Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


misc.

I was watching a re-run of a special about Walter Cronkite recently, and he talked about how he would kind of mudge his interview subjects, to "reveal their true character". An only somewhat-gentler version of the same stuff that Bill O'Reilly does. I'm neither O'Reilly nor Cronkite, but when a pompous editor lectures me on how I should behave, he's going to hear about it later if he starts behaving the same way. What some folks call "fanning the flames", I call "revealing character". When he admitted he was unwilling to live up to his own words, his character was revealed. Mission accomplished, and a perfect time to shut down the thread. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to impose a no-contact sanction between me and OR, assuming he mutually agrees to it, that would be fine with me. I find him to be utterly disagreeable, and would just as soon never have him darken my talk page again. I don't intend to comment in his ArbCom, and when he inevitably comes up for banning or blocking, I won't need to speak up, as such a move will likely have ample support already. :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think that any more sanctions on OR at the moment may be useful, especially as I'm not convinced about the one that Jehochman imposed. Don't have any contact with OR, let the RFAR run it's course, and if OR does contact you again on your talkpage, let me know. Black Kite 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Roger. Basically a self-imposed, unofficial contact ban from my side. Seems good. I agree he kind of has his mitts full right now. In fact, even though the logic is screwy, the majority was probably correct that an admin can't unilaterally impose a sanction that Jehocman tried to do. It's odd that an admin can block but not sanction, but maybe there's a reason for that. And if Jehocman is actually involved in those articles as OR claims, then it's a touchy area. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall of ever posting or talking to Bugs except in response of him responding to me. I have no idea what his content areas are, nor do I have any idea what topic of interests he has. From what I can see, I have posted on his talk page twice in the past year - [1] and [2]. I may have missed one, but I checked each of the pages and I did not find anything else. As of right now, I see no desire or reason to justify any contact or posting on his talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pleased that he cited the point where he lectured me about forgiving others, as that saved me the trouble of having to find it. :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The interesting thing about OR's saga on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is that he's trying to make it to be a content dispute, but it reads more like a bi-directional RfC. "They're terrible!" "No, HE's terrible!" etc. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's something that needs to be pointed out. There's something askew with that case. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a frivolous report and just more forum shopping past that ridiculous RFC. He's calling for everyone who disagrees with him to be blocked. He's out of control and he needs to be stopped. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Baseball Bugs, very few people like you. Most people think that you are an antagonist that spends their whole time here causing problems and inflaming situations. The fact that you don't think that there is edit warring on that page shows that you are disrupting. Dougstech was banned for less. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is not a social networking site, so being liked or not liked is irrelevant. What's relevant is article content, and getting along with other editors. It appears you're at war with a whole bunch of other editors, whom you want blocked. That's pretty funny coming from you, who claimed I was too harsh in calling for blocks of disruptive editors. I've seen more antagonism directed towards you in the last 3 days than I've had directed toward me in a year. So don't lecture me about who's "liked". Ya dig? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
              • War with a bunch of others? I and sitting arbs, admin, etc. Every third party that objectively came to that page agreed that a page that was both top priority and high priority in two wiki projects, fully cited, and part of Wiki 1.0 shouldnt be edit warred out of existence without consensus. And Bugs, a lot of that antagonism is directed by you. I've already seen IRC filled with people who have called you some of the worse names and want your block. You are only providing a very good reason for you to be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Please note the opposition to your action at [[4]] which, while effective in damping down warring, has gone too far in deleting the article and replacing it with your own preferred version. Please revert. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Per WP:OWN, that project should not be allowed to abduct this material in order to control it and their private discussions are naturally self-serving. The article has been featured on the main page and kept repeatedly at AFD. Further discussions regarding the article are best held on its talk page where all editors may see and work upon the featured material in the normal way. Additionally, your action has deleted good faith, sourced additions to the article without proper process or discussion. The current page which you have placed and locked there is your own personal creation and so you are using your admin tools improperly. Merger/deletion should be performed by proper discussion in the usual way, not by unilateral action. Please revert. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The course of action I suggest is as follows:
  1. Delete the current redirect in mainspace, as it is now a third redundant fork.
  2. Restore the deleted redirect/mainspace article which was the object of the war.
  3. Merge the history of that with the history which the Pokemon project moved off somewhere so that we just have one combined history to best satisfy the GFDL.
  4. Put the merged version back into mainspace at the latest version.
  5. Protect that version to prevent further warring.
  6. Start an RfC with a link to centralised discussion so that the matter may get a full airing.

