User talk:HighKing/Archives/2009/September

Ireland/Republic of Ireland

Hi, HighKing. You recently changed "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" in the Irish Life & Permanent introduction. I reverted it. The whole topic is very sensitive, as I'm sure you know. Irish Life & Permanent mainly operates in the R.O.I., not on a whole island basis, ergo it would be misleading to use Ireland insted of the Republic of Ireland. Not to mention the trials of the Arbitration Committee! King regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack. Normal practice is to pipelink. I see you've been reverted in any case. I'm curious though. I can see that you're Irish and if memory serves, you've voted to keep the "Republic of Ireland" article at the current title. In a friendly manner, why you believe "Republic of Ireland" is the most suitable title? --HighKing (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Guinness

Hi. I found you in the WikiProject Ireland. I'm currently mediating a case here about Guinness. Can you please go there and give your opinion? Those involve want a comment from someone knowledgeable with Irish matters. Thanks in advance. BejinhanTalk 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. BejinhanTalk 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi there, I'm a bit busy tonight but I'll have a look tomorrow. Thanks, Black Kite 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Begum, that was quick. Thanks. I'll do nothing till I hear your opinion. --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles removal

HighKing, I've reverted your removal of British Isles at Vic Oliver. You may well be correct in changing BI to UK but as I understand it both yourself and TharkunColl agreed not to add or delete the term. This restriction presumably applies also to other interested editors like me, for example. We don't want to have a situation of edit wars all over the place, so maybe if you got a reference for the change we could proceed with it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This one is a bit obvious. The Battle of Britain recounts the planned invasion by Germany of the UK - there's lots of references there. For example:

Bungay, Stephen. The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. London: Aurum Press, 2000. ISBN 1-85410-721-6 (hardcover), 2002, ISBN 1-85410-801-8 (paperback).

--HighKing (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice there are many references (via Google search) to the proposed "German Invasion of the British Isles". Also see Operation Green (Ireland) which details invasion plans, even if there was no intention to carry them out. Arguably BI is better because it includes the Channel Islands and parts of Ireland which were definitely German targets under Operation Sealion. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but there were a number of plans. Some to invade Ireland (and Operation Green was only a credible threat, not an actual plan), others to invade other parts of the British Isles, but there was no plan to invade the British Isles per se. So it is not correct to refer to a plan to invade the British Isles because none existed. I've reverted your revert pending a reference to a plan to invade the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bodleian Library consider British Isles to be valid usage. In fact, this is the description given to the plan by the Geman Reich. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the synopsis of the book you'll see that they mean Britain. And is this a British translation of a German document - or what is this exactly? --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, perhaps they meant Britain, but the title says British Isles, as does the title of many other publications related to the event. Verifiability, not truth, as someone at Wikipedia said. It is verified by this good reference that the British Isles were the target. The fact that Ireland, the state, may have been excluded is not really relevant. We don't have to be totally inclusive when using the term British Isles, and the term is not disqualified if the scope of its use doesn't include the state of Ireland. We need an independent view. It's no big deal one way or the other - BI or Britain (I'd prefer Britain to UK), but let's get another view, and bear in mind that the "default", before you changed it, was to use BI. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No surprise here, but I completely disagree. And it was changed precisely because there were no invasion plans for the British Isles. Verifiability, not truth, precisely. Here's some interesting images of the German books that I believe were used as the basis for the Bodleian book you cited. Note the use of the phrase "Great Britain and Ireland" in the railway overview.... --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland - The British Isles in other words (as you advocate with many of your edits at that article). The terms Britain, British Isles and England are used interchangeably in the vast amount of literature on this subject. There are many publications using the term "British Isles" and many using "Britain". British Isles is more accurate because it includes at least part of the island of Ireland. It is certainly not wrong to use this term. I again suggest we find an independent editor to adjudicate. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, Great Britain and Ireland is *not* the same as British Isles. You know that. As to the specific article in question - you know, I can't find a single reference to say he was on any Nazi Deathlist? As to your suggestion to find an independent editor - that's probably a good idea. Perhaps post it at Military history WikiProject?? --HighKing (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Vic Oliver, if the sentence can't be referenced then I wouldn't object to its entire removal. Now to the other removals: I thought we'd seen an end to this, but no, you appear to have gone back to targetting instances of British Isles and removing them (or linking in one case). You know the agreement was to to discuss such matters first on the article talk pages to try and obtain consensus, so why have you restarted your one-man campaign again? No doubt you will attmept to justify your removals somehow or other, but that is not the point. You should argue the case before removal (or retention, as the case may be), not as a result of being forced to do so after the event. Please do not remove, add or link British Isles any more without discussing it first. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no. That isn't how Wikipedia works. I don't have to discuss anything like this up front - that would be a form of censorship. I will not revert your reverts. The instances in question are all targetted at various forms of "Invasions of the British Isles", when the articles are in reality talking about invasions of Great Britain. Feel free to report this wherever you want, or to discuss on Talk pages. But I am under no editing restrictions, and the edits are good. Oh. And I see you've also reverted a bunch of edits by User:InsectGirl (which involve butterfly and moth articles) and made some very strong accusations. Are you inferring that there is a relationship of some sort (husband/brother/uncle/whatever) between that editor and me? I don't take accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry lightly, so I'd like to be crystal clear on this issue. --HighKing (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you have, nevertheless, reverted all my reverts. User:Insectgirl is an interesting case. I'm not filing a sockpuppet report because chances are, when IP addresses and the like are compared, nothing will show up. Perhaps you would like to comment on the remarkable similarity between your talk page and that of Insectgirl. Furthermore, you might also comment on the remarkable similarity in editing styles between you and her - removal of British Isles as an incidental part of an edit making other changes, coupled with, usually, an edit summary making no reference to the removal, and blocks of edits all of which involve removal. As to your accusations of stalking on my part - wrong. I now have a facility to monitor all changes to the the term British Isles throughout Wikipedia, and your changes, and those of Insectgirl, were visible as a result. Finally, are you claiming that the agreement between you and TharkunColl is no longer valid? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you making an accusation of sockpuppetry? Saying you're not filing a report isn't the same thing as saying you're not making an accusation. If you're making an accusation, let's hear it. --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing more about it and will let others, if they're interested or concerned, draw their own conclusions. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think so.... although comments like "remarkable similarity between your talk page and that of Insectgirl", "remarkable similarity in editing styles between you and her" make it very clear that while you might not have the courage of your convictions, you have, in fact, made an accusation, one which is taken very seriously here on WP. So either withdraw your accusation, with an apology, or file a report, else I shall be forced to take this further. --HighKing (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It’s your prerogative to take it further, if you wish. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Per Black Kite"

