User talk:Snowded/Autoarchive 20

So I think 1536 and 1543 is it as we have three third party sources. DIfference might be Royal Assent? Best to post all the above on the talk page and ask. I note that Wales is described as a country in the act ... --Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a guess - Old Style and New Style dates ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Could be, whatever it seems we should go with the Third Party sources? --Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm right, a parallel might be

Bristol Channel floods, 1607 - contemporary records gave the date as 1606, because the new year started on March 25 rather than Jan 1 - but nowadays they are referred to as taking place in 1607. It's quite possible that different sources are confused because they haven't all taken the calendar change into account. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 17:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are probably right here. However we have the Encyclopedia of Wales and John Davies (bows head in awe) using 1536 and 1543 and I think (If I am not confused) that means they probably took the shift into account. --Snowded ^TALK 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Or.. I could be wrong. This British Library document (p.8) says: "Although Wales was incorporated into England by the Statute of Wales 1284 (12 Edw.1 Stat. Wallie), it was another two-and-a-half centuries before it received parliamentary representation. This was effected by the Laws in Wales act 1535 (27 Hen.8, cap.20), actually passed in 1536 and otherwise called the Union with Wales act...." There are othr sources (maybe less reliable) which say it was passed in 1535 but not enacted until 1536 - but they may be confused as well. And, to confuse you even more, see footnote 74 here. Not much help am I? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats closer to my original speculation - enacted rather than royal assent but same principle. Either way, third party sources! Regardless of the reason do you agree with the change?--Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many more Google hits for <"Laws in Wales" 1535 1542> than there are for <"Laws in Wales" 1536 1543>. I'm not claiming that should be definitive, but we do need to bear in mind what readers are most likely to look for. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer authoritative sources to google hits. Also a redirect handles the search?--Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It was all discussed on the article talk page back in 2005. We should go back and look at that, and propose any further changes there, IMHO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense - 2005 was before my time here! --Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of summarising the discussion when you copied it across. Feel free to delete it if you'd rather - whichever is clearer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to give the official answer - the Laws in Wales Act 1535 and the Laws in Wales Act 1542. End of story, I think - there can't be anything more authoritative than the Chronological Table of Statutes, where those titles come from, can there? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary not secondary source. Not so sure --Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think

primary sources were ruled out if they provide an authoritative answer. What's needed is some explanation of why there is confusion over the dates, which we haven't pinned down. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 21:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well so far its either the calendar or enactment --Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

i see you point about it being a collection of essays. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to view it as a source which needs backup. Some of the essays are good, some obviously partisan so any reliance on it is a bit iffy. Given its nature I would expect to find supporting material in one of the major Philosophical encyclopedia's or dictionaries--Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Snowded! While you're certainly not a suspect, your name has been mentioned in a sock puppetry case. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LevenBoy for more. Thank you :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I paranoid? Yesterday, a day-old account comments at the SPI & today, an IP account (not used in 4 months) suddenly dives into the BI stuff. Again, am I paranoid? GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No you're not, we have 2/3 sock farms in operation at the moment --Snowded ^TALK 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

They're only hurting their cause. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they're also hurting the encyclopaedia ... Fmph (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed --Snowded ^TALK 15:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

[3]

Edits like this do not seem to indicate that 2 days of grace will be worthwhile. Your thoughts? BigK HeX (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to see that hat consumed! I've given him some advise as promised, lets see what happens. --Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

With this edit coming after the sound advice you attempted to give, it looks like you'll have your headgear entertainment... BigK HeX (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I did my best to fulfill the contract. --Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see Ed won, i seem to recall you saying you supported him? Congrats. That was soooo close lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes was pleased about that one, got it on the iPhone on the way to see Faust at the ENO so multiple metaphors --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting all the stuff on BBC R4 this morning hinting at his "non-Christian-ness" - lots of subtle and not so subtle points about Labour losing it's "christian socialist roots" etc. I think we can expect more of the same. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering on what basis you say, in regard to Ayn Rand, "There is a debate about whether she is even a philosopher given that she doesn't appear in any of the major dictionaries and encyclopedias and just has the odd reference in Universities receiving grants from Objectivist institutions." And, under the hat, "I made the point early that the editors of all the major philosophical directories and encyclopedia do not include here [sic] in any way."

I provided the link to the SEP.

Here's the IEP, and here's what we say about it.