This seems to give the best result in that all contributions will be retained and respected together; th edit warring will be suspended; and the community will be afforded a good opportunity to debate the fate of this former featured article.

Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Off to the shops now so will leave it at that for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick bit, I think you left the Bulbasaur subpage protected by accident, can't seem to edit it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, my mistake, removed it now. Black Kite 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley article

Two questions: (1) Is the lock you recently placed on the Charles Karel Bouley universal to all editors or am I the only one locked out? (2) Since the article is locked, would you consider reverting the edit made by JoyDiamond at 23:58, 25 September 2009? What she placed there is nothing more than text from a quoted source and does not appear to be a NPOV. Also, as requested, I have started discussion on the talk page of the article. Thanks. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Percontation

I was reading about rhetorical question marks and it lists the percontation point as an alternate term for it. Currently this redirects to Irony mark/point. I am guessing that the term can refer to the symbol used in the past to denote rhetorical qs and currently to denote irony. What I am wondering is, do you think it would make sense to redirect percontation to irony mark? If either term refer to both rhetorical question marks or irony marks then it's sort of confusing to have them in separate articles, but Irony mark may be too extensive to merge. Tyciol (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Unfounded suspicions"

An FYI, you might be interested in the "unfounded suspicions" about you at User talk:Cunard#Bullshido.net (permalink). Please comment there and dispel Hobit of his uninformed suspicions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In Case You're Wondering About the Reversions on Your Talk Page

I accidentally hit the wrong rollback link. Sorry about that. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sure that the SVG logo was used before the PNG version. See [5], [6], [7], and [8]. The onTV branding launched in 1997.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for bringing it to PUI.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just because the logo has overlapping typefaces doe's not make it copyrighted. If overlapping typefaces could be copyrighted then this logo would be copyrighted but has you can see it is public domain. Powergate92Talk 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A little help

Hey Black Kite, just wondering if you could help me with a technical snaffu. I need the previous version of File:The Bronx - False Alarm.ogg deleted. Due to an oversight on my part, I accidentally uploaded the entire song rather than just the clip I had edited from it. I quickly realized the error and fixed it but obviously the file that's the entire song can't remain on WP. I wasn't sure where to go to ask for this, and you're the first admin I thought of. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet at Ahmed Deedat

Thanks for stomping on the Ahmed Deedat sockpuppet again. If he/she pops up again after Ahmed Deedat is unlocked, do I need to notify, or is that page under some sort of permanent sockpuppet watch? (I tried to notify at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations but that page itself was locked last night!) Peter Ballard (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

Thanks for the ludicrous assumption of bad faith. Your "unfounded suspicions" about my closing of that AfD are indeed wildly incorrect, but to be fair, they did make me laugh. As Cunard has pointed out to you, I had no intention of doing anything else with that AfD until he contacted me.

Perhaps I should have deleted it the first time - despite all the website's "it's notable" supporters, it still doesn't have any significant third-party coverage. You'd have thought all those supporters would have found some by now, if it's that notable, wouldn't you? Black Kite 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, you should have if you felt it was the outcome of the discussion. Clearly you didn't. But if by closing with with explicate permission to reopen immediately you were hoping for some outcome other than someone renominating it immediately I'd be curious what that motivation was. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Formosa

A quick heads-up. QuantockWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a message on my page requesting undeletion of the Mark Formosa article. He has also started DRV here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Port Charles, New York (fictional city)

these images are relevent to show the places in questions

i would be happy to find images that would replace these and upload em to wikipedia

but if im going to the article i wanna see what the hospital looks like

articles to me look really bland without images

you understand me? i will be happy to find better images but please understand

BigPadresDude 22:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

what do you think of me as a editor? i have a minor barnstar just in case you need to know BigPadresDude 23:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • i hate sometimes that my edits are mostly minor cause i wanna write a good article but i do my own thing revert vandilism when i see it got any suggestions on how i could improve and what have i done wrong besides the carly corinthos incident and our current thing? BigPadresDude 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love a refresher on FU images from vid games

Hi Black Kite. Six FU images at a FAC look like too many, especially as they're not well-embedded in the text, IMO.

