User talk:Jamesinderbyshire/Archive 1

Uri Geller

Hi James

You just reverted a change, of Uri Geller’s birth name, stating : IMDB has that as his birth name and they research these things pretty well.

Exactly what do you actually know about the research that IMDB do?

IMDB actually do not research very well at all, these items are submitted by public editors, and it is very easy to submit this content. This content actually came originally from a blog post by James Randi, in which he stated that one of his friends once told him that he did some research & found that this was Uri's actual birth name..... This is the source of the info that has been posted on IMDB.

The truth is that Uri had a cousin by this name who died in a tram accident, and his mother wanted to give him a similar sounding name, but it was not the same name, Uri Geller’s birth name is, surprisingly, Uri Geller.Moondial (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derby

Hi, you have removed quite a few names, I have been through that list and already removed the ones that have little to do with derby , for example you removed cavendish, if you go to his page you will find this...Cavendish died in 1810 and was buried, along with many of his ancestors, in the church that is now Derby Cathedral (and the road he used to live on in Derby has been named after him. you removed him with an edit summary of.. Born in France, grew up in London, then lived mainly in Cambridge.. I have the feeling to reverse your edits and then we can discuss them on the talk page of the derby article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make him a Notable Person of Derby does it? Generally it's someone at least born in the place. I have a biography of Cavendish and Derby gets one mention in the index. I think he's a stretch and a considerable one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being buried in the cathedral is notable enough for me and having a road named after him and many of his ancestors are buried in derby cathedral, its more than enough.Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole area named after him, the cavendish. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin died at breadsall priory and is buried in breadsall church. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My basic problem is that people like Bates, who are categorically from Derby, have been removed, whilst people like Cavendish and Darwin, who have only tenuous connections to Derby, are in. Burial alone doesn't usually hack it. There are loads of streets in all cities named after famous people with no connection to that city. I think the Cavendish centre and The Cavendish are just examples of a small-city mentality - the council were casting around for someone famous to latch on to. He wasn't any more "from Derby" than anyone else in reality, he just had some relatives who lived around here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put bates back. Perhaps it is a small city mentality, but by hook or by crook these people do now have links to derby. At the time, it was the general idea that some strong tie to derby would be needed to be in the list, Nightingale inherited one of the derbyshire estates (lea)and there are three statues of her in town and there is an affiliation with the town. Also if a link is on their article page as regards to derby then the name was kept. Actually I wanted to get rid of the list altogether and move any worthwhile names and a small story to the body of the article.Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed royce with the summary of the only link was the buisness. That is a massive link and Rolls Royce is a very important connection to derby. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bates was out when I was editing the list and then I re-inserted him. When you look at lots of cities, many have incorrect notable people in their lists. It seems to be a matter of ego for many, claiming this or that famous person. Is there any definite guidance anywhere as to what constitutes someone Notable for a given place? If not, then I guess anything goes. Shall we add on everyone who has ever appeared at the Assembley Rooms? (joke) I do think thugh that Cavendish, despite the city claiming him, is a reach. I just checked out another biog of him on Google Books and there is no mention of Derby in it. Royce's only connection is the company and he had no real connection with Derby per se. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bit flexible as to who gets in the list. You seem to want stong ties, lifelong and I prefer a good conection, if derby is mentioned on the subjects article then I think the name can be in this list. It is not ego for me it is a kind of personal reflection of the things and the people that are important to the city and the people of the city. Royce lived in derby and only left in 1911 due to bad health and drew the layout for the factory but due to ill health was never able to visit the new factory.Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fron Royce's article, Ill health had forced his move away from Derby in 1912. In the same year, he had a major operation in London and was given only a few months to live by the doctors. In spite of this he returned to work but was prevented from visiting the factory, which had moved to larger premises, fitted out to detailed plans by Royce, in Derby in 1908. there is also a statue of him outside of the moor lane offices. Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the basis for you adding Florence Nightingale back in? Lea Hurst isn't in Derby. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a derbyshire estate, isn't it? and the three statues? Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the estate,,, [[1]] Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming Derby and Derbyshire are the same thing? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, i'll have a look deeper at her, there is a connection with the people here though, her statues are well known, do you want her removed, whatstadwell is derbyshire, agreed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is a bit weak, what about removing the name from the notable list and adding the statue and the country estate comment to the landmark section? Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real issue is that we need to distinguish between Derbyshire and Derby - some other counties have their own Notable People sections. I am thinking of creating one for Derbyshire as there are actually quite a lot of famous people from the County - once that's done, we could move people who are really Notable in Derbyshire to that rather than Notable People in Derby. 17:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I dislike lists, but hey, your idea is ok, I can see a case for removing nightingale from this list and I will add a comment in the landmark section about the statue, I prefer this, to move anyone really worthwhile into comments in the body of the article and delete the rest. Carry on, your rational is a good one. I was a bit shocked when you removed a bunch of names but I am flexible about the list, regards.If you take anyone out, just leave a little rationale on the talk page. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis

In this edit you added the Order of Malta for Princess Elisabeth. Do you have any source for this information? I couldn't find any reference. --Tarantelle (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarantelle, the source was Princess Elisabeth herself, with whom I have been in contact. However, I am sure she wouldn't lie about it! But I will research it - the obvious place to check is the Order of Malta website, but alas they do not seem to have a full listing of members, so I have emailed them to ask them if there is an online database of them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the german wikipedia we now have some discussion about the article. Another information which is questioned is, if there is any proof for the B.A. she has. It would be great, if you could help there also. --Tarantelle (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tarantelle. Yes, I saw the German-language article - nice to see it developing. The BA qualification came from the Vanity Fair article - it is still on their website at [2] - I couldn't find another source. Princess Elisabeth has read the English-language Wikipedia page and did not challenge any of the facts in it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Sassoon

Certainly. The article already contained a reference to the Soldier's Declaration (in the next paragraph), where it is described more accurately (rather than "a piece called...") and which references the original document. Deb (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to some of the wording being included, but there is no need to explain the background to it twice over. Please understand I am not trying to censor the article, just to make it easier to follow. Deb (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does explain that it was a letter to his commanding officer, which was forwarded to the press. I believe that the title was given to the letter by the press, rather than by Sassoon himself. Deb (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't think you understand my point. This isn't about the context of the letter, or about duplicate references in the article (I'm glad you simplified the latter), it's about removing an important description from the article about the contents of the Declaration, one of the most famous things people know about Sassoon. The issue of who gave it the title is marginal. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, I don't understand your point. I took out misleading information that originally made it sound as though the Soldier's Declaration was not the same thing as the letter written to the commanding officer. Deb (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dad's Army on Radio 4 listing

I would point out that I don't 'keep removing it': I mistakenly removed it once. Well done for spotting the error and correcting it accordingly. Fortnum (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British English place names

I see that the American campaign against the British pronunciation of British place names, by British Wikipedeia authors and British citizens has been relaunched. I think this campaign is deceitful and goes against an admin's remit. I might not be so prepared to let things rest this time round, especially as the editors concerned are oblivious of the sensitivities they may be affronting, and even though I am one editor who abhors opening cans of worms. I may call an RfC and will look forward to your support.--Kudpung (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm complaining about the reintroduction of the final rhotic r in the names of Worcestershire, Herefordshire, and Warwickshire - those are the current examples of batch changes by American editors. It's an old edit revert war, fuelled by an admin, among other reasons, which is why I don't think it's particularly cool. A lot of ink has been spilled on debates about it, and although opposition to the imposition of American pronunciation on British place names is quite strong, the will to voice it is less energetic. There are at least three entire Wikipedia projects that have complained, so I'm not in any way on a personal mission.--Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - I've tried to explain this away to myself as good faith, but I can't, so in order to defend the issue, I have to risk getting myself accused of not being of good faith. I probably won't really escalate it, because I'm more interested in spending my time wrting good articles, but I hope to have made my point to those concerned. You might like to see the long response to Kwami on my talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BA strike bullying

You say the Telegraph artciles in widely discredited on the internet. Can you plerase show where? To the contrary it appears confirmed on cabine crew forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.155.143 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop deleting this section. If you believe it fails the NPOV requirement, please improve it. I put a lot of effort in sourcing the section and therefore it is particularly disappointing you keep deleting it. The BA strike has been top news in the UK for the last week and the union's approach has been debated intesively in all of the British press. As an example, just have a look at the very extensive coverage in the Guardian.

Terminology of the BIs

(Cross post from User talk:Snowded.) Snowded and James, just a quick note to say sorry for the short-temper this morning. Related matters elsewhere had me put in a bad mood. --RA (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Hi James, Do you remember this posting of yours in early January? A casual viewer of Wikipedia articles would surely like to see how most "local" people pronounce a name and also perhaps how it is generally understood in the official language to be pronounced? All a bit of a minefield clearly, and no doubt a lovely thing to have a tremendously obscure major row about! Let's hope not. Well the stuff is about to hit the fan. You might like to check this out, formulate your opinion, and keep it warm for the upcoming RfC. regards, --Kudpung (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of British Isles from articles

