User talk:Snowded/Archive 1

Active discussions

Image tagging for Image:Stadium-millenium2.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:Stadium-millenium2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:311168456 ee0a857dfd.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:311168456 ee0a857dfd.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


I notice you have also encountered the edits of User:Stevenson-Perez (at Knowledge management). There is ongoing commentary at the user's Talk page. - David Oberst 03:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


You have twice removed the link to hi:वेल्स from the article on Wales. Now, I don't know any Hindi, but judging from the external links and the "U.K." visible on that page, it does look like a valid article. Is there something I don't know? Why do you keep removing it? --Stemonitis 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from your edit summary [1], you haven't got a Hindi typeface installed on your computer. To everyone who has, the text does not show up as question marks, but as a string of Devanāgarī characters. More importantly, it also gives Hindi speakers a link to the equivalent article in their language. There can be no doubt that that article does indeed cover Wales (although I can't read it, I can see that it links to the Hindi articles on Cardiff, Swansea and Newport), so if you have no other reason for mevoing the link, please do not continue to do so. See also Help:Multilingual support (Indic), which provides advice to help enable such characters on your system. --Stemonitis 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The first time it came in from a robot it looked that vandalism (the ????), when you advised the reason for putting it back in I did not reverse. No objection to hindi, although I don;t think I will install the typeface!

Wales as a colonyEdit

Sir, I am interested as to your reasoning behind Wales becoming a colony of England, and was wondering if you could clear it up for me. I was under the impression that Wales was effectively brought into a legal 'union' with England - a colony by my understanding must be geographically distant from its "mother country". Surely describing Wales as an English colony has unsettling undertones of nationalism, and in any case is akin to describing Ohio as a colony of Texas? Hawker Typhoon 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wales was a distinct political entity. It was subject to conquest by England, and brought under direct political rule. This is a colony. The same thing happened in Ireland, not to mention India etc etc. In the case of the US, individual states chose through democratic means to be a part of the US. I am not sure what you mean by "geographically distinct" the border between Germany and France for example is not distinct, or that between Canada and US.
That's true - but a key part of being a colony is being geographically distant from the mother country. This happened in Ireland (just about), and in India, because of the distances involved. Wales was not made an English colony - it was conquered by the English. There is a subtle difference. Take for example, the Ukraine - it did not become a Russian colony when it was conquered. It became a part of the Russian state. Likewise Norway was never a Danish colony, despite being ruled by Denmark. Wales became the first state to be conquered by England, but it did not at any point become a colony. I'll quote the colony article: "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state." Hawker Typhoon 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford dictionary defines a colony as "noun (pl. colonies) 1 a country or area under the control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country" There is no requirement for geographical distance. I cannot think of any example of an English Colony (India, Australia, Canada, most of Africa) where colonisation was achieved by any other method but conquest. Other dictionarys say "typically" but geographical distance is not a requirement
I see you've changed the Colony article then - it specifically stated that geographical distance is a requirement. India, Australia, Canada and the possessions in Africa were British, not English colonies. But I digress. A colony requires distance because throughout history, it has involved significant emigration and settlement. Although some English settlers moved to Wales, there was not a systematic state-approved emigration, as in many colonies. Wales was treated for several hundred years as a part of England, with all the rights and priveliges that would entail. I think you may find that Wales was annexed - a different proposition from colonisation. Hawker Typhoon 23:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you check your history you will see that there was systematic settlement (and the granting of special rights etc) around each of the major towns. Wales was finally given similar rights to the English but that was some time after the conquest. I did change the colony article as it is wrong! Given a choice between the Oxford English Dictionary and a Wikipedia article for the defintion of a word (not necessarily the full context) I know which wins.--Snowded 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Or, if we're going to be picky - it became a Principality, as aopposed to a colony, until the 1500s or thereabouts, where it became (for legal purposes) a part of England. Hawker Typhoon 23:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Principality was used in the treaty of mongomery and reflected welsh tradition which was not centred on a King per se. The English determined that the eldest son, by grant of the monarch, could take the title Prince of Wales.--Snowded 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sure it was strictly a colony, but I'm happy with the compromise! I was a bit iffy about describing it as a colony, as it makes it seem as though the British Empire was an English Empire, which it wasn't! Thanks for cleaning up things. Hawker Typhoon 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Why in the same edit do you change organisation to organization and then organizational to organisational ? Isn't the aim to achieve consistency ? rgds, ||:) johnmark† 09:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

simple human error. I was reversing two changes of "s" to "z" but doubled up on one. Early morning, not enough coffee is my excuse.--Snowded 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

