User talk:HighKing/Archives/2012/September

Ilybius ater

You made some changes at Ilybius ater. I was going to set up a page called Britain I. but can't do it. Can you assist. If you set up the page or show me how to do it I'll add some text to it.The Insect Man (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Its okay, I've done it. The Insect Man (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am finding this interesting HighKing, can you explain how your recent delete from Ilybius ater doesn't conflict with Calil's advice to you on the ending terms for your topic ban? You also appear to be AFD'ing some articles that contain BI as an alternate. I intend to raise this whole picture in the relevant channels if we can't settle this the easy way - the term BI is not, repeat not, unnacceptable in WP in these situations because it is disagreeable in Ireland. It may well be as you raise here [1] that the term is not always correct, but it looks to me from your recent conduct as if you are simply returning to type and following a removal strategy via different gamings. Comments before I commence? Also the Britain I. thing looks a tad odd to me, frankly, it can't stand as-is anyway, but perhaps you had plans to get going on "improving" it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I expanded it.The Insect Man (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Insect Man. --HighKing (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@James, my edits don't conflict in the slightest with any advice given by Cailil. Have you something particular in mind?

You've obviously read the discussion at Wikiproject Insects - there you'll see that there was agreement reached that the transcriptions from Flora Europaea were being made in error. At the time I listed every article that incorrectly transcribed "British I.". Since then, more have been added. Note, I didn't get around to correcting the ones I listed - perhaps you've mistakenly understood this to mean that the edits were not to go ahead?

Is there an actual problem with the correction? Was the edit wrong? If not, can you explain in detail what you mean by my "conduct" and that I'm "returning to type" with a "removal strategy via different gamings". As you can imagine, I'm very fed up with comments like this. Socks like LevenBoy et al don't know any better, but I expect more from editors like yourself. Meh - maybe you're having a bad day, I don't know. But those comments are not acceptable. --HighKing (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already referred to specifics, eg, putting AFDs on articles that just happen to contain the BI string where you can't see an obvious plan of removal and (in this and other cases) making deletions in unreasonable cases where the commonname BI is perfectly reasonable. Since you were blocked because you repeatedly campaigned on the removal of BI, it isn't unreasonable of me to reference back to that in comments here. You can always delete your talk page contents again if it bugs you, but in the meantime I have rectified the article in question, as BI is a perfectly reasonable usage in a list of commonnames. I am not in a bad mood, I have been observing your conduct in this area for a long time and have reached conclusions about it, as have involved admins, regardless of how vexing that is for you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fauna Europeaa - routine deletions of BI in articles citing insects

Can you explain please why you made this edit [2] to change "British Isles" to "Great Britain" when the distribution table in the source you yourself added(!) [3] clearly states distribution in, and I quote, "Britain I. Incl. Shetlands, Orkneys, Hebrides and Man Is." I take it that your beef is that those do not form the "British Isles"? Is this a situation where I have to remind you that we never reached a definitive resolution of that, despite huge efforts and that therefore you basically have no business going to every insect article in the Fauna where it cites "British Isles" and changing that where "Ireland" is not cited? Or do you disagree? And if so, why in your opinion should I not now go to Cailil with a complete list of all your changes in this area and request a permablock on your account? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Flora Europara, there are defined geographical areas. "British I." refers to the island of Great Britain and the major islands. Take a look at the newly created article Britain I.. There's a separate area for "Northern Ireland. Yes another for "Republic of Ireland". The Channel Islands are another area again. So when an editor is transcribing the areas from Flora Europaea, they occasionally link "British I." to "British Isles", which is incorrect. Before the creation of the article "British I.", the closest wikilink is to "Great Britain".

You'd do a little better if you assumed the best (AGF and all that). --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation has no merit on any of the grounds you use. I've just spent some time checking out the Flora E. "Britain I." is defined in it as including the Isle of Man. Even here in Wikipedia we define the I of M (as you very well know!!) as not being part of GB and as being part of the BI. Therefore when "BI" is used (perfectly validly) as a commonname, it works when in Flora E. "Britain I" is used, because Britain I includes Isle of Man. I think you know this. If you claim not to, you must have forgotten, because I vividly recall that you did, when we discussed it ad nauseam in the BISE pages. In addition, how do you know that in these cases it was a "transcribing" error as you put it? Weren't those editors (more knowledgeable than you in this area I suspect) actually using a common name, because they knew that "Britain I" would be meaningless (as it is) in a general-purpose cyclopedia?? So even if we accept that "Britain I" = "Great Britain" (it doesn't!) then it would still be a bad, bad choice for Wikipedia articles where the rest of the list does not use scientific domain nomenclature.

