Great Britain & the Kingdom of Ireland wer single entities, when the merged into the UK in 1801. But, it's irrelevant now. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, has to be a reason, that is argued within Misplaced Pages rules. Most people are standing off that vote as well which you might want to think about - and I should have said that to you before so apologies----Snowded 12:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I scratched them all out, including the comments. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, but you need to work on ways to contibute on UK articles. Why not experiment below and I will crit as I think Ghmyrtle will. The idea of all this is for you to learn how, not to stop ----Snowded 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I backed out 'cause when I feel a little pressure (like from Ghmyrtle), my instinct is to step-back. In the past, I tended to go into battle mode. It'll take time, but eventually I'll iron out my talkpage conduct. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that's not a critic of Ghmyrtle. He's been very patient with me. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

• WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh

• Featured content: One and a half soursops

• Arbitration report: Two open cases

• News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews

• Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?

• Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits to philosophy/cogsci-related articles

Your attention and reverts of destructive edits are welcome. I have done some minor reverts, too (upon e.g. removal of Conceptual metaphor from Category:Cognitive science, removal of references to philosophy from Cognition). 㓟 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

John George Bowes

Howdy Snowy. Am I permitted to change Republic of Ireland to Ireland at this fellow's article? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

1812 - yes I would support that. Just be careful how you deal with any discussion, feel free to check here first ----Snowded 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not working - will never work

Care to comment on this Snowded?

GoodDay - why? you know the sensitivities on country, why did you not raise this on the talk page? ----Snowded 18:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the uproar here. I assumed that Countries of the United Kingdom was a more suitable & accurate article to wiki-link to. It's an article that 'both' of you helped create. If I had changed to or simply ? then I'd understand the anger. Besides, Ghymrtle doesn't seem to mind that I altered his wik-link. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not an uproar its a question as to why you didn't raise it on the talk page first? ----Snowded 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think it was needed to be raised. The preceding edits weren't raised at the talkpage, either. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The first three words there are the problem. You should know this is a sensitive issue, its one that you should have cleared first. ----Snowded 04:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya mean because the article is about England & Wales? GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it uses 'country' in an article about the UK ----Snowded 04:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change it to 'constituent countries', however. But now that I've checked over the article's history more closely, I see that it was actually Daicaregos' edit that I changed (a major blunder on my part). I'll let his edit stand & won't challenge it at the corresponding talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

OK but I have a more general concern. Your strategy seems to be to do something then if it is challenged withdraw or revert. What the community is looking for is modification of the initial behaviour ----Snowded 04:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The article itself, isn't a problem for me. I just don't want to get into a fight with Daicareogs, over Welsh related topics. His opening of this discussion under the heading "Not working - will never work", suggests hostility towards me. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point ----Snowded 04:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best I avoid his wrath. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Still missing the point and that response if anything makes it worse. I suggest you don't respond again until you have really thought about it. The goal of mentoring is rehabilitation , not to have to supply a permanent correctional facility. ----Snowded 04:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign, and simply crossing it out makes it worse again. Just think GoodDay, don't react again until you have ----Snowded 05:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken your advice & opened up a discussion at England-Wales border. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Still not getting it - I am not concerned with the individual article, but with if you have any understanding of what you are doing wrong and the ability to change. I repeat "he goal of mentoring is rehabilitation , not to have to supply a permanent correctional facility." ----Snowded 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What should I do? GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop reacting. Look at all the various comments I have made, think about how you would do it differently next time rather than just withdraw the minute you are criticised. The issue we are trying to resolve is if you should be allowed to edit these articles, at the moment you are on probation. So I (and others who want to believe) are looking for signs that you mode of editing and commentating is changing. At the moment its the same just less persistent. Ask Stephen as well he may have a different take ----Snowded 06:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm being over-programmed. Perhaps the probation should be suspended (for awhile), the topic-ban reinstated. I'll check with Steven. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested input from Steven. Would welcome input from Daicaregos, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want my input? Daicaregos (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Snowded has said. Mentorship is meant to be a pathway to reform, not a permanent option. If mentorship fails and the behaviour continues, the solution is generally not to relax and reapply restrictions, it is generally more severe action like topic and/or site bans. GoodDay, what can you show me that indicates that you have made efforts to change your ways since the mentorship begun, and that the issues that existed at the start of your mentorship now don't exist or are rare occurrences? Snowded, have you seen any improvement recently, and do you think that this incident is likely to occur again now that this flare up has happened? Steven Zhang 08:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Per examples at here, I've been using sources in my discussions. I've been quite less temper-mental in my dealings with editors at British & Irish articles. I credit Snowy for these changes. At England-Wales border, I haven't reverted a revert. GoodDay (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Stephen