Woah, stop. I thought this was quite clear; 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. Please follow this course from now on. Black Kite 16:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This targeting of British Isles is just getting beyond a joke. HighKing has now reverted reverts on numerous articles today and has even dismissed an excellent reference at Scottish Blackface (sheep) as being "self published" when it clearly isn't. I begin to despair about what should be done here. As I've said elsewhere these activities result in gross time wasting having to argue about a point when often there is no right or wrong. In only some of the cases is it clear that BI or an alternative is correct. In many cases it's a grey area and most of the time these are the articles being targeted. Here's a recent example (non HighKing) where there would be no dispute [1]. Unfortunately HighKing targets the "grey area" articles. Black Kite - you're probably fed up with this, but can you advise further. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way to resolve many of the disputes is look at the guidelines that were being drawn up by the Task Force. In most cases, the guidelines can provide a clear reasoning for usage (or not). BTW, the "excellent reference" on Scottish Blackface wasn't reverted as being self-published - the formatting of the comments got screwed up. I have provided reasons on the Talk page, but in summary, your reference thanks the Breeders Association for the information, but it's the Breeders Association that I've used as a reference. It's obvious that your reference is an example of where British Isles is used interchangeably with Britain - an incorrect usage. --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In which case, what you do is discuss the change on the talkpage and gain consensus, not just revert without an edit-summary, and especially not per myself, I certainly didn't give any permission to do this, even if I had the authority to do it! Black Kite 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but how about creating a page with all the articles you think should be amended and a simple one line explanation. Put it on the BR naming dispute and then maybe a group of us can look at the as a whole, rather than fighting article by article. --Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Black Kite 18:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a good idea exactly? It's a form of censorship and goes against the main principles of Wikipedia. In effect, you're looking for edits to be pre-approved? Even "The Troubles", which is under an Arbcom restriction, doesn't come close to that.