Do you have time to take a quick look? The article; the FAC page. Thanks in advance! Tony (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi, user:TharkunColl went on a significant spree [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. I haven't reverted but will wait to see what you deem appropriate under the circumstances. --HighKing (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. Although his most recent edit is only 2 days ago, so this may not be an isolated incident. But what do we do? Revert the lot? Cos if *I* did that, you know what would happen (and actually, some are perfectly OK edits). He's also not engaging on the task force and his comment on his Talk page indicates that he probably won't either. And given that some editors specifically watch for these changes, it's stretching my credulity that this went unnoticed. --HighKing (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering should I just revert all the edits? --HighKing (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem reverting ones that you consider to be incorrect, as long as you can back that up if necessary. Black Kite 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, what about your instructions which state if you're going to change BI to GB etc., you need to explain why you're making this change in the editsum as a minimum, and provide a source as to why the article should not be BI. It's the same for those wishing to change it back, as well.. Tharky hasn't provided a single source in any of those cases. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I agree, but clearly it's better if you can clearly say "this is wrong because..." rather than just reverting. Black Kite 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As expected, his tag-team buddy User:MidnightBlueMan has now reverted my edits link to MBM's contributions. Can you intervene please? --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Got your note. So for clarity, what exactly is the situation now with the reverts performed by MBM? He's put the articles back to where they were, and all without references. Either we've got rules, or we don't. If I revert his edits on the basis of the ground rules that you've established, are you going to block me? --HighKing (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
ping. --HighKing (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that everything be discussed on the Specific Examples page from now on. I see that process has started already. Black Kite 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)BK, I moved your reply back here to keep the conversation in one place. I protest at this very uneven-handedness and unfair treatment being dealt out. If I had done what Tharky did, I'd have been blocked in a flash. If I'd block-reverted what MBM did, I'd have been blocked in a flash. You set out explicit rules, which I've followed to the letter. I've even engaged (despite protests) at the Specific Examples page, and persevered amongst insults and stone-walling. A little support here and there wouldn't go amiss, and TBH I'm starting to seriously consider that my good faith attempts to work towards resolving guidelines is being abused by certain editors, and being taken for granted by others as a way of frustrating any progress and acting as an unofficial censorship channel. --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Each of these needs to be looked into in more detail to ensure the correct term is used. There should be no mass revert of these changes, but i agree all future changes should be done via that page mentioned before which does produce results. Many of the changes made by TharkunColl were clearly correct,. most are not using the LEGAL term, they mean the British Isles. Highkings reverts must be undone in those cases. Take 25, "Battle of Jersey", it is VERY clear that is meant to be British Isles, not British Islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant whether they're "right" or not. If they overstep the "reverting a revert" rule from now, editors will be liable to blocking. Black Kite 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This rule about reverting a revert is problematic at the British Isles article which atleast has a warning tag when people edit it, to apply the rule wikipedia wide is going to be impossible or extreme. It may lead to alot of people socking, other editors who dont know about this new rule cant be punished can they and we wont be able to revert the revert.
So of the examples listed above, we are going to have to go one by one on the taskforce page, seeking its change? This will take a long time, can we atleast have current cases closed where its clear theres no support for a change so the page doesnt become a complete messs. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, a good change with a good source can be reverted without good reason. There has to be a way of avoiding this. Jack forbes (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't a hard and fast rule, clearly. If an editor makes a change that's solidly backed up by a reliable source, then reverting it without a good reason is clearly disruptive editing anyway - although I'd prefer it if such an event was flagged up to myself or another admin rather than a revert-war breaking out. Black Kite 22:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have no intention of participating in a page where every edit must be looked at individually. That is not the intention of the page. The page is a part of the Task Force to establish guidelines. To date, there has been zero attempt at trying to use the specific examples to establish reasonable guidelines, although there have been considerable attempts to simply stonewall the process, and even deny that guidelines are necessary. If we're simply going to look at articles one at a time, then I suggest there's no need for this page, and we can simple discuss each item on the individual article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating, there are many articles saying British Islands when they should be saying British Isles, i thought that was an aim or atleast going to be an implication when i first saw that article. The taskforce page highking, is to screen every single example of when you want to remove the term British Isles, that page was never about setting up guidelines as far as im aware. It appears we are going to have to start adding examples of where British Islands must be changed to British Isles, and im sure stonewalling will take place to block changes which are accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That's not a problem HK, but if discussion is going on at the article talkpage then it'd be useful to drop a note onto the SE page so that people like me that don't have all those articles watchlisted can keep track of what's going on. Black Kite 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A good rule which i would be happy to follow (considering i never go around adding British Isles anyway). All proposed changes should atleast be mentioned on that page, even if someone starts a debate about it on the talk page. We must be informed, otherwise its simply going to be reverted when someone comes across it and we have to look at each others edit histories to check noones going around making changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we need Arbitration to settle the BI usage on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom would not settle this matter, the Ireland naming dispute proves thats a waste of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The first words will be "content dispute". And even if it wasn't, what remedies would be sought? Whatever they were, they'd be a nightmare to administer. Black Kite 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way that we can have an automated update of pages where British Isles or British Islands are added / removes? if that was possible like with a bot that would be really useful and a good deterrent as people would be less likely to get away with random removals / additions.? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Doable, but very easy to circumvent if you knew what you were doing, I suspect. Black Kite 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