--Snowded 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation in Knowledge managementEdit

Sir, Sorry to trouble you again! I'm slightly confused as to how the capitalisation in Knowledge management fits in with the Manual of Style. It's further complicated by the fact that the article is named Knowledge management, but talks about Knowledge Management. Which is it meant to be? We can happily re-name the article. If it's being capitalised because it is sometimes referred to as 'KM', I think the appropriate guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Acronyms and initialisms.

Have a look at the manual of style - it's just a guideline, but I'd like to get this article to 'featured article' status, and have it appear on the front page. I think it's do-able, but we need to concentrate on it a fair bit. I've looked at your academic profile - you certainly have a wealth of knowledge in the field, and through my eyes at least a world-renowned expert! However, I know precious little about KM - if I'm honest, I know next to nothing. I've got an MSc in computer science, however, and a rather lowly BA in Criminology & Criminal Justice, which gives me a basic grounding in computing and knowledge management systems. Your thoughts on these issues would be appreciated! You can drop me a line on my talk page, or just below here, as you've been doing. Either will do, as I'll keep watching your page for your reply. Thanks for your patience, Hawker Typhoon 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit my wiki expertise is not good enough to change the title! but it needs to be changed. In the style guide it is more like Great North Road, its also been discussed before on the page. I agree the article needs a lot of work and it would be nice to get it featured. I am happy to be a part of that but cannot lead it (it would be seen as partisan given that I created and lead one the main schools). Your improvements on the Cynefin site were great by the way, so get engaged onKM. More than happy to help and to use the blog to try and get more involvement


Hi Snowded,

If you feel that the image I added to the Knowledge page should be removed, feel free to start a discussion about it on the Knowledge talk page. I, however, do not see why this image is any less relevant to the subject of the article than the other image located on that page; both are depictions of the personification of knowledge as viewed by a particular society - one Roman, the other American.

Neelix (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you added similar images to several pages. Sorry I don't think the picture if relevant and it is a cultural stereotype. Having one from the classics (it is Greek not roman by the way and linked to a paragraph discussing the origins in Greek Philosophy)is OK, if you add an American one, then why not Chinese, buddist etc etc. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page and see if you get support. I stated my reasons in the deletion notice.--Snowded (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

England and WalesEdit

With regard to this in your edit summary, "I see no point in mentioning four but if you want it ....", I don't "want" anything of the sort. Your last edit makes the lead much clearer. I merely reverted your previous (good faith) edit as you clearly seemed to have mis-read the sentence. Good work re-wording it now though as it is much better. Have fun.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so much misread, as read as misleading! Sorry to assume you wanted the four I should probably have referenced that to the previous editor

Organizational storytelling‎Edit

I know you're planning on reviewing Organizational storytelling‎ and see the problems it has with unsourced statements, marketing words, and generally not being neutral. Just looking at your "Restore legitimate comment" edit, where I'd removed a paragraph that I considered full of weasel words ("Some academics" for example) and unsourced statement. I felt it hurt neutrality, even if it was balancing other "positive" non-neutral statements (which I was going to get around to too). I'm not going to re-delete the material, but just wanted to convey my intent in case it was misunderstood. Cheers! -- mordel (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Knowledge ManagementEdit

No problem. I work on a KM team in the US, so I have a somewhat personal interest in it, but my actual knowledge of the subject is limited (I'm fairly new to the team and only really touch one aspect of KM: user support for a DMS system). However, I do at least know Wikipedia enough to recognize and revert spam or unnecessary spelling changes. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wales will be revertedEdit

The Wales page will be reverted, I am afraid. All those editors on the Scottish page will come to the Wales page and revert the infobox border, the intro picture, and other positive changes. If they do so, I am uncertin I have it in me for an edit fight. They are a very acromonious lot, as their 'discussions' on Scotland's talk has demonstrated.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stick with the changes Drachenfyre we will get there. Oh to the unsigned author above, Wales has not been neglected, many of us have been involved for some time thank you very much --Snowded (talk)

