Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:49, 13 December 2008

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

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)

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...

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)

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)

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".