Most importantly, here's Routledge.

I'm certainly not accusing you of trolling! I am suggesting you are mistaken. --Yopienso (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comments earlier on this talk page about the SEP. The IEP suffers from similar issues and reading the entry seems more dubious. "major intellectual" in particular; she doesn't appear in the Oxford overview of American Literature for instance. I'd need to see the text on Routledge to form an opinion. When this was being debated we went through most of the major encyclopedia/directories at the time there was nothing in anything European produced/edited and little or nothing in American ones. I don't include Objectivism per se here which has some respectable Philosophers. Ssome of them such as Nozick are critical of her as a philosopher. --Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The SEP is a peer-reviewed encyclopedia published by one of America's leading institutions.
  
• As to Rand's being a "major intellectual," certainly she was; this doesn't mean she was rigorous or correct. The Ayn Rand Society itself is "a professional society affiliated with the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division."
  
• If you want to know what Routledge says, just click on the link I provided! :)
• Here's Oxford's article on Rand as a writer.

As Dave Snowden, private citizen, proud Welshman, independent thinker, you are of course free to disagree with peer-reviewed articles written by experts and to ignore Routledge and Oxford and form your own opinion. As Wikipedian Snowded, however, you are obliged to acknowledge what the RSs say. --Yopienso (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no current content issue to which this exchange relates, although you seem to feel free to deliver short homilies from somewhat shaking foundations

• SEP has been questioned by several editors here (and elsewhere) it is patchy in quality. Supporters of Rand tend to seize on it as it appears to give her some credibility
• Your link to Routledge simply directs to a page from which I might be able to buy it, not to any specific material on her
• She is not a major intellectual, she is only acknowledged in a very limited constituency. The affiliation of the Ayn Rand Society does not establish that she is or isn't an intellectual let alone say anything about her quality or lack of. The issue with reliable sources is that few philosophers take her seriously so little or nothing is written on her. The few who have note (to take one example) that she either did not read or did not understand Kant given the general ignorance of her comments.
• If it is really necessary I might be prepared to go back to all the various evidence that was assembled on Her, if it wasn't the Oxford one it was another where we would have expected to find her listed.
• I note you did not respond on Nozick
• A degree of rigor and not being blatantly incorrect would be in my definition of a "major intellectual"

Basically we have someone who wrote a few books, generally panned by critics, who failed to gain any significant recognition as a philosopher in her own time or subsequently. She did however gather a cult following in some parts of the USA. If it wasn't for that and the funding of various Rand orientated institutions (to the University of Texas for example) then you could delete "significant" from the above. Now I generally hold open house on my talk page, but I am not sure where you are trying to go with this exchange. --Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

...I confess I laughed at this. I know it's not funny, but... Reverted, anyway! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Some improvement on originality over his last attempts - Womble would have been a compliment, I always liked Orinoco --Snowded ^TALK 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The "baldie" edits were beneath me to comment on, or raise again on this talk page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK by me, happened just after pubity (mothers genes and all that), excellent for getting into pubs at an early age .....--Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you got to put it to good use. As for "your" page, it seems like you may be under tripod attack - I wonder if it should be protected or something? I won't speculate as to which of the recently banned "editors" is spawning the joke accounts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal culprit I think with maybe a new one. And you are really getting into tacky SciFi now! My. First iPhone edit by the way--Snowded ^TALK 21:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It can never be too tacky for my taste. Probably why I have Blackberry, not iphone. I did try doing an edit from Blackberry, but it took about 45 mins to load the diff. Shame it can't all be handled via Wapedia, so much quicker. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere ya look, there's comedians. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I have nominated

featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Zuggernaut (talk

) 01:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF

I would ask that you assume good faith per WP:Civility in light of this post [4] by you at the talk page of the British Empire. As far as I am concerned, I do not think and RfC is an appropriate way to move forward as I have always worked within WP policies as I know them. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have a particular concern that you would like to address with me. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you are being disruptive. Raising the status of the article was a clear bit of game playing and that is before we move onto your lobbying of other editors who you thought might favour your perspective. I have my own issues with the article, including the fact that I think it needs to deal more with some of the "sins of both omission and commission" of the British Empire. However you are not going about this is the right way. I will also address issues on the talk page of the article, as I have already done. --Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain

Hello there. I just sent my first message to another editor and now I am sending almost the same point to you. I hope this is helpful. As a bit of a history buff, I think it is just plain wrong to call the state created in 1707 the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. The original Treaty and the two Acts that ratifies it make clear that the new state was to be called 'Great Britain'. If we wish to describe this state in a more detailed way, the Scottish Act of Union as well as the original Treaty both refer to great Britain as the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' - the English Act alone referes to the 'united Kingdom of Great Britain', with a small 'u'. I do not believe it appropriate to ignore the weight of original evidence that 'United Kingdom' was the intended description of the new state of Great Britain.