It also makes it seem as if my edits are somehow wrong, or incorrect. Would it not be far better to let history judge if I have been wrong or incorrect in the past, over the number of edits I have made?

Don't get me wrong though. I welcome (sensible) intervention. I want a spotlight put on the abusive nature of some editors towards my edits. I want admins to notice that my edits are tagged and flagged as "Political POV" (which is an ad-hominen attack), with no comments made on the content. Or very dodgy references are put ahead of scholarly or official references. Etc.

As a counter suggestion, what about this. A strict no-reverts-of-a-revert policy to be put in place. All edits that are reverted must be placed by the reverting editor onto a sub-page of the British Isles Task Force (which we will create), with an explanation as to why the edit has been reverted. Subsequent discussion can take place on the task force section, which will help to form future guidelines on usage using concrete, worked-through examples.

The advantages of this approach is that it forces editors to engage in a meaningful way with the task force, it stops the ad-hominen attacks, and over time clear usage guidelines will emerge, finally putting this god-awful disruption to bed. --HighKing (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This "god-awful" disruption is 100% of your making. Snowded's suggestion is a good idea; I support it. Your counter-proposal is unworkable because it relies on the entire Wikipedia population knowing about it and agreeing to it - anyone could revert one of your edits. Snowded's idea, however, requires only BI-interested editors to be aware of it. What's the problem? It's not censorship, it's simply a way of heading off disruption. I think you have no choice but to accept it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've outlined above why Snowded's suggestion is not a good idea. It is censorship, of sorts, to have to pre-authorize edits in advance. Would you like it if all your edits had to be pre-authorized in advance? My counter-suggestion keeps the spirit of Snowded's suggestion, and also keeps the spirit of Wikipedia whereby anybody is entitled to edit, and also follows WP:BRD whereby a discussion is only started on a revert. For editors that revert without knowing about it - first of all, that would be exceedingly rare - I only have a handful of stalkers that behave in a disruptive manner, and I'm sure they would know about this solution. Anybody else, well just like any other solution (such as pipelinking, etc) it can easily be pointed out. --HighKing (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Deleted commentary - let's wait for Snowded or BK comments) --HighKing (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅i don't see how it can be censorship. My suggestion is to look at the problem in the round. across a range of articles and using some neutral editors (such as Black Kite) to check sources and make judgements. If we do that we will create a set of case histories that can be used on other articles. MidnightBkue and British Watcher will nearly always oppose any use other than BI, you and others will nearly always try and remove it. As long as the discussion is article by article this conflict will continue. I see BW is open to the idea, and that matches his previous practice. given evidence he is prepared to defend a position even it it doesn't match his views (as he does over the question of the country status if Wales, Scotland etc.). If you and Midnight would also go along with this we might get somewhere. Happy to handle the mechanics if it helps --Snowded ^TALK 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty unknown format of Wikipedia editing practice don't you think? As I've already pointed out, not even our most troubled topics have to get pre-authorization for edits. I'm against the idea in the format you've suggested as I think it might well set a nasty precedent, as well as casting the established practice as correct with any emphasis on removal as being the nasty disruption (and fogiving the nasty reversions and comments that I've endured to now). But. If we can involve good editors, with experience resolving differences of opinion like you and BK, then I'll agree also. I'm heartened that your experience of BritishWatcher differs to my own, but I suppose he'd probably have much the same opinion about me... Can I suggest we use the WP:BISLES as a starting point - there's some draft versions of usage policies, including sandbox versions set up. Can I also suggest that a new page with use cases is also set up where we can examine specific articles, with a view to hopefully, one day, establishing clear usage guidelines. And thank you. --HighKing (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a very common format in dispute resolution - list a whole set of issues and look at them in the round. That combined with some general principles might work. --Snowded ^TALK 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on over to the Taskforce folks, I've re-visited it & dusted it out (cob-webs & all). GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting your recent deletions pending your placing of them on the page you mention - for discussion. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - gotta start somewhere. I might not be around for the 24 hours - I'd appreciate it if you could start the ball rolling and place them on the page. --HighKing (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming Poll results

I was quite pleased with how well 'Option-E' did. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering it was a unworkable option, so was i GoodDay BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Who knows, success (for the E-gang) in 2011. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to the reunion. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, I will participate, probably tomorrow when I've got time to look at it. Black Kite 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland's independance

