User talk:Normalmouth/Archive 01

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Normalmouth/Archive 01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! wangi 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please use edit summaries when saving you modifications, Thanks/wangi 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru

Hi. Re: your edits to Plaid Cymru. You might wish to read our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which should explain the edit is not staying. Your version seems written to denigrate - or at any rate downplay - Plaid. Morwen - Talk 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

The statment the Plaid Cymru is a left-of-centre party is hotly disputed by many people and therefore violates the above policy, hence my factual rewrite.

I have, however, made further amendments to my edits.

If you want to just change one small thing please do that, and base it on the current version of the article. The version you have put in is somewhat better, but there is still lots of things being changed here that have nothing to do with left-wing ness. In particular, I see for example no reason for the changes to the introduction bar the single word 'left-of-centre'. Why delete the financial and membership figures, for example? Do not revert, base your corrections on the current version of the article. Morwen - Talk 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, the party itself claims to be left of centre, for example this press release. If other people claim otherwise you need to find credible, verifiable sources for that, and put in a counter-claim, not just remove information. Morwen - Talk 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

As I thought I was clear in pointing out the claim about Left-wing was one of many NPOV violations in the article. There are many others:

1. Plaid Cymru changed its name mainly to appeal to English speakers. This is more pertinent than changes to electoral legislation.

2. Its website claims a membership of 8,000. Many believe this to be exagerated (the party has a huge incentive to inflate its membership figures). It is better, therefore, simply not to refer to it.

3. The party is known to some as 'Plaid'; to others it is known as 'the nats' - why is this not reflected in your article?

4. You say "He lost the seat to Labour in 1970, but regained it in 1974, during a period when Plaid Cymru was increasingly being seen as an alternative for Labour voters even in the industrial, mainly English-speaking southern half of Wales." This is simply not true. Plaid Cymru had achieved near-breakthrough in S Wales in the late 1960. By 1974 it was again stuck in the doldrums. Your edit is factually inaccurate.

4. Wigley has now all but admitted his decision to stand down was not due to medical advice, but a plot against him. Why is this not mentioned?

5. The formation of the Independent Wales Party is insignificant.

There are many others, hence the entirely justified re-edit. Tinkering with the existing flawed version will no do the job.

Finally, the question of Plaid Cymru's left-wing ideology is disputed. If you are to remain with NPOV guidelines you have to reflect this, or merely (as I did) state the parts upon which there is factual agreement, namely that they advocate separation and the promotion of the Welsh language.

Your edit is biased.

I'm not defending anything in the existing article - I have no bones to pick here, either. However, your initial version was unacceptable, and your later version, still has broken formatting in the introduction, removal of membership and financial information is unacceptable. Please at least re-integrate these changes. 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

Very well.

Please desist your mass POV edits at this article. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines before continuing.--Mais oui! 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

Allow me to illustrate just on NPOV violation of your version. In it, you claim:

" [from] 1974...the party gained ground until the successful devolution referendum of 1997, following which the Welsh Assembly was set up."

When actually support for the party remained at similarly low levels from 1974 until 1999, a fact borne our by the party's own - highly slanted version - of it's history which states:

"The closing year of the seventies was to provide a profound disappointment with the defeat of proposals for a Welsh Assembly in a nation-wide referendum held on St. David's Day. Analysis of the causes of this defeat are still discussed but the deep unpopularity of the crumbling Labour Government of James Callaghan was obviously a major factor in this outcome. More ominously the election brought Margaret Thatcher to power. The need for a voice for Wales was to become more acute than ever! The eighties were not fruitless ones for the party..."

my edit reflects this fact, so your version has to go.

Your edits keep removing all reference to Plaid Cymru as a left-of-centre party. Please show some evidence for your assertions (e.g. rightwing policies in their manifesto) on the talk page, before mass-editing the article. Gareth 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

I am not claiming Plaid Cymru is right wing, so there is no requirement for me to provide evidence that they have right wing policies. All I am stating is that Plaid Cymru's claim to be left wing is disputed and should not therefore be included as fact in the article - or at the very least should be mentioned in the main text rahter than the opening par) and then qualified.

The latter would be acceptable, but of course you would need to cite a source for the dispute, we can't just simply take your word for it. Removing information like that is not acceptable. Morwen - Talk 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

Morwen, your whole approach to this appears to be slanted in favour of a particular outcome. It is not for me to prove that Plaid Cymru is not left wing (and thus prove a negative), or indeed to cite a source for the disputation of their claim to be left wing. The onus is on the article to, in the first instance, provide factual and objective statements about the party and their outlook. My edit does, as it identifies them as 'the principal nationalist party in Wales' who advocate withdrawal from the UK etc. Other aspects of their ideology are a matter of perspective, opinion and partisanship and should be excluded.

There is no presumption in favour of their claim to being left wing, as you appear to believe. So it's not a case of me 'removing information'; rather I am editing out NPOV violations, i.e opinion. and leaving on that upon which there is agreement.