Kindest regards, 86.156.2.149 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Then make the case on the talk page of the article concerned --Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not an admirer of mine

See [5]

talk

) 11:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had runins with him as well - time to sort this one out I think --Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do is sort out these and any related articles, then see what reaction, if any, there is. Maybe there won't be any reaction.

talk

) 13:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's not just him, see this recent edit [6]. —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 13:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The odd US romantic as well who wants there to be a noble house of Wales, Saunders Lewis all over again. --Snowded ^TALK 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

It would be nice indeed of the process was respected, you just did a blind revert did`nt you? Your disruptive behaviour on this RFC is appalling, i have had to reset the whole thing due to three editors not knowing how this process works.

talk

) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are an involved editor, its very simple really --Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i am, now go look at the bottom of the talk page at the reset RFC, tell me what you see please

talk

) 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC

I've added a comment - you are forum shopping, Tediously raising a resolved point yet again. Strong POV editing on multiple articles Mark. You need to reflect on it a bit or your block log will have some more additions. --Snowded ^TALK 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of forum shopping are a PA, this is not what i am doing. Now that you looked i am hoping you saw the bit Argument For - (would an involved editor please put arguments for here thanks) This is for an involved editor to make an argument for inclusion. This is how an RFC works. Now please tell me, were exactly is this against policy? You think they belong in the article? Make your argument and the RFC can launch

talk

) 20:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark you are attempting to keep raising the same issue again and again, and you are also editing from a strong POV on several articles. I'm not the only one to tell you that and sooner or later you are going to have to pay attention and either change your behaviour or end up with a long term block. Three editors now (of whom I am one) have challenged you on the legitimacy of this RfC. --Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the RFC, there is a spot for one of you guys to make an argument for inclusion of the group. This is how i was shown to do an RFC be a highly experienced editor. Why will one of you not make your argument for?

talk

) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User Snowed I suggest you stop threatening good contributors with allegations that they will be long term blocked. We are short of quality contributors.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Short of quality contributors agreed but while Mark has that potential his behaviour on Libertarianism and also the wars list is disruptive. I'm not threatening, I'm giving advise. --Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowed tell me why you will not just add a comment to Argument For - (would an involved editor please put arguments for here thanks) it would quite simply stop all this crap. Why is this so hard for you to get?

talk

) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement to take part in a disruptive and unnecessary process Mark. You are playing games and wasting time all round. You might want to close off the argument and delete it before you make a fool of yourself --Snowded ^TALK 21:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

user snowed You are so far from neutral to be unable to give advice to Mark, ow watch out you will be long term blocked is not advice it is a empty partisan threat.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was advice pure and simple Off2rio, Mark can listen to it or ignore it as he sees fit. --Snowded ^TALK 21:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to tell you what I think but policy restricts me.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowed, the disruption was caused by you and two others messing with the first RFC a clear breach of talk page guidelines i might add. Tell me why you moved my comments from the first one?

talk

) 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2rio - nice to know you accept some restrictions and if you check it out you will find I am far from the first person to give similar advise to Mark. Mark, you need to read the various comments on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 04:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 01:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Plaid Cymru‎

Just edited this one also, removing the OR there.

Looking like a crusade really, added that one to the watch list --Snowded ^TALK 12:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned in an ANI

Your behavior at Talk:Libertarianism has been mentioned at this ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk_page_disruption_by_Born2cycle (as of right now, it's the last comment in that section). --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How many of your feet to you intend to assault with a shotgun? --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India...