Just curious, when did Ireland obtain independance? The process began in 1922 & ended completely in 1949, but I've read somewhere that 1927 was considered the 'no turning back' point. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. Some would say the process started in 1801 :-) Some would say before. Some believe we've always been fighting for sovereignity. Some look to 1916 as the start of the process as it resulted in the announcement of the Irish Republic. But others would look to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 out of which we got the Irish Free State in 1922. Depends who you ask. Actually, Scolaire is usually good with those questions. --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You luckies, my country is still stuck with a monarchy. When will Canada fully enter the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're no fun, GoodDay. Monarchies are gear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so gear if they're someone else's. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think they're gear. I wish Italy would become a monarchy again as I much prefer Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy to any of the politicians the Italian republic has at the moment. And man can he dance!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for edit warring to remove or strike out a comment on User talk:Sarah777. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, you could make yourself useful and remove the trolling comment from Sarah's Talk page.... --HighKing (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather let Sarah do that (if she so chooses). GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I have a fond spot for G'Day. God knows why! Sarah777 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

'Cause I'm an incredibly modest handsome dude. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Obvious trolling comments removed. Sarah has summarily deleted *exactly* the same comments in the past. Also, blocking admin has a known history of anti-Sarah POV. Note the way he has restored the trolling comment I removed too. See below for diffs and explanation}}

BW has a history of trolling this page, and a quick history of BW's edits on Sarah's Talk page shows that exactly the same comment was summarily removed in the past by Sarah, as well as all of his recent comments:

• Same Arbcom comment
• Removal of BW comment
• Summary removal (and a request that BW not put comments on her Talk page)

In fact, if you take the time to look through her Talk page at all, most of BW's comments are trolling, and Sarah pretty much always summarily deletes them pronto:

• here
• here

And it's not like BW is a prolific leaver-of-comments on Sarah's page. Most of his comments are trolling, and they get summarily deleted. But hey, I'm sure SarekOfVulcan probably thought BW's comments weren't trolling at all, and that he'd looked into the reasons I gave when I deleted the comments in the first place?

Except...

SarekOfVulcan also has an antagonistic OOT anti-Sarah viewpoint, so his block of me is doubly invalid since he is an involved admin. He has restored the trolling comments to Sarah's Talk page (even though we both know that Sarah will remove them when she comes online) Not only that, but it's richly ironic that VoS blocks me for removing trolling comments as allowed per WP:CIVIL, while he himself actually removed Sarah comments from her own Talk page and thought it was OK. Let's just say that Sarah and Sarek have ... history ... which means that Sarek has no motivation to prevent or punish other editors from leaving personal attacks.

Now I'll take a deep breath, and wait for the inevitable unblocking and apology! --HighKing (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's hoping your 'request' will be excepted. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of no policy that requires or even supports the removal of comments from talk pages. WP:RPA is rejected by the community. Users are allowed a certain latitude on their own talk pages, so Sarah should never be blocked for removing comments she doesn't want there. But that does not extend to anyone else. Messages left on a user's talk page are meant to be messages to them. If the user removes such a message, they at least are aware of its existence. If others remove those messages it interferes with the functionality of Wikipedia. The only way I would accept this is if BritishWatcher was formally banned from Sarah's talk page. But I probably wouldn't support this block if it was only for removing the comment, but you had to be blocked because it was the only way to get you to stop. People were reminding you not to edit others' comments, and you were ignoring or reverting those messages, and you were edit warring over the removal of the message. Are you going to stop now? Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Or even better, ACcepted. :-) I'd like to point out that it wasn't the first place you were blocked for, it was the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place, even after being warned by multiple editors, me included. If Sarah had deleted that comment, I wouldn't have blinked: you, on the other hand, have no standing to do so there. (btw, wtf is oot?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was meant to be OTT (Over The Top). GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OIC. Thx. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I meant to spell it as 'accepted'. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see you're unblocked now and Sarah has made it clear she wants BW's comments removed from her page. I just wanted to reiterate that even though she wants that, you could still get into trouble again if you edit war over it. If it comes to that, back off and let Sarah take care of it. Mangojuice^talk 20:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, that's a load of horse manure. Are both MJ and SoV saying that BW's comments weren't trolling? Because the policy explicitly states that removing obvious trolling comments, while potentially controversial, is OK. And BW's comments were very obviously trolling, as evidenced by the way Sarah had summarily deleted a perfectly exact copy of the same message some days ago, and had removed just about all BW's comments. Your time would have been more productively spent warning BW about his constant personal comments, which is in *clear* breach of WP:CIVIL. --HighKing (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I gently reprimed BritishWatcher 2 hours before this block [2]. Admins should be more alert. Tfz 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Most are. Some though have an axe to grind against Sarah and sometimes it's too transparent for words. And the WP:CIVIL policy xplicitly states In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.