BRD at BI

I take your point. Problem is, BRD with no further reverting simply means no change on BI-related articles. Both sides can use it to stonewall progress, particularly when some editors will never be beaten in an argument. Use of British Islands is inappropriate in all cases apart from the narrow political use to which it applies, but we now have a series of articles erroneously using the term. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

See comment at User talk:TharkunColl. I'm on with it now. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Declan Arthurs

On this discussion here the result was merge. However the Declan Arthurs article was redirected and not merged. Could you possibly remove the redirect and merge the article as that was what the result was? --Domer48'fenian' 20:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's grand, but Declan Arthurs is only one of a number of articles. --Domer48'fenian' 07:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a go myself, should be ok. --Domer48'fenian' 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little House with an Orange Roof

Hi. You recently deleted Little House with an Orange Roof per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little House with an Orange Roof, but in the discussion User:KrebMarkt requested that the article be userfied in his userspace. Could you do this please? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth?

What on Mars are you referring to on my talk page? I couldn't give a fiddlers to what is said on the BI page, because the article is in a complete shambles. I just added one sentence, and that was it, otherwise dris, dris, dris!! Tfz 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing by HighKing

I made a few edits some days ago to replace the patently incorrect "British Islands" (a legal concept connected with citizenship) with "British Isles", but these have been reverted by HighKing. ðarkuncoll 23:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "legal concept" any more than "Republic of Ireland" is a "legal concept". British Islands means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and is clearly defined here.
Your section heading on POV pushing is a personal comment and symptomatic of your refusal to engage in meaningful discussion. Please comment on the content, not on the editor. --HighKing (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
And its use is solely concerned with issues of citizenship and the like. It is not used in any other contexts. ðarkuncoll 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)BK, heads up - [44][45][46][47], etc, etc. --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping here. I know you're normally not active till the evening time. --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
And it's wrong to revert what are clearly incorrect edits on your part? British Islands is concerned with citizenship, British Isles is the place where animals live. ðarkuncoll 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
British Isles is clearly the term that is meant to be used in many of the cases mentioned, British Islands is only used for legal terms and as it does not include half of Ireland, clearly in some cases its completly wrong to use. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No. It's wrong to continue to engage in disruptive editing after an explicit warning was placed on your Talk page to not revert a revert. We've set up a specific page to discuss specific examples. I suggest that is the place to discuss your ideas so that we can form sensible guidelines. --HighKing (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a typical example of HighKing's disruptive, POV pushing: Punics. In that article I changed British Islands to British Isles, since the former is clearly incorrect, yet HighKing changed it back. British Islands is a specific legal term first invented in 1889 and concerned solely with citizenship and related matters. ðarkuncoll 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