Glad someone else sees the huge problems with this article after Zuggernaut's additions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

He's got one source that he is obsessed with. All help appreciated! --Snowded ^TALK 12:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking out loud

Wonder if this applies to any articles, or just the one (and for how long). Daicaregos (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

Per your recommendation, I am now discussing the content that's been taken out on the talk pages. Please participate in the discussion at:

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Talk:Famine_in_India#Comparison_with_other_famines.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zuggernaut (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd George

Hello. The reason I used a tag rather than editing was because I couldn't tell what the proper edit should be. The tag appears to have served its purpose; the article is now improved. You believe that our general readers, many of whom are not English, will know what be not heard means? I don't. It would be good if you could give a very brief explanation. It is well for you to believe that disestablishment is important but is it necessary to say it twice as happens now; section 'Member of Parliament' now says in paragraph one "he sat with an informal grouping of Welsh Liberal members with a programme of disestablishing and disendowing the Church of England" and in paragraph three "Lloyd George campaigned in Parliament largely on Welsh issues and in particular for disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England." But, y'know, whatever you think best... I'm not going to argue. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a note to look over the whole thing when you had finished editing --Snowded ^TALK 16:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF? Disruption?

Hi, I am curious about what you're referring to in this comment, presumably in reference to my comment here.

"Born2Cycle, that is an over the top reaction and your metaphor a clear failure to assume good faith."

My metaphor about barring windows because of vandals is a clear failure to assume AGF? Like WP does not have vandals? Is acknowledging the existence of WP vandals now a violation of AGF? I made a very general statement which did not apply to anyone in particular, which is what AGF addresses.

"I can't see any disruptive behavior above."

I can't see any disruptive behavior in that discussion either, and made no reference to any. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, then why talk about vandals? --Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I used "vandal" in the metaphor because of the double-entendre effect (vandals break into homes and disrupt WP). While the need for security bars on windows is against vandals, the alleged need for change in this case is not necessarily against vandals, but the metaphor still worked because the remedy in both cases is still "unsightly" (bars on windows; a formal/highbrow term, "sovereign state", instead of a common name term, "country"), whether the name-change protection is against intentional (vandal) or unintentional behavior. Please do not be so quick with the trigger. In my opinion, this comment was also presumptuous and inappropriate. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to think about how your statements would be read by other editors, I wasn't the only one. I promise not to be quick with a trigger if you think more carefully about if you are presenting a target. :-) As to the other comment, I was responding to a clear attack on other editors. Better he learns than we end up with an ANI case which would be a storm in a teacup. That editor also has a history of commenting on editors for whatever reason and it needs to stop. --Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he didn't make any remarks about any specific people. You did, and, justified or not, that kind of thing is probably best handled 1:1 on the user's talk page, not on the article talk page, don't you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually a general accusation is worse which is why I raised it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any policies or guidelines against making broad generalizations like he did (i.e., "the problem is intentional misunderstandings by nationalist POV pushers") about no one specifically. Do you?

But even if it is worse, why raise the issue of a specific contributor's behavior on an article talk page instead of on that contributor's talk page? Seems like most guidelines, like

this one, encourage doing so on the user's talk page. Do you think that's good advice? --Born2cycle (talk

) 06:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to pay more attention to ANI and other cases then. Making a broad statement about other editors motivations is in effect a broad based attack which then allows people to say "Oh I didn't mean you" as a way of trying to avoid a breech of AGF; it rarely works. Its not acceptable behaviour, editors need to deal with content issues. In the context of that page most new editors would read it as a direct comment on the editors taking the view that there country cannot be used as a synonym for a sovereign state (per reliable sources). He chose to make perjorative comments on the talk page concerned, he should expect people to point out that such an approach is not acceptable behaviour. He can simply strike the comments then the problem goes away. --Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Countries of Europe

Thank you for your good offices at

Template talk:Countries of Europe, which seemed to be getting out of hand. Although I found one comment unintentionally funny as, apparently, I am hiding behind a rational argument. If only all editors would do the same. Best, Daicaregos (talk

) 07:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete BISE

I assume you've seen this? delete proposal for BI task force (and therefore BISE). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Zuggernaut has now chosen to ask for a topic ban against me at ANI for Famine in India. Not sure how deeply I should get involved given the extraordinary cheek of it! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment - the last thing you should do is to stop editing the article. You are making a great contribution. --Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's obviously an attempt to "drive me out" here, but I won't be bullied. The really wierd thing about all this is that I was actually speaking for some of Zuggernaut's points at British Empire and trying to get them addressed despite some hostility directed against Z from other editors, yet here I am being attacked - clearly Z doesn't like to be thwarted to the least degree. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He called me an imperialist! If he doesn't change his behaviour then he will end up at ANI --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but to be fair, you obviously are an imperialist lacky and running-dog - I've been able to tell that from the first edit of yours that I saw and any reasonable admin would unhesitatingly draw the same conclusion from a study of your editing history. Next week: How Wikipedia Works in Another Reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE

It's probably a too late to fix now, but have ya noticed we've got that BISE backwards? The cases should be brought to BISE's mainpage, not its talkpage. Thus discussion about BISE, should be at its talkpage, not its mainpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It works no need to disturb things! --Snowded ^TALK 15:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I get your consent

Hi, The quote I put in Nietsche's biography is true and I think the reader should know what he thought about his "Polishness".

What do you think of it?

Kind regards, Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robveget (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should make your case on the talk page of the article --Snowded ^TALK 16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

British people

I apologize, this may be a misunderstanding. It's already being discussed

talk

) 07:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added back the changes to the caption. I'm not against your reversion, but the infobox needs to be consistent. It's just that, if you revert the caption, you need to revert the picture back first as well. If you're personally against the changes, or find my explanation above unconvincing, you're welcomed to revert again, just be sure to revert the picture along with the caption and not just the caption. --

talk

) 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't object to the changes, I think they are an improvement. However I would wait some days before implementing them and post a notice along the lines of "If no one objects in the next two days I will make the changes". I'll leave it to you if you revert and do that or just wait and see what happens--Snowded ^TALK 08:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can these things be set up to periodically rotate from a pick-list or something? We have so many to choose from! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea but beyond my technical competence. Worth raising mind you --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, and some of the portals, like

talk

) 10:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We should probably carry this on at Talk:British people but it looks pretty complicated, involving timestamps and cache purges - I will take a closer look at it and try and figure out if it's difficult to run it on the picture blocks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There are editors who love solving problems like this - maybe ask for help --Snowded ^TALK 12:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, will have a poke around - I kind of might enjoy it myself, time is the usual problem for me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

MMN

Don't poke the bear. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was only saying don't block him on my account, he's a force of nature one just goes with the flow --Snowded ^TALK 17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Complexity theory and organizations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Complexity theory and organizations, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

I've addressed the concerns you have raised regarding Famine in India. Please let me know you are OK with the rephrased text and sources:

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Talk:Famine_in_India#Another_try_to_address_Snowded.27s_concerns.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zuggernaut (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE stuff

I need clarification. Am I allowed to add/delete British Isles on an article & then report my actions to BISE? According to Bj, this can be done. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is as Fauna guideline, otherwise it should be proposed at BISE first - or at least that is my reading --Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy

Hi. I would have thought that BRD now applies in two directions on this particular article in this particular stage of discussion. Discussion is now progressing, with 3 editors, concerning the original concerns of 271828182 which were to do with sourcing and how we decide who is in. Your new proposal that we delete the whole section has come after this, and is itself a bold minority proposal that has not yet really be talked through. Can you please discuss it also, just the same as we asked 271828182 to discuss?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

BRD means that it would be wrong for me (or TFD) to delete the list Andrew and I am discussing it not deleting it. If you ignore that as a more recent and radical proposal (which is fine) then the question of who should be included and their order is not agreed just because three editors have started a discussion. The stable version should stand. --Snowded ^TALK 07:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to be pushy, hence my apologies for the reversion, but please do understand that I had no idea that you were thinking those edits were controversial. The practical problem that arises is that several edits, which to me still seem quite uncontroversial (and you have not argued against them?) become hard to reconstruct if someone rolls back a days work. So it is up to you what you do but I would hope you'll be a little flexible. The situation seems to call for some flexibility for the time being. There seems to be less justification for any edits which delete than for edits which add, because we are I think all aiming to build something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the list needs to be objective and balanced, so I specifically did not vote on the names. There is no drama in leaving the original list while a new one is worked out on the talk page. The minute people start editing the main space when discussion is active problems happen. You were right to revert TFD, you were wrong to amend the list. My request for you to self-revert stands. If you check the talk page, you will see I have started the process of ting to get to an objective list. --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rolling back a day's work of fairly minor edits by several editors, who did not know they had anyone who would disagree is not a simple revert for practical reasons, and if we can live without it then that will be more practical. Most of the edits were minor. You've explained no reason why Husserl should not be mentioned, whereas there is now strong sourcing given. I'll delete Rorty for now though. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You really are not addressing the issue of individual v comparison sourcing. --Snowded ^TALK 09:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was. Can you explain further on the article talk page. I have been taking you to say that ideally, a source with a list would be best. We don't have one yet. On the other hand, I also understand your biggest concern would be going to individual sources about specific individuals. Such sources have a vested interest in calling their subject major, but encyclopedic ones have the opposite incentive, and so they seem a reasonable solution?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends how Encyclopedias are written. Those which are a series of essays suffer from the same problem as individual sources (and were used to support Rand as a philosopher by the way). Histories are the only safe source --Snowded ^TALK 09:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Zuggernaut's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