Actually, yes it does. NPOV doesn't mean that one editor can come along and rip and article to shreds merely on their say so, without providing any evidence or sources at all, which is what you are attempting to do. Morwen - Talk 10:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And as to "slanted in favour of a particular outcome". I personally am English, not Welsh, a member of a different political party that contests elections against Plaid, and generally dislike nationalism and petty nationalism. Morwen - Talk 10:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice rhetoric, but you dodged my point - namely that the presumption should be in favour of the factual information upon which there is consensus (i.e Plaid Cymru are a nationalist party) and against opinion and propaganda (i.e that they are left wing).

You seem to start from the position that the left wing claim is a given - it isn't.

So i'm not ripping the article to shreds on my say so, merely removing the NPOV violations.

I have once again reverted the page. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page before enacting them. Gareth 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mais oui! (talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 14:20:53

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mais oui! (talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 15:45:41

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. wangi 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wangi,

I've vandalised nothing. I suggest you review the edit history and indicate to me where you think vandalism has taken place.

Concerned

reference

Actually, sorry for the confusion but I just made a mess up when I was correcting Mais oui's addition of {{test3}} - see these edits: [1] & [2]. I was adding back the warnings you removed, plus trying to add a signature to the ones Mais added...

Can I suggest you copy the source of the Plaid Cymru article to your user page (or a subpage) and make the edits you want to make and then start up a discussion on the articles talk page pointing toward your updated version. Explain why it's NPOV and also be sure to include references in the article for changes.

Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~.

Thanks/wangi 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Welsh nationalism

Please have a look at Talk:Welsh nationalism and respond to my comments. Thanks. Gareth 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of the Plaid Cymru article

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please desist from your campaign of systematic vandalism of every PC-related article you can lay your hands on. Wikipedia is not a free medium for Labour Party black propaganda.--Mais oui! 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --Mais oui! 09:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that these edits can remotely be characterised as vandalism. David | Talk 09:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you review the actions of Normalmouth, especially on that page, you will see that there is a crystal clear campaign to attempt to defame Plaid Cymru. Such blatantly POV attacks on an organisation are most certainly considered to be vandalism here at Wikipedia. Articles must not be uncritical, but they also must not allow opponents a free webspace for slander.--Mais oui! 09:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My edits have been agreed after discussion. Please contribute to that discussion rationally and stick to the content of the edits and articles, not what you assume to be the author's motives. Thanks. Normalmouth 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And on the topic of vandalism: Normalmouth has been using sockpuppets:

That is very much a blockable pattern of behaviour, especially the registered account.--Mais oui! 09:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you check those accounts you'll note they have not been used for weeks, and were very much a product of my Wiki inexperience. All edits are now done in my username and after disucssion. I urge you to do the same. Why not debate the issues properly instead of hiding behind bogus allegations? Normalmouth 10:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The only reason you stopped using those sockpuppets was because I labelled them as such, which stopped your little game: the registered account was clearly created with the intention of perverting Wikipedia processes. And where exactly, on what Talk page, did you reach consensus with other Users on grouping Plaid Cymru in with the Nazis. You are clearly attempting to defame that organisation. Stop it.--Mais oui! 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not grouped Plaid Cymru with the Nazis. Not ever. I have said they are a Nationalist party. They are. Stop defaming me and get a grip of yourself. Normalmouth

To give you a taste of your own treatment, may I ask how you would like it to be called a British Nationalist, because that is exactly what a supporter of a unified British nation (you, for example) is... according to your logic.--Mais oui! 10:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru are a nationalist political party. It's not an insult, it's a fact that they have always proclaimed. Their successive manifestos all talk about the Welsh nation. Meanwhile, Normalmouth, please check my edit which you keep reverting. David | Talk 10:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

By that definition Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are both British nationalists, because they both talk about the "British nation". Utter nonsense.

Here at Wikipedia we must be crystal clear in our terms, not sloppy, especially in this tricky area: the correct link is Welsh nationalism, not Nationalism.--Mais oui! 10:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais_oui!

Hi, thanks for your comments. I'm not surprised at what you said. Ever since he arrived at Wikipedia, he has been starting edit wars and launching personal attacks. Tonight he has went through my user contributions and reverted all the work I have done over the last few days. The way 3RR works means I can't keep reverting his vandalism without putting myself in jepordy. I see he is doing the same to you. What I will do is to put the articles you are having problems with on my watchpage, and I will help you revert any inappropiate edits he happens to make. Sometimes the best way of dealing with cases like this is to stick together. It is a shame because he does spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and can make good contributions at times, but he has a series attitude problem and reacts badly to changes to his work. He has even deleted a message I left for him on his talk page asking him to be more civil. Keep me posted if you need help with his aggressive edits. Astrotrain 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've no desire to keep having an argument with him, but neither can I let him simply undo agreed work and other perfectly reasonable amends unilaterally. Let me know if I can be of assistance at your end. Regards Normalmouth 22:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So far he has:

deleted a comment I left for him on his user page
deleted a request for comment on the Scottish Wikipedian Notice Board
made inappropiate changes to King George Island and Falkland Islands
deleted a POV tag I added to Brazil Antarctic Geopolitics.
launched personal attacks on yourself and me.