I think you will need to keep an eye on Great Britain and Ireland in the coming days aswell, as that might turn into a battle ground. Like with British Islands, this "term" will be put in different articles in an attempt to replace British Isles as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And unfortunately, instead of assessing any such change on its merits -- which phrase more appropriately fits the context? -- Britishwatcher has already described the article Great Britain and Ireland as "disgusting" (although he did later strike that adjective), so I am concerned that he may simply revert rather than take part in a genuine discussion.
Now I may be unfairly prejudging BW, and if the situation arises I hope I will be shown to be wrong, but I am worried about where all this leaves us.
Thanks, Black Kite, for your msg on my talk page about measures to cut down on revert-warring. I respect the intention, because revert-warring is disruptive: it floods watchlists and article histories with pointless entries, and wastes editors time in monitoring them. It also breeds acrimony, as successive reverts tend to attract tetchier edit summaries.
However, banning reverts of a revert tends to amounts in practice to handing a veto to editors whose response to any change is to just say "no, no, no", even if they might use a fancier form of words. They can revert, say no to any proposals, and call for a block on anyone who reverts their revert.
So while revert-warring rewards those who enjoy attrition, 1RR rewards those who block any change. This seems equally unsatisfactory, and it also risks leading to blocks of responsible editors who were unaware of (or didn't fully understand) the restriction and who set out quite reasonably to revert a reversion which had been done on I-don't-like-it grounds. (Consider, for example, all BW's denunciations as "offensive" of wordings he disagrees with at Talk:British Isles).
I therefore want to ask you to hold off on this. "Something must be done" is a sentiment that most of share about this impasse, but there is a real danger that enforcing this no-revert-of-reverts rule will cause a huge number of new problems. Blocks that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as unfair, arbitrary, or partisan in effect, will inflame an already difficult situation.
The best solution I can see is either to try a completely different approach, or else to place a clear onus on anyone reverting to provide a clear policy-based reason for that revert. There may be a better solution I haven't thought of, but a no-revert-of-reverts-or-you'll be-blocked rule is like draconian police action: a recipe for turning simmering tension into open hostility. That's in nobody's interest.
Best wishes, a worried --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I do have a problem with that article, i think it should be a dab page, but as one moderate objected on the talk page i simply removed unsourced material after people failed to add sources despite my tags. Some of that unsourced stuff was added back to night, but the sources provided clearly state Britain NOT Great Britain, there is a difference. Perhaps debate is needed on that talk page about the future of it along with the Britain and Ireland redirect to that page. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As for what i found offensive, i thought i had made that clear. The idea that we start the article by saying British Isles is a term... or something along those lines is offensive, unless Europe, Great Britain and other articles are treated in exactly the same way. Clearly if that is not done then we are degrading the use of the term British Isles, it also goes against all the sources. Despite constant nonsense on the page telling people to look at the EB source, the source backs up our current method, it does not justify change. After a certain amount of time explaining reasons why i oppose a change, sorry but there does come a time when one must simply say no no no!, especially when the introduction took alot of time and debate to get consensus on. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
All of which illustrates the problem rather well. There is no controversy, so far as I am aware, over the use of the word "Europe" to describe the continent, or "Great Britain" to describe the island which blocks the direct route (grin!) from the Isle of Man to Germany. So suggesting that they should get the same treatment is a straw man.
Similarly, all this cries of "offensive" are a time-wasting way of adding heat but not substance. They amount to an I-don't-like-it argument, and despite your repeated calls for others editors to provide refs, you haven't offered any reference for your assertions of "offensive". There are plenty of refs already in the article to show that the phrase "British Isles" is rejected by one of the two EU member states it includes, yet the lead relegates that crucial fact to the next para. We could have a sensible discussion about how best to include that, but the debate is repeatedly disrupted by you labelling proposals you don't like as "offensive" and "disgusting".
This sort of conduct is every bit as disruptive to collegial consensus-forming as revert-warring, but we are now facing a situation where revert-warring may lead to instant blocks, but stonewalling goes unpunished. That's why I am concerned that Black Kite's well-intentioned warnings will make a bad situation worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Its wonderful you want to have a sensible debate about this now, considering the change that was made led to an edit war and was clearly going to be opposed by other editors. Starting the article in any other way than "The British Isles is a group of islands" is a non starter. I will strongly oppose and i have no problem repeating again i find it offensive to suggest we must put something like "The British Isles is a term" or as was originally changed to "The British Isles is a disputed phrase which refers to". Now if you want a serious debate about having the second sentence mentioning the dispute then its worth considering, however that would also mean the second paragraph will need changing. What i also can not accept is this idea that Britannica justifies any change to these openign sentences, and certainly not to what you changed it to. The Britannica article has one large block of text, the first half describes the British Isles like we do stating it as fact not describing it as some "phrase used to refer to" nonsense. The second half of the text