I didnt mean to suggest that it was neglected... I know you and a few others have been involved for some time, and have been contributing on the talk page. I feel very stupid for involving myself on Scotland's talk page, because if I hadn't these acromonious editors would not now be coming over. I mean it though, if those editors who now comment had shown any interest in Wales before now, there would be a far more indepth and coherent artical, professional. Yet they debate endlessly about maps, objecting to two maps to show the country within North Western Europe, and object to showing the country within the context of Europe! Its amazing. As I wrote on the Scotland page, I am sure these kinds of conflict will continue until the constitutional status of Wales and Scotland (and England too) is more settled. Right now it is very much in flux over there.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My email address is ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

intro paragraphs revisionsEdit

Another editor will be changing the intro paragraphs, this is his message to me and my response. I may have been harsh in my response, but fear that the intro paragraphs will become horribly verbose again. I am losing interest in this process, lol. It seems, crazy to me.

I think we (the community) need to look again at the Wales intro... I'm concerned by the peacock terms that seem to be proliferating - we've got a "world-renowned" waterfront in there now - as well as a few unreferenced terms that could be construed as opinion ("vibrant") and others that aren't meaningful ("engaging"). The part about national identity is weak as well - "later influenced by other European historical events" - which ones? How did they influence Welsh national identity? I understand that this is supposed to be an intro, and not go into much detail, but surely we can do better than what's there at the moment. I know these criticisms aren't very constructive, but I wanted to highlight the problems. I know we're supposed to be "bold", but as a courtesy to the regular editors of this popular section, I'm reluctant to take the initiative in making revisions until consensus emerges. Pondle (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pondle, I understand your concerns, again. If you would like, sure, cut-out all descriptive verbs. I wont stop you. I think the intro is tight and well organized, especially compared to other country pages, and especially to Scotland's intro. I feel it is appropriate the way it is, you do not. In terms of European historical events, if you wish to flood the intro paragraphs with every single event then do so (the link to Professor John Davies History of Wales is provided). This was the delima before, when editors felt compelled to write out the history of Wales within the opening paragraphs. I do not think it is necessary to be that verbose myself. I gave the intro a try, if you can do better, so be it.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot this paragraph (was I too harsh?)!

You know, why not work on the body of the page, rather then the intro? Why focus so exclusively there, when we need more work on the body? I do not understand. There is far more work to be done in the body of the page then on the intro right now. It is in the body of the page, under history, that you sould explain what European historical events influenced Wales, not the intro paragraphs. The intro should highlight with the briefest of descriptions, using the verbs vibrant music scene and engaging sporting events, nor World reknowned waterfront (which was a compromise for someone else who wanted that in, thus preventing further reverts), is not attempting to introduce weasle words. Why not concentrate your efforts on the body?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from ""

Requests for MediationEdit

Hello Snowded! I have left this notice on various bords and on other contributers I know here to widen the debate some. As you can see, if the consensus for the Wales community is that they do not wish to have a distincitive border and title header, I shall withdrawl my advocacy for it. But, I believe there will be others who do think it is a positive change, and have invited them to contribute to the debate

[Cymru] error: {{lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
Flag Coat of arms