no such "talk page agreement" exists

To delete 80% of the Communist terrorism article. Collect (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Its clear as far as I am concerned, if you disagree raise it on the talk page or use other remedies --Snowded ^TALK 14:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Metaphysical naturalism

Hi, in the §Definition paragraphs, I recall one sentence that struck me as a creationist polemic, perhaps there were more in the quotes? I see the editor's contributions were recently removed from Naturalism, so it doesn't seem entirely right to delete them from Metaphysical naturalism because they were about Naturalism in general. (Some of the quotes about Americans requiring creation-friendly science were rather annoying). Anyway, I think the definitions clearly need more work, (especially the parts about the supernatural) but the article wasn't exactly a shining example of good philosophy to begin with... all in all, it seems that material, at least, could be improved rather than removed—of the two articles, I'd think the metaphysical one might be the better choice having read the talk page discussion, (which is a bit too animated for me) ...or maybe not, what would you say?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to some going back in. If you hadn't made some changes I might have done a full revert. In haste as have early morning flight to US tomorrow so no time to review fully --Snowded ^TALK 23:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Having caught up on some of the context, I think you clearly made the right call.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Anglophobia

You re-added unsourced text.

WP:V

any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. FYI, WP:V is official policy, BRD is only an essay. WP:Stable is a long abandoned project. Your reversion has no grounds whatever in WP policy.

I'm within rights to revert you straight away. But since you so badly want this text, I'll give you a week to find a source which establishes its relevance. If not, it goes. If you keep going, I'll get the admins' opinion. BillMasen (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored material that has been there for some time, I did not restore the sentence which had a fact tag on it. Please stop issuing childish ultimata and empty threats. You have always had far to combative a style on this article --Snowded ^TALK 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? Because it has been unsourced for ages it gets to stay there? Ridiculous. The fact it has been unsourced for so long means it is more important to find a source, not less. See the discussion on the talk page.BillMasen (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence was unsourced and I agree with the deletion. The other material is relevant and easy for people to verify --Snowded ^TALK 03:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Signature block

Further to your comments on my User talk page, there is an error in your signature block. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just checked it and all the links work --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the links may or may not work, your signature seems to be miscolored and misshaped. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, its called a font Justus and I like the colour. Yours is doomed to be red until you follow the advice given. Its stands out like a sore thumb if you look at an edit history. --Snowded ^TALK 13:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the point, isn't it? You were complaining you couldn't find my posts. By now openly admitting that my name "stands out like a sore thumb", you are in fact contradicting yourself. Besides, your signature does seem to be not only deformed but also positively off color. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder about your ability to comprehend English from time to time (well with increasing frequency would be more accurate). I have not complained about not being able to find your posts, to be honest I wish I could stop finding them. You need to create a user page or pipelink it, basic WIkipedia process, but then you ignore guidelines on OR & Synth so I suppose you will ignore that. As to taste in fonts and colours, well as Tolkein said once "the praise of the praiseworthy is praise indeed", in this case the antithesis applies. --Snowded ^TALK 15:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good try. However, if the antithesis applies to me, it surely applies to you first since you introduced the subject, right? Besides, as per your own admission, the color of my name does make it easier for you to spot my posts, an activity I note you have turned into your favorite pastime, not to say fixation. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It simply established that trying to help you is a waste of time. Your signature block has an error in it but you don't want to acknowledge it, your editing a little more than OR and SYNTH with the occasional reference through in mostly out of context. Several of us tried to help but you don't want to know. Definite Troll and a pretty immature one at that. Now I have wasted enough time here Go away and try to learn --Snowded ^TALK 02:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Noted that editor has just been blocked for a month for tendentious editing and personal attacks. --Snowded ^TALK 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk

) 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Nations

I am having second thoughts about removing the flags for the article Celtic Nations, the reason in the first place for the removal was because there was no flag for Ireland as a whole, but Ireland is also the name for the Republic so it would actually be suitable to have the Tricolour representing Ireland as the Celtic nation.

talk

) 06:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see the argument but I think you will have opposition as the flag did not predate independence --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lemon Boy"

Are you trying to make a point with your references to "Lemon Boy", or are you confusing "Leven Boy" and "Lemon Monday"? It certainly confuses me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A freudian slip, although I could almost wish I had thought of it at a conscious level --Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Howabout 'LevenMonday'? GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - I think your last edit on the BI talk page was too hurried - you need to amend the last sentence to make sense :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of doing it for him. His intention was clear so no need to waste time waiting for a self correction. LemonMonday Talk 21:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I had to do a double take on that, hahaha. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

One should never edit when badly jet lagged! Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 23:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I only wish I could suffer from jet lag! (sigh......) Despite the rigours of that physical state, it surely beats the tedious routine of boredom!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't think so if you sent over 150 days a year (240 last) in the air and slept on planes at least once a week. One hotel and airport lounge are much alike. OK you get the odd chance to make a side trip but most of the time its a lot less romantic. --Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

At 05:44, 17 November 2010 I made the Merger proposal entirely clear even for those too lazy to look at the topic. (As per previous deletion discussion. Reduce and merge with Terminology of the British Isles).

At 11:21, 17 November 2010 you left a couple of fairly supercilious comments. "I'm not going hunting over your myriad contributions as an SPA on this subject ... Oppose for the moment until Lemon Monday/LevinBoy gets their act together".

Since 03:30, 16 November 2010, the merger had been entirely clear for anyone that actually looked at the article.

I appreciate that you may have been suffering from Jet lag as you say above but you would either explain to me what is in anyway unclear about the tag and "Reduce and merge with Terminology of the British Isles)", or apologise and strike out your comments. Thanks. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but "reduce and merge" is far too general a proposition, you need to be specific. So I'm happy to explain it but not apologise or strike (and this is about the limit of the explanation. Its a dead subject anyway and I really think you need to edit in other fields to avoid this SPA obsession with BI --Snowded ^TALK 16:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick to ask not so quick to give one. I'm still waiting..... Bjmullan (talk 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Failure of logic BJmullan. You placed a false comment in the wrong place trolling a RFC policy discussion. I gave you notification and asked you to move it. You ignored me showing bad faith. I moved the question to the concurrent RFC where it belonged and answered it politely there. There is nothing for me to apologise for. I did your work for you. That's three bad strikes against you and three good ones for me.

With Snowded, the context is different. Recently, he has consistently been layering on insults against me; "tedious ... tendentious ... paranoid" etc and now "obsessed". His response to the clearly marked merger was fairly insulting, the timestamps showed it was clearly marked. --LevenBoy (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, apart from something to do in airport lounges and when you are on your own in hotel rooms, what do you get out of this British Isles thing? What is it all about for you? --LevenBoy (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Very revealing question LemonBoy, says a lot about how you view motivation --Snowded ^TALK 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then why not just answer it instead of avoiding answering it? --LevenBoy (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I always answer valid questions LevenMonday --Snowded ^TALK 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You meant LevenBoy, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh of course, silly me getting them confused like that --Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are doing it on purpose and request that you don't do it again. Thanks. LemonMonday Talk 18:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an appropriate

portmanteau

to me 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Its so easy to confuse the pair of you Lemon/Levin; the same style of names, the same editing patterns on the same pages, the same behavioral change at the same time ... --Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Leven. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Snowded please don't do this - it's not helpful and not civil. I understand how difficult it is to deal with single-purpose accounts but please try to avoid comments like the above directed at LemonMonday and LevenBoy--Cailil ^talk 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Snowded raises a very good point - the miraculous behavioural change on both these accounts at the same time - and the AN/I report was archived with no actions even though some admins were going to take an action. All very strange the way some disruption is allowed to continue...and then everyone wonders why the BISE area is under a constant barrage of complaints... --