describes the dispute, this is exactly what we do, we just split the block of text into two and go into more detail in the second paragraph about alternative terms and usage. Yet people keep quoting the Britannica source to justify change, i cant understand why. You made a bold change, it was reverted, an edit war started, the stable version is in place. People are discussing it on the talk page, several oppose such a change. End of story, make new proposals which are more reasonable and yes i will use that word again, less offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The stone walling, not to mention some of the language is becoming increasingly problematic on the subject in general. One attempt to get a series of articles listed and try and solve the problem in the round failed, in the main because there was no willingness of a small group of editors to change BI to B&I under any circumstances. We have a small number of editors who are ideologically committed to its use (or I think more to preventing it ever being changed) and others wanting it to be wiped from the face of the earth. The net result is a lock down on editing. Arbcom is not the answer, I wonder if the solution lies in the creation of a limited (but representative) membership review committee or the like to be called in when there is a dispute. Something does need to be done, I don't think there is any way that with the current I oppose strongly mentality that this will happen with current processes and the current set of editors. --Snowded TALK 07:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
A thought on the above idea of a small group. It would be to start with getting a statement of the issue and extent of the problem. That would include (for example) the difficulty of getting a definition that includes the crown colonies and Isle of Man, but does not include Ireland, examples of use and misuse etc. Extend to a list of the articles on which there has been controversy listing the reasons (for and against in each case) for said controversy. From that attempt to isolate a set of rules or principles for naming and use of names and then work through a list of potential edits that could be presented for discussion as a composite proposal with a process for future resolution. I've been around this issue for years now and I can't think of anything else that will work. --Snowded TALK 08:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC).
The trouble is you think using British Isles in a political way is wrong, which i agree with but we seem to have vastly different views on when its "political". Taking one of the examples before, about the French invading the British Isles. That is not a political use, that is talking about the French invading a geographical location, there is nothing at all wrong with that. Saying the British Isles invaded France, is clearly different, thats political and unacceptable. In the 3 cases we mentioned, including that one sources have clearly justify the use of British Isles in two of the cases. The 3rd one on some guy, i have clearly said i support removing British Isles and think the whole sentence should be removed because its unsourced. I think thats fair and reasonable. 2 BIs stay, 1 goes is not bad out of 3 examples, there seems to be an idea that every example listed must be changed and that if we oppose that change we are stonewalling, which is rubbish. We have all stated reasons why we see no problem with its use. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
When the Germans planned operation sealion where they planning on invading a geographical location or a country? When the French planned to invade where they planning on invading a geographical location or a country? Jack forbes (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well they managed to invade part of the British Isles, but in WW2 they wanted to invade Britain. There are two different authors with books that say the French attempted to invade the British isles on different occasions. Ofcourse it is more complicated back then when we are dealing with invasion of England, or Britain, or Britain and Ireland etc as the country changed over time, something that did not happen during World War 2. If it was not for two different sources in this case using British Isles, i would not be supporting it remaining in the article. But the sources are there, which is clearly the reason the term was used and not simply "original research" or a "politically motivated addition" by someone. There for i see no justification for making that change, in the campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The proposed invasion of Britain would have been a campaign. This is only a disagreement over word usage. Some people tend to forget that this place is not as important as the real world out there. That's why I tend to take frequent breaks lasting a week or two. Hint hint Jack forbes (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The nazis in ww2 had a clear enemy state they wanted to invade which was at war with them. The difference in the case of the French example is its talking about French invasions over a long period of time, not just against a certain sovereign state with one name, because we have a complicated history on these islands, there for in that case it does make sense to say British Isles and is backed up by two different authors books. Just for the record, i agree with you that this matter is taken to seriously by people on both sides. I do not go around adding British Isles randomly to different articles where ever possible, but what really annoys me is when people go around removing it for no reason. The fact people tried to move the British Isles article itself on several occasions to different locations proves there is an agenda to wipe British Isles from wikipedia.
Im sick of the motorway issues aswell, im regretting clicking on it to see what was happening. Ive taken a reasonable approach throughout on those motorway articles i think. In one case clearly saying i think the Ireland motorway should be at the primary spot based on pageviews, which is what i took into account for the other motorways. Ive supported a dab page, an Ireland primary topic, so i dont think im pushing British POV on everyone when i support British Motorways staying in certain spots based on the same reasons. And i do need to cut down my hours, it was a reasonably quiet summer but there seems to be a war on every front in recent days. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Logo use