Greetings Wales community! We need your Voice! We need mediation and impute from the wider community who regularily contribute to articals of Wales interest. At issue is the use of a distinctive border around the country info box, as well title bar. The issue seems to have become a crusade against Wales by certin editors, who have almost never contributed to and practically never visit (by their own admission) the Wales page. I do not tust the motives of the editor, whome seems to be stalking my edits and reverting them purposefully. This editor even dismisses the colors of Wales red and green saying that Wales does not have any official colors! (quote: "I imagine that this use of "national colours" (of which Wales has none by custom or tradition)...", Unfortunatly, I must deal with these cyber bullying tactics if I am to contribute here. However, I implore the Wales commmunity to weigh in on the topic of allowing info box borders and title headers. Please submit views on Template talk:Infobox Country and talk:Wales. If the wider Wales community decides not to support a border and title header color in the colors of Wales then I will withdrawal from this position. However, I and other editors do feel it makes the Wales page far more distinctive. Sincerly, David Llewellyn♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The ownus is upon yourself, not myself, to obtain a consensus. See WP:BRD. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I count four objectors on Talk:Wales. That they haven't been as vocal, doesn't mean they don't count. There is no consensus to keep it! If I object, how is there a consensus? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe the turn of events!!! Wow! My head is spinning! lol. I have to run some erands now. But dont get too focused on the polls and what not, after all, we presented our argument and cant help it from here. Ill email you later :) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I interpret your last message as a personal attack, and would like an apology. I would like a minimum threshold of dignity, perhaps, even as much as I've given you and Drachenfyre???? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So, between you two, I'm a cyber bully, can't be trusted, a stalker, a control freak, act in bad faith, and a sensitive editor who doesn't work towards the spirit of Wikipedia's ecology (!?). Right. And I've said what exactly that makes me this way? Perhaps I shouldn't be entitled to an opinion or even an account? Perhaps I've made no good points at all, and those other editors didn't object. I suppose all this "control freakery" is on my part, and you two have done no such thing? I'm throwing it over to you: tell me, is this what you think? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And now I'm "going over the top". OK. Not to mention you didn't answer any of my queries. I think we'd best leave it there. Should this go any further, I think I have enough to work with here to illustrate my concerns. I'm sure you feel the same way about me. I'll reflect on what's happened and mull over my contributions. Hopefully, you two will do the same. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country styledEdit

Hi Snowded. You asked at Darwinek's talk page about appeals process regarding the highly irregular speedy delete of Template:Infobox Country styled while it was still in use in several articles and being discussed at templates for deletion. The place to appeal is at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Note that I have restored the template and moved it to Template:Infobox Country/styled sandbox so people can continue to work on it and discuss it. The template should probably not even have been moved but that seemed to be a solution for the time being to get it out of the way of those that want to delete it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WOW! I think we have an oppurtunity here!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the reminder regarding Knowledge Management System. It's taken care of.

Sina2 (talk)

Wales RevertsEdit

Why did you revert perfectly good edits by User:Melvo? I will talk on his behalf. Also I am not Unionist. I'm Irish. How could I be unionist? I am about facts and fairness.

1st point. The Uk consitution does not assign official languages. English is the de facto language of the whole UK. It does not assign official languages to specific regions such as Wales so therefore you cannot have "official language" section. Read this Welsh article: : Welsh is not official

2nd. Onthe Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau page "by tradition it is the National anthem of Wales". So therefore its not official.

3rd. If you look at Celtic Sea you will see it much more accurate than the Atlantic Ocean. It is the name of the specific area. Maybe Atlantic Ocean is more suitable for the Simple English Version.

4th. There is no such thing as a Celtic country. You are confusing its meaning. Wales is known as one of the Celtic Nations not a Celtic country.

5th. The final line needs a citation it is vague. How does the Welsh government have representation in Brussels exactly?

6th. I will revert your edits other than the map as they are correct. I have a solution to the 2nd map so look at the talk page.Wikipéire (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the map is in place. Your opinions?Wikipéire (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not unionist, but from his user page... "This user supports the peaceful reunification of Ireland with a majority unionist support." Minkythecat (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


David, I've given you rollback capabilities to help you with reverting edits when you need to. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your message. I had, in fact, just logged back on to see what the situation was and was just about to unprotect when the "new messages" bar came up. You'll see what I've done. Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's safe to say that I won't be free to use admin powers in this discussion! BencherliteTalk 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal VendettaEdit

It seems you have something personal against me. Please refrain from your disruptive edits and vandalism of my talk page and leave any editing to improving some articles.WikipÉIRE \(caint) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This comment relates to my reversal of an edit on his own talk page by Wikipeire. The item he deleted was a temporary block imposed after he was held to have used Sockpuppets or "second" accounts used for bad faith work. My policy is to leave history to speak for itself, not attempt to massage out the bad bits. Full details can be found in the edit history on Wikipeire's talk page. --Snowded (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Please explain to me what I have "almost vandalized"? And also, please give me the diff for where breadandcheese states this? Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodnight. And I am going to remove breadandcheese because he/she has never even been involved in the Wales page, and never explicitly stated his/her oppinions; and if he did, it certainly wasn't recent. That list is only for quick reference of the people who are key players, but he/she is not one at all - if he/she is to be included, then I could just as easily go to any page on Wikipedia and grab anyone who mentioned something about the topic, even though they had never commented on the Wales page itself, and had never even seen the full list of references. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales mediationEdit