Astrotrain 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rhodri Morgan is leader of Welsh Labour, a wing of the Labour Party, only a snob would call him the leader of the Labour group at the Assembly. Talk:Rhodri Morgan

Amlder20 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Snobbery is an interesting concept to introduce into a discussion of constitutional fact. I prefer to stick to the, perhaps old fashioned, view that something is either correct in fact or it is not. As it stands there is no provision within the Labour Party's constitution for a Leader of the Wales Labour Party (if there were one might also suggest the postholder of Secretary of State for Wales might qualify). There is, however, such a provision within the standing orders of the National Assembly Labour Party. Under those rules Rhodri Morgan is the current leader. And that's it. Normalmouth 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism to the Welsh self-government article

Persistently removing vast screeds of non contentious links from the Welsh self-government article is vandalism. Truly bizarrely, you keep using an Edit summary which says "Agreed changes". You do not have, indeed have not even tried to seek, consensus for your campaign of vandalism. Please desist.

I look forward to your new buddy User:Astrotrain soiling his hands on this one. He really is a far, far more classy act than you, and I imagine that he will be horrified when he sees the quality of compadre he rashly swore a blood-bond with.--Mais oui! 13:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's rather obvious who is exhibiting the agressive and confrontational approach here. You do yourself no favours by flying off the handle like this.

But rather than persist with this edit war why don't you at least try to engage with me on a discussion about the content? Have a look at Talk:Welsh self-government and you'll see I've started that discussion.

Ultimately, I just don't agree with what you've done. I'd like us to reach consensus on a revised wording, but I can't do that if all you do is revert any and all changes to your work.Normalmouth 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I have looked at the Welsh nationalism/self-government article and have restored the points agreed previously by reference to the talk page. I have kept the bolded title as Welsh self-government, while the article still has this name; and kept the Wiki links added by Mais_oui!. It looks an interesting article, I may see if I can improve it further. Astrotrain 20:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Forking

I found that you had created a fork of the Welsh self-government article under the title "Welsh nationalism". I have now reverted "Welsh nationalism" to being a redirect. There is a policy on Wikipedia against creating forks of this type - please see Wikipedia:Content forking.Rhion 16:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Take care not to get into an edit war on such a controversial issue. The article on Welsh nationalism as it stands contains a lot of irrelevancies and a lot of POV statements. I recommend you try and improve it as a way of achieving a compromise with User:Rhion. Deb 08:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is something you need to raise on the discussion pages of the relevant articles and see if you can reach an agreeement with the other editors. I have no strong feelings about it either way as long as policies such as WP:FORK and most importantly WP:NPOV are not violated. Rhion 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that there is scope for two articles, but you will not get what you want by just moving the article and you are not supposed to do this. If you want to move an article, you have to follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requested moves and see if you can reach consensus. My preference would be for you to create a new article on Welsh nationalism, clearly stating the difference between nationalism and self-government. If you are able to do this without being POV, then I don't think anyone else could complain. Deb 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deb. I'm much obliged for your guidance. I'm happy to create an article, but it will inevitably be quite similar to the existing one, since I believe this does quite a good job and remains NPOV. I'll think on it. Normalmouth 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation

You cannot remove sections from one article because it lacks a reference, but then on another article repeatedly add unreferenced sections. See WP:CITE. --Mais oui! 09:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Because I have done no such thing Normalmouth 09:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi. A checkuser request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Normalmouth to see if you recently commented on a poll using both your logged in account and as an IP address while logged out. Mas Oui points out making the request that you previously admitted this was your IP address. As policy violations go, this is minor and not worth anyone getting in an uproar over. However, if you did make the comment while logged out, it would be nice if you said so on the talk page, to avoid any potential bad feelings that might linger from this. Cheers. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not make any comments while logged out. Alas, Mais oui! is determined behave aggressively toward me (and a number of other users by the looks of things). The irony is that this accusation has come about following me adhering to the correct procedures for renaming a page. Mais oui!, by contrast, renamed it from the original title without any discussion. Normalmouth 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. We'll see what happens when the checkuser admins review the case. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what that means, but happy to submit to whatever process is deemed necessary. Ultimately, all I wish to do is change the nme of one page back to what it was before Mais oui! renamed it unilaterally. Normalmouth 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I GIVE UP!

I have tried to contribute articles on topics about which I have knowledge, such as Orkney, but the articles have been subjected to constant destructive editing, and I have been subjected to repeated harassment, mainly by Mais oui!, that I see no point in continuing.

I have now joined the ever-growing category of disillusioned Wikipedians. Mallimak 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh

I agree with you on this one- and all UK top 10 cities should be identified in the intro. I notice Mais oui! didn't even bother to give any sort of reasonable excuse for deleting this information. Astrotrain 08:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would advise to avoid the edit war with Globaltraveller on this page if possible- you may breach 3RR if you revert him again.. I will be keeping an eye on the page myself, although hopefully your change of source to one he prefered will calm the situation. Regards. Astrotrain 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you./wangi 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)