Regarding the Pitt logo in the infobox, as well as the Cal logo in the University of California at Berkley logo in its infobox, I think your interpretation of Wikipedia:NFCC is flawed for the following reasons. "3A Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." The block Pitt logo and script Cal logo clearly contain different images than the seals or other formal logos of the universities they represent. They are both popularly used identifying marks of those universities and both are word marks of widely used alternate names for both universities not otherwise contained in other logos: "Pitt" and "Cal". Therefore the other logos in the infoboxes for those articles do not "convey equivalent significant information." "8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." As both marks are widely used in popular culture and third party publications to identify those institutions, one could argue that they are the marks most identified with their respective institutions. Therefore, it could be argued that their omission would be detrimental to the understanding, if not at least the association and identification, of those institutions. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with your justification for the removal of the other wordmark logo as "spurious", but will disagree with the removal of the block "PITT" logo precisely for the reasons stated above. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The whole argument is that is can refer to the university as a whole, and is often employed in this manner. It seems to me to be more fitting for the infobox than the athletics section, especially due to the popularly used name of the university being "Pitt". CrazyPaco (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
... to which I'd say - could you not point this out in the lead paragraph of the article in text, instead of relying on a graphic which might confuse other editors? Black Kite 18:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It is already pointed out in text, that "Pitt" is an alternative name. Of course, this then get to the heart of the matter, why have a logo at all? If it is to help the reader identify the topic of the article, then the popularly recognized and utilized block "Pitt" and script "Cal" logos belong in the infobox in order to fulfill that purpose. Except perhaps for the Ivies, these logos are the most recognizable symbols of any one typical university for a majority of the general public. Typically, a person would have a hard time identifying a seal of a university compared to its primary popular or athletic logo, although the seal serves a purpose as both a historical and identifying mark. I believe both should be included in the infobox, and obviously, that Hammersoft's reasoning for their exclusion is flawed. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
of course, on second thought, inclusion of all wordmark logos could be defined as "spurious" in this way. Since this is what 99% of university logos are, it seems you would need to go after the removal of the "logo" field in the Template:Infobox college. In the case of the Pitt article, the logo that was previously there included a simplified version of the seal with the "University of Pittsburgh" word mark in Jansen Text 55. It is not the same seal. This may or may not be perceived as spurious because that is in the eye of the beholder. I have no problem with overall logo removal, although I think the athletic/popular logos under discussion now are useful in the infobox than most others (perhaps even the seals). However, I think it would be possible to gain consensus for removal of the logo field in the infobox template out of fair-use concerns. I don't know if I agree with that, but I wouldn't argue against the elimination of the logo field if it was done project wide. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, on what grounds has this dispute bypassed WP:DISPUTE methodology to end up on the administrators noticeboard? There were no violations of wikipedia policy or WP:TRR. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Logos in sections