James, you may not be aware of how long this has been going on. HighKing has been removing British Isles for over two years and continues now unrestrained, since most of those trying to temper his behaviour have now given up or been identified as socks. He is indefatigable in his efforts. Please note that HighKing is himself guilty of sockpuppetry but he managed to wriggle out of any sanctions by admitting it behind the scenes (examine the case closely). He is now instumental in an accusation against me, which, despite my being cleared by CU he is still pursuing, again behind the scenes. His removals of British Isles cause chaos all over the place and lots of ill feeling. I'll have a look at his latest batch and see if they should be reverted, but I tire of this; it's been going on for too long and the community seems to offer him implicit support. You may like to try the Request for Comment process or some other route, but so far they've all failed. LevenBoy (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that it is a mistake to globally remove a phrase from Wikipedia if it widely exists in popular usage; global removal of "British Isles" fulfills this criteria. There is also no agreed policy as far as I can tell to remove it. So wherever useful, we should continue to use it. It's that simple. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. The problem with campaigns aimed at removal is that often errors are introduced into the articles as a result of removing British Isles. I've noticed many occurrences of this, and it is quite dismaying that the reliability of Wikipedia is being compromised by what is nothing more than anti-British POV. Having said that, occasionally HighKing gets it right, but it's more by accident than design. LevenBoy (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, I strongly suggest you don't get sucked into LevenBoys failure to abide by WP:AGF. HighKing has agreed over the last few years to bring issues to the discussion page here and has taken part accepting decisions made in that forum. Criteria for removal are fact based and we need rational heads there, not blind and unsupported accusations--Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snowded - I don't think I'm being sucked into anything, but are you quite right about what is happening with HighKing? For example, where had he discussed his incorrect and frankly rather confused change at British national grid reference system until it was challenged? Not to worry too much though, now I see there's a format, I will join in any discussions at that page - it's just a shame more people don't take part, as the pattern there seems rather one-sided. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)HighKing agreed to take part in that page and has honored the request and the process since, your comments on his talk page brought me her to make the above comment. We had two sockpuppets who basically stalled all progress (have a look back through the history and you will see how damaging that was) and hopefully we can now make progress. The idea is that changes are proposed there, and all discussions are centralised so that edit warring does not move over multiple articles. If you check back you will see that LevinBoy is being economical with the truth in some of the accusations above. --Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that HK doesn't have to go to the Special Issues page - he thinks he's got free reign again - he doesn't bother. Look at his latest edits, nearly all of which have inadequate summaries that don't spell out the motive of the edit, nor the result, so he hasn't "honored the request and process since". How can you possibly AGF when you look at his edits! LevenBoy (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think you can see Snowded that I'm a little mistrustful that the general motive is simply one of "making progress" in some abstract form - surely the desired "progress" is to remove all mention of "British Isles"? Or at least, as many as possible. This seems to be to be a fairly aggressive POV - not that I'm out to thwart all such removals, as you must have noticed. It just looks to me as though one should be defensive in an NPOV policy of removing a phrase just because it is there rather than for more objective reasons. I agree that sometimes there are such good, objective reasons. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we need editors there who look at each case rather than gut feel rejection of the term or insistence on its use. I think my record is about 50-50 at the moment although I am probably one of Off2Rio's elephants despite that. We are also trying to get some general principles together that can then become a formal guideline. --Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know and that is a noble cause but alas, it appears somewhat less than perfect in practise when an NPOV test is applied. I think the "Keep British Isles" camp, if I can call it that, need to think harder about how this all looks from Ireland, Scotland and Wales heritages and the "Dump British Isles" "camp" need to make a little more allowance for the fact that British Isles still exists around the world in a great many minds. Therefore clearly the practical outcome rests on that kind of progress. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care James, there is a lot of POV nationalistic contributors in that field. The best thing you can do James is let them remove whatever they want and hopefully they will go away then and the view out of your window won't change one bit. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused Off2riorob. Who are the POV nationalistic contributors? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trained that it is better to not name the Elephant_in_the_room James but the best thing in my opinion is let them remove whatever they want and they will then likely go away and nothing will have changed so it is a win win situation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at it though, that doesn't seem to be the case - it looks to me as if, unchallenged, there would simply be a blanket removal of British Isles. I don't see how that serves an NPOV encyclopedia? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it is removed they will no longer have a reason to be here? and nothing will have changed in the real world? win win. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Wikipedia seems to be increasingly trusted as a real world factual source rather too uncritically, which is of course why it matters more and which is in turn of course why people with strongly-held but minority views expend so much energy and co-ordinated determination on creating their own view of factuality in the cyclopedia. I'm afraid it does matter now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See that is the mistake that people make, nothing that happens on wikipedia affects the view out of your window. It is actually self defeating, users have a POV and they want that POV reflected in the pages of wikipedia and they for example remove the expression British isles from the whole wikipedia and readers come and either don't even notice or think , how weird and the end result of such editing is self defeating and simply reduces readers trust in the content and our reputation decreases and in is an ever decreasing spiral to infinity and the view out of everybody's window is unaltered.Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it being a hobby or cult game therapy. I think I agree with some of what you say but still feel it matters somewhat. The problem is when it becomes obsessional. Hopefully you and I are not there yet Off2riorob! Great name by the way, if a little difficult to type. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, I'm very happy to abide by the decisions here. As I've always been. I'm also happy to discuss anything and everything. I'm happy to compromise. Please review that page to get a feel for how things work. But don't be taken in by Blue Bugle/AlcatrazBirdman/LemonMonday/Mister Flash/MidnightBlueMan/Dangerous Temujin/EmpireForever/LemonMonday who are all the same person (and about to be added to). Since the multiple socks were uncovered, the vicious nationalistic ranting has disappeared. Perhaps I've been ... overly ... bold in correcting some articles, but given the guidelines and previous cases discussed at the SE page, I'm confident though that 99% of my edits will be upheld. Let's stand down from our Defcon2 and start again. --HighKing (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that HighKing is Popaice/Insectgirl/miscellaneous ips. LevenBoy (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK HighKing, willing to give that a try. Would you be prepared to list each one you want to change at the specific examples page and then allow a breather so we can all take a closer look, before executing the change? Say for 24 hours per small batch? That might make it less fraught-feeling and allow some thinking time. If nobody bothers to comment in that time, I guess you would then just change them. Or some similar plan of action? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I've been posting my changes all along anyway - any that need a particular discussion, we can just start a new section and discuss. Note that there's a number of rules-of-thumb that have been developed over time - you can check back for discussions on MOS guidelines on that page for these. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You accept the delay point HighKing? If so, excellent, I will take a regular look at the page and dive in if it looks useful. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely accept the delay point. I'm sure we're not going to agree on everything, but we can agree to disagree while remaining civil and repsectful, and I've always accepted the consensus. The goal is to eventually develop guidelines, based on our experience, precedence and consensus, to a central MOS. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He will simply bring an unending list of cases to that page. No one is bringing any articles that should have British Isles added, so the net result is in line with HighKing's objective; a continuing erosion of the use of British Isles in Wikipedia. LevenBoy (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty widely used phrase, so are you sure people are not adding them as fast as others remove them? I suppose one could do some sort of tracking page? Might be quite interesting! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your valuable time James, and stay away from that worthless page, imagine someone has a school project , the best thing you can do is just let them get on with it and don't get involved. Off2riorob (talk) 11:13 pm, Today (UTC+1)