I'm staying away from the mediation for now, as I strongly suspect that a banned user is behind all this: see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iamandrewrice (2nd) for my reasons. Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


If you need any backing up in future to convince people that Wales is a country give me a shout and I'll give everything I know to help you out! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello Snowded, I have explained the changes I made to the Wales infobox at the Wales talk page and would appreciate you input. Thanks. --Jack forbes (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, I changed the infobox again and as this is all new to me(apart from just doing the Scotland infobox) I feel as though I'm flying by the skin of my teeth! Matt was wanting colons between them but I don't want to mess with it again. Could you take another look at it again? Thanks. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. I feel as though I'm bringing thing up too often, but have you seen the first paragraphs on the England and Scotland articles which say country rather than constituant country? I think they had quite a long discussion before it was changed. Do you think it's too soon after the last argument to keep constituent country over principality to bring it up? --Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I only joined a couple of months ago and found myself arguing over the same two things since. Looking at the archives of the Scotland page it seems to me a number of good editors got fed up with it and left for fresh fields! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Of course not, you happen to be one of the sane ones. I just feel that Matt was fine when the changes suited him, but when it did'nt he started throwing words around like nationalism. Personally I feel he has problem when someone disagrees with him. --Jack forbes (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge creationEdit

Hi thanks for you note regarding this article. I removed the proposed deletion template from the article as it had previously been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge creation. The proposed deletion deletion process as it explains at WP:Proposed deletion is not to be used for articles which "Have been discussed at AfD or MfD". If you feel it should be deleted you should nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Hopes that explains my reasoning. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Not sure if you spotted it, but I left a note on the talk page that I found this source. I think it helps further your position. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I'd be focussing on verifiability and strength of argument. People are bound to come to talk pages with alternative perspectives, often politically and culturally informed; the trick is to look for the article's best interests and get people on side. I'll leave you to it, though my position is that each of the Home Nations are countries (and that's matched in source material, thankfully). Good luck, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Can you provide some diffs for this bullying I've done? If not, I would like an apology. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I "sense" animosity from Drachen and yourself, collectively, and try to brush it off. Sure my passion comes through on occation, and I'm robust in debate, but that's not the same as bullying. The term itself is bound to make any user go on the defensive. Anyway, what's done is done.
If I'm totally, totally honest, I don't feel the need to beg Drachenfyre to come back at the moment. His actions with dealing with dispute were very underdeveloped. Sure, if he wants to keep a certain edit in place that's fine, but I think we all understand that we need to justify that edit if there's a challenger.
Anyway, as I said to Drachen, there's no element of hatred hailing from my side of the keyboard. I'm just here to help write a good encyclopedia. I think you're both fine contributors and I'm happy to work with you anytime; I just reserve the right to disagree with you on occation. I hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I know it's early, but I don't think there are going to be many votes cast at the Wales page. The way I see it, I think it will stay as it is! But who knows! I would like to clarify where I stand, I am a Scottish nationalist but that is not the reason for me believing that Wales should become a country. All the government websites call it a Country along with the others, but just as important to me is the fact that the people of Wales call it a country. As I said to Matt before I stormed off for a few days, have you ever heard anyone say "Isn't Wales a beautiful constituent country! It is very similar to Matts argument that no one calls Wales a principality. I feel as though I have been preaching to the converted here. Oh, and one more thing, I'll whisper it, I don't agree with the full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I'll keep that between me and you and leave it alone. :) --Jack forbes (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hen Wlad Fy NhadauEdit