My bolding. And this was exactly what I was doing. As evidenced by BW's constant nastly little personal comments left peppered on numerous Talk pages, pushing an explicit agenda. Notable how all the Irish editors get labelled as disruptive, yet there's a dearth of British editors labelled as such. The "British Wikipedia" joke has gone on long enough. --HighKing (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW is barred from Sarah777, as I'm barred from Domer48's userpage. 'Tis best for BW to respect Sarah's request, as I've respected Domer's. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW is also barred here *until* his "personal comments" to "useful contributions" ratio gets into line with moderate editors. I don't agree with a number of editors, but at least we still respectfully disagree. BW is a different piece of work. --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I'm more annoyed with SoV and the other admins that let obvious personal comments, snipes, and snide remarks go without a gentle reminding of core WP:CIVIL policy. So I would amend my above remark to read that BW is banned from posting any personal comment on my Talk page. If it's not about content, it's banned. Should he want to. --HighKing (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm barred from Tfz's talkpage aswell. How do I get myself into these things? GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually you're not, you stung me one day when I was in a pensive humour about world affairs. 'Don't poke the bear!' :-) Tfz 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not? thanks. 'Tis easier to communicate with a fellow editor on his/her userpage. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying that, I'm not very much into the talk page stuff, as sometimes I'm very busy at my other work, and I can find it distracting. But something important, or the occasional bit of irony doesn't go astray. Excuse me HigKing, I had to follow on. Tfz 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Other people's comments

Please don't edit them, especially on someone else's talk page. If Sarah doesn't like them, she can remove them herself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've struck them out and left a comment. Why haven't you warned BW about trolling and personal attacks? --HighKing (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not trolling and it certainly was not a personal attack. I was replying to a comment made by someone else, i thought it might be relevant unaware the editor already knew about the Arbcom ruling. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, haven't you learnt that any British editor is automatically branded a troll by this subset of Irish editors? ;-) Jeni ^(talk) 14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever called anyone a troll but I do appreciate irony. Jeni; you called me a troll on my own page! Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you've ruffled Jeni's feathers...although why she feels it should get carried over here, I'll never know... --HighKing (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

TharkunColl

Mmm. I would have found that disruptive if it had been ongoing, but those edits are 11 days old and he's hardly edited since, so any sanction would be punitive rather than preventative. Black Kite 13:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles usage

Wowsers, figuring out where to use or not use 'British Isles' is tougher then I thought. It's difficult to avoid getting geographic & politics mixed together. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really all that difficult at all.... --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I have always used British Isles as a purely geographic term-even when I lived in Dublin, and it never raised any eyebrows except on one single occasion, and the person merely objected in a jocular manner. I think when one is discussing politics, however, Britain and Ireland should be used instead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Most people don't remark when it's used, but would avoid using it. That's not to say that it's not a valid term for referring to the group of islands. But as you can see from the examples, it's obvious that some editors refuse to see that it's also being used incorrectly. Sure - we could say that France was planning to invade the British Isles, but the point is that the intended meaning is not to refer to the group of islands, but to "Britain". Having editors refuse to see that, and accept that, is extremely disruptive. Yet nothing happens. Hmmmm..... --HighKing (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like saying a country intended to invade the Americas when the only country being invaded was Brazil or Canada. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if there were more participants on the WP:BISLES specific examples area...hint hint --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm suspicious. Why are there so few participants? What's the catch? :) Why not. I'll put my name down for it. Jack forbes (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

HK, I think you should qualify much of the above with "in my opinion". As for it being extremely disruptive when editors fail to agree with your point-of-view, there's a simple solution ... MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. BTW, I've asked before. Don't post on my Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers. I helped get the BI Taskforce going again & now I'm out of ideas. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To honest HK, I believe the Briths Isles usage debate needs to go to Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [3]. Thanks, Black Kite 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am hoping that by codifying exactly the terms under which editors may or may not revert such articles, that such edit warring will cease. I'm certainly not favouring one side or the other - you will notice that earlier today I did block an IP that was reverting to TharkunColl & co's POV on British Isles. This is making a line in the sand now, to say "no further". I hope you can see why it would've been unproductive to block people now and then start dishing out "rules". Black Kite 21:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And here was me thinking that the rules had already been decided and that a line in the sand existed. Let me just explain where I'm at right now.