HighKing (talk

) 13:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To clear all doubts, have an SPI on them. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We had an SPI, and the admins/clerks agreed that the behavioural evidence was pretty convincing. But there's a tactic whereby "friends" of the accused fill the SPI (or AN/I, etc) with off-topic rantings (usually by going off on a "British Isles" or anti-HighKing rant) which appears to successfully make the admins lose interest and wander off. Even the recent AN/I was just at the point of taking action until more anti-HighKing commentary resulted in the whole thing petering out. Why don't you file an SPI this time - perhaps your mileage will be better than mine? --

HighKing (talk

) 15:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant Snowded get an SPI going. I don't know how to do those things & if I did, it would be for LM & LB's sake. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

HK seriously drop it. This is thoroughly inappropriate use of the talk-space.

Talk-pages are not for the expression of opinions about others. Either open a full and proper CU again or don't. But either way drop it on talk-pages--Cailil ^talk

16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to Snowded for cluttering up his Talk page (that's the inappropriate use). But I'm not "expressing" my opinion of others, I'm simply repeating what has already been stated at the SPI and the AN/I. If anything, I'm expressing my surprise/disgust at the manner in which, time and time again, SPI and AN/I notices are hijacked by friends of the accused .... and then nothing happens. I'd love to open a CU again ... but seriously, what's the point? All that would happen is that the accused would go to ground, and get away with any behavioural transgressions - free to repeat again in the future. It is not a breach of any policy to discuss this lack of action, and repeating the opinions expressed by admins, as it is the only avenue we have of expressing our opinion and deciding on whether there's any point in the charade of filing any more CUs and AN/Is, since inevitably they are *allowed* to be turned into a "British Isles" discussion or an anti-HighKing discussion. And if I sound frustrated ... well ... look at the past week from where I'm standing. We've gone from an editor reverting my correct and consensus-agreed edit on a resolved BISE topic, in breach of agreements and BISE procedures to DISCUSS before editing and reverting, all the way to a review of BISE and my wikireputation dragged thought the mud. Again! Enabled by ...? With the threat (?!?) of a topic ban and going to Arbcom being casually mentioned along the way. I simply don't understand, and it doesn't seem right. --

HighKing (talk

) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Response Sorry not have responded earlier, but I have been largely in transit for the past few days. Some comments:

• Cailil, I think you are trying to do a good job on civility under very difficult circumstances and need support so for that reason and that reason alone I'll back off
• That said if an SPA turns up on my talk page with nonsensical questions about motivation I don't think my response was unreasonable, on the talk page of an article less so
• Personally I think the behavioral evidence (and stylistic evidence) or the names is enough. We have two SPAs editing in identical ways, and in the same manner as other established socks.
• We have a history of Unionist socks avoiding using the same IP address. Some like Irvine took over a year to trap, and then we had the gloating as to how they had fooled the community
• In the case of these two XxxxxYyyyy named editors they do go to ground singly for extended periods if they start to get exposed.
• Having put up with more than my fair share of abuse from these (included the now regular vandalism from Stauners) I don't think my reaction here was excessive
• HighKing is right to say that every time an attempt to resolve this we get a storm of posts along the theme of "its all HighKing" including the abusive comments from Mick who looks likely to escape community sanction yet again (see the ArbCom request where I fully support Sandstein). OK past behaviour and a tendency to run to ANI too soon makes HighKing vulnerable to this charge but the simple fact is that HighKing has for the best part of two years complied with process and being civil.
• Until we deal with SPAs who abuse Wikipedia process it is going to very difficult to make progress. It is all getting very similar to the Climate Change and other areas. Maybe it needs a similar solution. I'm happy to work with others to assembled material and make comment, but I am too involved to lead that
• The only thing which has kept me from walking away from BI related matters over the last six months is the knowledge that the tactic of the SPAs is to drive any half way neutral editor away.

OK, now back to some real work --Snowded ^TALK 08:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I understand and sympathize Snowded, but I sincerly recommend ignoring single purpose accounts who make disruptive comments -
    WP:DNFTT. There is nothing appropriate about accounts speculating on your motives and it is noted that that was done. Both of the accounts in question 'have their cards marked' so to speak. However the problem with goading them is that you'll loose other people who are not being troublesome but who agree with the content arguments of these accounts. That causes a problem for the topic by polarizing it and plays into the hands of those trying to disrupt it. If anyone comes here speculating on motives again tell me or another sysop--Cailil ^talk
    15:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)