Hi it is unofficial. Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau 6th section. "Though it has no official or legal status, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau is recognised and used as an anthem at both national and local events in Wales". Therefore clearly unofficial. Please don't revert. thanksWikipÉire 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Snowded, It does'nt exactly give me great pleasure in saying this, but I believe de facto is the correct term for the national anthem. The sooner the Welsh assembly put foreward legislation confirming it as official the better. I know in the Scottish parliament a couple of years ago there was a discussion on having a public vote to choose the national anthem (Flower of Scotland would win hands down!) and making it official by law. I have heard nothing since, but until both Wales and Scotland do this I would have to go along with de facto. Jack forbes (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack - most national anthems are established by tradition not legislation. Hen Wlad has been around for over 100 years, God Save the Queen for longer so they are clearly anthems, no de facto. Flower of Scotland is more recent - I remember Wales- Scotland Rugby matches when both sides joined in drowning out God Save the Queen. It could be established by law, it could be argued that it is approaching justification by tradition. However there is a difference of 100 years.--Snowded (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I did say Flower of Scotland would win a poll but there are other songs which have been used as the national anthem such as Scotland the Brave and Scots Wha Hae which was written in 1793. They are all traditional songs used as anthems but none are official. As I said to you Snowded, the sooner The Welsh assembly make the anthem official the better. To be honest I don't understand why they hav'nt! Jack forbes (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is official Jack, it just not been subject to legislation. The same is true of God Save the Queen (although I refuse to sing it), never been legislated but is clearly the official anthem. If you look around Sweden (to take just one example) said that legislation was unnecessary given the weigh of tradition. I think there are more important things for the Assembly to be doing. Scotland probably needs legislation as Flower of Scotland is recent and there are alternatives. --Snowded (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I too refuse to sing it. I went to Scotland football matches were it was drowned out by whistling and booing. I'm sorry Snowdon, but the facts tell me it is de facto. Anyway, de facto, de jure, or whatever, it is still your national anthem. I honestly never thought I would agree in any way with Wikipeire so I think I should lie down for a while to get over it. Jack forbes (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Some anthems are de facto, some de jure. Are we really going to go through all the country articles and mark them one way or the other? I take the point on lying down though, I agreed with one of this compromises once and had to take a strong drink to recover.--Snowded (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Many country articles have de facto placed next to language, so it might not be a bad thing to treat the anthems in a similar fashion! I understand you saying the UK articles should not be treated differently so maybe the others should be marked one way or another. Jack forbes (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Magners LeagueEdit

A consensus was reached regarding the article's title, not the content. The league is still known as the Celtic League to a great many people, so to start replacing every instance of the word "Celtic" in the article with "Magners" could be quite confusing. This whole thing is going to cause chaos, and it's all your fault. – PeeJay 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I'd be happy to block this user, but he hasn't recieved an appropriate amount of user warnings. For example, you've submitted a 3RR report without making DaveJP aware that breach of WP:3RR is an offense. As it stands he's only on a level 1 warning... he needs to be upto level 4, otherwise we're biting. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No surpriseEdit

A certain editor we know has been blocked for using sockpuppets(again)! Makes me a little sick that I agreed with him on the Wales page (even if I did). Wish I had kept out of it. Jack forbes (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree with your assessment of the anonymous IP user. You mentioned Gozitancrabz as a sock on the Wales page. Do you happen to know where the actual user behind this was editing from? If so, could it have been Australia? I ask this because a simple whois request to trace the ip address points to an organisation in Australia. (I also think looking at State, and in particular State#Usage may highlight some of the mixing up together of slightly different things in the discussion: the ip user is confusing useful distinctions between a state and a country if that wikipedia article is to be believed, and so ultimately, we have something closely allied to the fallacy of equivocation at the root of the problem.)  DDStretch  (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The same anon IP tried to reignite the capital section on talk:Netherlands (which has been previously flagged up by the same (other) 122 anons as here and is IMHO a strong indicator all anon issues in several strains are made by the same editor with the only intention to go for eternal debate-ie trolling) Several editors have just removed the new discussion items as vandalism from the Netherlands talk page and it has stopped. I am not engaging in the talk:england after giving warning not to feed the troll; and suggest to let it settle down. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wales socksEdit

Thanks for your message. I don't think it's the same person: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iamandrewrice (2nd) has IP addresses that are UK-based, possibly London-based (according to the geolocating tool) whereas User talk: is an IP address based in New South Wales. So unless we have a change of continent...(!) BencherliteTalk 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff / Delhi referenceEdit