• You said to agree to a process to discuss changes in advance. Despite that being pretty unprecedented, I agreed.
• I've kept to the process, and it's not been pretty and progress is non-existent. Several editors are simply stonewalling. In some certain respects, we appear to be nearly following an AfD process or an Article renaming process - but a decision in those cases is made by an admin. In these cases, who will actually make a decision?
• You laid down some ground rules to say that changes must be backed up by references.
• Tharky completely ignored that. I pointed it out and you decided no action was required.
• After examining the edits, I reverted most (but not all), after clearing it with you.
• My reverts were then reverted by MBM.
• You are now saying to me "Let's keep the unjustified and unreferences mass changes, and assume that they're now correct, but demand references if anyone want to change them".
• You are now saying "Let's forget that I asked for references previously, I'll not pay attention to BRD (or 1RR or NRR) also.
• Admins like you have a role to play, but only if you're willing to participate (and yeah, life's too short). If you're not, then it is not realistic to demand that I get pre-authorization for article changes, nor is it reasonable to not enforce established groundrules.

I'm not complaining per se. I'm merely pointing out that from where I'm sitting, it looks like there's some pandering going on. If I had behaved like Tharky or MBM, I'd have been blocked. Now why is that? --HighKing (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't have blocked you - my response would've been the same as it was to Thark or MBM. And you'll notice that on my talkpage that I've pointed out that blind-reverting a change that is made with a solid reliable reference will be treated as disruption even if it isn't a revert of a revert. In hindsight, I can understand your being irritated by this, and I admit that I should've done this at the same time as the Specific Examples page, but then hindsight is always 20/20. So - those reverts by MBM aren't fixed - if you take them to the Specific Examples page with a reliable source then there should be little problem with them being re-instated. Black Kite 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. Perhaps you wouldn't have blocked me. But I could email you a list of admins who would have, and that's part of the problem here, and why your input as a moderator and admin is .. well .. required. I hope you'll keep an eye on the Specific Examples page also and perhaps make sensible suggestions to nudge discussion along if they get stalled/stonewalled. --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've got it watchlisted. I'm only particularly active in the evening (UK time) during the week, though, so pinging me about any issues on my talkpage would be appreciated. Black Kite 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not favouring one side or the other - you will notice that earlier today I did block an IP that was reverting to TharkunColl & co's POV on British Isles.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you implying I have a "POV" on British Isles? ðarkuncoll 23:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. Wrong talk page? Although if it is directed to me, well yes - you do have a POV on British Isles. You're entitled to. As I am. As every other editor is. But the onus is on us to ensure that NPOV is upheld within articles... --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Hello, HighKing. I have added a few words to the Great Britain and Ireland article and used two references from the British Isles article. I wonder if you could have a look and see if you think it an appropriate edit. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The older text's first sentence is probably what you're trying to say? Some people might not like "substitute"... --HighKing (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sentence and it does look better. Jack forbes (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a wee look at the Curtis Cup article. Note that it says (politically, United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland). I find it unlikely that those born on the Isle Of Man would be excluded. Wouldn't it most likely cover the whole of the "British Isles"? Thought you might have an idea whether that would be the case. Jack forbes (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The bit about (politically...) should probably be removed - there's no refs and nothing at the official site that says it. The official site states The Curtis Cup Match is contested by women amateur golfers, one team from the United States of America (USA) and one team from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales (GB&I). Note that it has not mention of political boundaries - perhaps a previous editor was making a WP:Point?... --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the logos for past competitions includes the UK and I flags... :-) --HighKing (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've been having a look for any curtis cup players hailing from the Isle of Man with no luck, and as you say, the logos have the UK and I flags. They like to mess with peoples heads though and I wouldn't be surprised if those throughout the "British Isles" are eligible to play. Just look at the British Olympic Association who are the representatives of the UK athletes which include athletes from, erm, the Isle of Man.[4] Strange! Jack forbes (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)