Re [48]. Sort of :) (I, at least, think). I've been removing sport team logos of universities from "athletics" sections of university articles where there is a main page for the university's athletics department (example). My rationale for doing so is encompassed by Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2, specifically point 5 (sort of). The concept is we don't need to display a logo for X every time X is discussed in any depth. If someone needs to see the logo of X, they can go to the main page of X to see it. There's no need to re-display it in the discussion that relates it. This goes to WP:NFCC #3a, minimal use. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV??!!!

Reading the above I can't help wondering if there might be less of this disputation if there was even the slightest hint of even-handedness in the area of Irish-British naming conventions/disputes/whatever. The situation regarding roads articles (N3 road for example) is the clearest example of British nationalist perspective editing supported by Admins (for nationalist and other reasons). NO Irish road, not even the M50 or the N3, can have primacy. The N-roads were originally created as the primary articles long before the "competing" articles; many of them clearly remain primary, yet they were relegated en-mass, without any consultation - and now we have edit warring Admins protecting the new system of "no-primacy" while at the same time we have British Admins warring to protect primacy regarding British roads articles. This is gone beyond a farce. WP:NPOV is clearly treated as a sick joke by the "Community Police" - Sarah777 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Two admins are fighting each other over on the motorway articles, i hardly think either of them are setting a very good example for us commoners. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually it turns out one of them wasn't an Admin and he promptly set up an RfC about me. There is a lesson there for BW. Sarah777 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl

You laid down the rules pretty clearly, and you asked to be pinged if something required your attention. I did that above where I pointed out Tharky's latest spree (just check his contribs). Is there a reason why you've decided to do nothing? --HighKing (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I will now revert Tharky's reverts which I assume is OK, yes? --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I did try. I opened up a dialogue at the project page with the intention of addressing all the Islands to Isles disputed articles one at a time, but it obviously hasn't worked. HighKing has now gone and reverted (again) a whole series of them. I've counter reverted one (again) where I've found a referece, but really! This is just too bad! It's abundantly clear that in most cases British Islands is incorrect. Maybe some of them shouldn't be British Isles either (see William Gillette), but from now on I don't see any point in trying to disuss these matters. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, in obvious cases where British Islands is placed instead of British Isles these must be allowed to be changed to British Isles. We cant keep inaccurate stuff in articles, thats very very different to deciding on if theres a different term to use in other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have already told HK that he shouldn't revert wholesale any edits that an editor gets blocked for. Let me (or another neutral editor) look at them. Black Kite 23:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but lets not have double standards either. If "British Islands" was so obviously incorrect, why replace it without a reference? It's all very well saying that British Islands is wrong, but it's not correct to wholesale replace with British Isles... --HighKing (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it was, did I? Black Kite 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
BK, you agreed with MBM's statement, which says that the reverting was "just too bad", so I'm wondering why the sentiment being portrayed is that reverting the edits is wrong. You imply that a neutral admin would make a case for each edit, so where does that leave the groundrules and the Specific Examples page. I'm following all the guidelines, engaging in discussions, but some editors are content to attempt run-arounds and to diss the attempts we are making to form guidelines. Either we're solely using the Specific Examples page to create guidelines which are easy to understand, or we're essentially trying to censor edits. It really is as simple as that. And just to add - MBM claims he found a referece, but he very obviously didn't find a reference which backs up the statement made. I've opened a section on the Specific Examples page, but I haven't reverted. --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
But that said, I appreciate how unappetizing this subject is with all the hassle, and I appreciate and welcome your direct involvement. --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem - but all I'm saying is that even if an editor is blocked for violating the 1RR, don't automatically revert their edits, let someone uninvolved do it - not because of the content, but because it looks like you're re-reverting. Just move it to the SE page instead, and if you think someone's bending the rules, let me know. Black Kite 00:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's one you might like to look at yourself - St. Catherine's Point --HighKing (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_25&oldid=1138909000"