Hi Snow

I removed the Delhi reference because I couldn't find anything online which stated that the Civic Centre is actually modelled on Delhi (although there are one or two likening it to Delhi and Washington DC). Do you know of any references which would support this? If not, do you think a comparison to Delhi and Washington would be appropriate? Personally, I wouldn't cos it just seems rather touristy to me. Bettia (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge articleEdit

I got your message regarding the reason for your deletion of the external link which I added to the Web page of my company KnowledgeToTheMax. While it is true that epistemology is a topic in philosophy, it is also a topic in systems science and cybernetics. A great deal of progress has been made in these fields and none of this is reflected in the article, as written. There seems to be a great gulf of understanding between the philosophyical community on the one hand and the systems science and cybernetics communitity on the other. The recent progress has come from the latter community and it has been very significant. If you are willing to cooperate, I'm willing to contribute a bit of time to straighten out the article. I'd like to get your pledge of cooperation in advance, having learned that Wikipedia's policy of allowing willy nilly edits of previous work can make contributions of time unprofitable. --Terry Oldberg (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Inserted here from user page where it had been entered in error) --Snowded (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The link which I added and you deleted is to a page that, in addition to making a commercial pitch, summarizes the theory of knowledge of the engineer, lawyer and theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen. This theory is documented in a number of books and peer-reviewed articles.

Christensen's theory defines knowledge as the measure (with properties defined in measure theory) of a pair of state-spaces, each of which is a discrete random variable. In particular, one of the state-spaces contains observed conditions of a real object or objects that are defined on a model's feature space. The other state-space contains the unobserved outcomes for the same object of objects. The "knowledge" is Shannon's measure of information when it is applied to the intersection of the two state-spaces. A result from the fact that knowledge is a measure is that it maps the pair of state-spaces to a real number. Shannon's measure of the other design features of a model also map to real numbers. A result from the measurability of the design features has the significance that these design features may be optimized. I call the point at which each design feature is optimized the "ultra-optimum." At the ultra-optimum, the maximum possible knowledge is created and the conditions are called "patterns."

Two circumstances suggest the correctness of Christensen's theory of knowledge and definition of knowledge. First, the existence and uniqueness in the probababilistic logic of Shannon's measure of information can be proved. Second, Christensen's theory has been tried in the real world over many centuries and it has been found that the models that are induced by it consistently work better than models induced by any other methods.

Christensen calls the ultra-optimization of a model "entropy minimax pattern discovery." He calls the principles of reasoning under which ultra-optimization takes place "entropy minimax." Entropy minimax is the set of principles that govern correct reasoning, in Christensen's theory. Among the results from Christensen's theory are: the theory of fair gambles, thermodynamics, the postulate of equal microstate probabilities in statistical mechanics, Shannon's theory of communication, the first long-range weather forecasting model, high definition television, noiseless transmission of data.

In view of the strength of the theoretical argument and the empirical success, it seems to me that we have to give serious consideration to the possibility that the riddle of epistemology has finally been solved. At the very least, some sort of discussion should be posted in the "knowledge" article. --Terry Oldberg (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position that Wikipedia's rules prohibit a link to a commerical Web site; though links to commercial sites still exist in this article and elsewhere in Wikipedia,I don't wish to debate your position. A debate over whether a theory of knowledge can or cannot be a theory of information seems to me to be a debate over semantics, hence not worthwhile. This leaves the issue of whether Christensen's theory of knowledge should be presented in the Wikipedia article on knowledge. I claim the theory is a complete, internally consistent theory of knowledge with rock solid theoretical roots and overwhelming empirical backing. For example, no exception has ever been found to the generalization that the second law of thermodynamics applies constantly and throughout the universe. As written, the article represents that a resolution of the problem of epistemology has not be made and most likely never will. In my opinion, this representation is inaccurate and misleading. I gather that you are unfamilar with Christensen's work. I'm an expert in it. The time I have to contribute to Wikipedia articles is quite limited. I won't contribute the time if I think my edits will be overturned for other than meritorious reasons. For an overview of Christensen's theory, the link which you deleted is a good beginning. This link is If you are weak in mathematics, I believe you are going to have trouble understanding it. How should we proceed? --Terry Oldberg (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Snowded/Archive 1".