I am concerned that learning has not been evidenced at the level I hoped. The comments on ANI were classic GoodDay; making statements that added nothing to the debate but would just provoke if anything. Attention seeking at best. On the UK articles its been more mixed but in general the pattern has been try something out then simply withdraw if challenged with talk page comments in response which indicate he hasn't understood why there were objections. The Labour Party stuff is very irritating to be honest as he keeps asserting a position I am not advocating but I'm involved in that so can't comment other than to say the obsession with removing any language other than English (also a part of the Canadian Hockey articles) remains. You would have to form your own judgement on that one though. Sometimes he asks here first, which is good but then on something he knows will be controversial (changing country), with an editor where there is a history of conflict (Dai), he makes the change without checking first.

So its frustrating, but there are some signs of progress. I'm inclined to give it a bit longer but basically make it clear that simply crossing things out if you get them wrong is not good enough, unless you can explain what you were trying to do and (critically) how you would do it differently next time. I think he also has to stop the sort of comments he left at ANI - maybe only allowed to comment on issues relating to changes in articles? ----Snowded 14:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

On the part of Labour Party (UK), my objection wasn't based on a pro-English or anti-Welsh stance. Anyways, the reason I tend to back out of these articles or discussions (example:England-Wales border) that I'm challenged on, is because I'm 'scared' that I'll be reported to ANI (by Daicaregos, for example) & end up with a 6-month block or a permanent ban. I never would've made that alteration to country, if I'd known it was Dai's edit. As mentioned before, I accept that additional scrutiny comes with probation, but you'd have to be in my shoes, to understand my reluctance to push harder for my position in arguments. I don't pull back because I'm angry & frustrated -- I pull back because I'm afraid of getting blocked or banned. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that just illustrates the problem. No one said you were taking a pro-English or anti-Welsh stance, I said that your mission to remove everything other than English remained problematic. You seem not to pay attention to what people are saying, but make assumptions far to quickly. Backing out indicates no learning, strong arguments in contrast are fine and I'll defend you if you do that. Whatever the current probation needs a review so lets let Stephen take a look and comment ----Snowded 15:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I support non-English (in this case Welsh) being used in the infobox at Welsh Labour, just like I'd support non-English (Scottish gaelic, for example) being used in the infobox of Scottish Labour Party. Anyways, we'll let Steven review the probation. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

sigh ----Snowded 15:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This takes a 'huge' chunck out of my pride to post this, but -- I'm afraid of Daicaregos and what he 'might' do to me (ANI reports, etc ect). This fear is why I choose not to get into any discussion or edit-conflict with him. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snowded. Please see this. Thanks. Steven Zhang 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism warning for Tea Party movement

I'm not going to template you. For the word "anti-immigration," the burden of proving consensus rests on people trying to keep material in the article. You have Ubikwit, Snowded and Xenophrenic. We have Darkstar, Arthur Rubin and me. There are also WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE concerns which I have already explained. Further attempts to put that word back into the article, when speaking in Misplaced Pages's voice in the first section of the article, will be reported to admins as vandalism, as a BLP violation, and as a fringe theory. This is your final warning. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Final warning? I see no vandalism here, but a disagreement and a misunderstanding on your part of our policies and guidelines. I've reverted P&W and hopefully made the compromise edit that I think is required. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow's understanding of BLP is incorrect. It cannot be stretched so far as to cover an entire political party or movement. It only covers individuals. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I took a day off so just picking this up. Phoenix & Winslow, please feel free to report me any time for the above "appalling crimes". I'll interested to see the result ----Snowded 14:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Re your alleged "compromises": They aren't compromises. They're weaselly derivations of "anti-immigration," which is another way of saying "racist." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta-ontology

I see you removed my reference to meta-ontology on the page Ontological commitment citing Inwagen. You oppose mention of meta-ontology whenever it appears. You have expressed on occasion a trend toward using meta- that you don't like. What is the problem? Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence because it added nothing to the article

I don;t oppose mention of meta-ontology whenever it appears, please stop these petty misrepresentations

----Snowded 19:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

• Special report: Who reads which Misplaced Pages?

• WikiProject report: Special: FAQs

• Featured content: What the ?

• News and notes: Grants given for Misplaced Pages Library, six others; April Fool's Day ructions

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)