Also, just to check, you confirm that you were uninvolved in the recent creation of the Britain I. article were you? Just to check that point as well, as it sounds from the above as though perhaps you might have had some involvement. Is there a link between you and The Insect Man? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Britain I." includes the Isle of Man. You do realise it doesn't include territories such as "Northern Ireland", "Channel Islands" and the "Republic of Ireland"? These are listed as separate territories. Nobody else has ever objected to using the "Great Britain" wikilink. See page 26 section 3.3.1 in this document. See how they use the term "Great Britain I." too and point out that the Channel Islands and Northern Ireland are separate. --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, as you can see from the at WikiProject Insects discussion you linked to above, these exact types of changes were discussed, including using "Great Britain". Most of these articles are regarded as substubs and need to be fleshed out beyond a simple distribution list from Fauna Europaea. There was talk of the need to add other sections and rolling up the territories into shorter descriptions (including using British Isles where it makes sense), but Stemonitis didn't have time. Point is, at the end of that discussion, Stemonitis agreed that the changes could go ahead for those articles.

You've mentioned AFD's a couple of times now. What AFDs? --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I will take one very clear example as clearly you intend to try to obfuscate. Let's go back to Ilybius ater, where you removed (in the midst of other correct modifications) "British Isles" and replaced it with "Great Britain". [4]

(1) The BI-related geographic range given in the table at Fauna E. for Ilybius ater [5] is as follows: "Britain I - Present. Channel Is - Present. Ireland - Present. Northern Ireland - Present".

(2) We both know that you are well aware that the general definition of the common name "British Isles" includes the British mainland of GB and one or more of the subset of islands, including the CI, the I of M and Ireland, North or South.

(3) You confirm that you have read and understood (or at least claim to have understood) the source. Therefore, what exactly is happening here?

(4) The logical inference is that you dismiss the term "British Isles" as a legitimate common name in Wikipedia. This is not policy. It is an opinion.

(5) As an aside, the edit summary of that diff avoids (as always in your BI-delete edits) all mention of "British Isles" (it is no stretch of AGF to assume that this is the sole purpose of your editing visit, given your extensive past history of similar edits and your extensive block for same) - you used the deceptive edit summary in this case "Corrected, added reference". This is false. Your intention, as in numerous similar cases, was to remove the string "British Isles". Your edit summary should say something like "Deleted British Isles".

(6) A similar pattern of edits by yourself (and disregard for what the source really means) is observable at other edits.

To summarise, you are using a range of tactics including wilful misinterpretation of the sources and masking behaviour to hide multiple deletions of "British Isles", because you don't agree with the use of that phrase in common contexts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The only wilful misinterpretation going on is with you, and you're starting to backtrack on your own arguments.

1. You started off by saying that I was wrong to replace incorrect wikilinking of "Britain I" to "British Isles", by replacing it with a link to "Great Britain". You incorrectly assumed it was correctly linked, even going so far to try to point out that the Isle of Man was included, therefore "Great Britain" linking was wrong.
2. You didn't know that "Northern Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" and "Channel Islands" were treated as separate geographical regions.
3. I showed you that this issue had been previously discussed at Wikiproject Insects (where the experts are) and while it was pointed out that there was little value in the substub articles, there was no objection to fixing the transcription errors. And they were acknowledged there as being transcription errors.
4. I showed you that using "Great Britain I." instead of "Britain I." is even supported by the Fauna Europaea documentation.
5. You've reverted my edits without a shred of logical sense. Your edit summary of (Incorrect use of a scientific domain term in a list of common-named countries and regions) here is ludricous, especially seeing as how the articles in question only contain a listing of scientifically defined territories.
6. Rather than keep the scientific list (correctly wikilinked), you've decided you'd prefer to insert "British Isles" into the articles instead. While somehow trying to make my corrections into a drama-filled campaign to remove the term "British Isles".
7. Even more drama, you then try to insinuate strongly that I've an involvement with "Insect Man" and that there's an insidious reason for the creation of the article Britain I..
8. I've remained calm and polite throughout. I've not gotten drawn into your edit war with "Insect Man" or your accusations at Cailil's Talk page.
9. You should take a break and a deep breath. If I could give you some good advice I came across somewhere - it's someone's opinion I have respected in the past, Everyone has opinions and everyone comes to these articles with political and cultural views and attitudes and experiences spinning in their heads, so it isn't a matter of views "belonging" or "not belonging" but simply of being cautious how we express them, me included, as sometimes I lose it a little and really shouldn't. --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)