(ec)I would doubt it, but you can search for British Isles and there are currently 15,072 instances of it. Maybe search again in a couple of weeks and see what the difference is. One thing is almost certain; there's no one going around systematically inserting it. Yes Rob, that page is worthless, but we shouldn't allow inaccuracies in Wikipedia as a result of some sort of POV, whether it be political, nationalistic or whatever. LevenBoy (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)HighKing has always been happy to bring articles to the page for discussion before making a change. LevenBoy's comment illustrates the problem. The issue is to use terms in an appropriate way, not to have some balance between use or non use regardless of facts. --Snowded ^TALK 22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you look closely at them, some are to do with context - the basic question is it right or not to use the term, even when it is clearly justified on geographic grounds, etc. Some breathing space to take a closer look at the background of some would be useful. There doesn't seem to me to be a huge need for rush. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, there's a lot of articles on the SE page. Take a couple of days to review. I'll hold off - as you correctly point out, there's no need to rush. I've been doing this for nearly 2 years now. And as a small aside, nearly all of my edits are still in place. --HighKing (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Two points Snowded; why has he not been doing that over the last few days? Secondly, I don't object to removing British Isles if it's being used incorrectly but in the vast majority of cases it isn't. There's a very high element of subjectivity in most cases. LevenBoy (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the pattern then any item which has been disputed, then HighKing has been happy to have the centralised discussion. If other editors are prepared to put time in again, and take a rational approach to the evidence, then I am sure we will make progress. --Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users search for the term and move from article to article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=1&search=British+Isles&limit=500&offset=0 Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comments from HighKing, above; he's been doing "this" for nearly two years now and most of his edits are still in place. Is that a campaign or not? LevenBoy (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with a campaign if people respect WIkipedia rules in editing. --Snowded ^TALK 22:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nub of the difficulty here is when deleting British Isles is reasonable and when it is just based on a POV. Distinguishing between those two. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who's doing it. It probably wouldn't be POV if a deletion, or indeed an addition, was carried out by what might be termed a non-involved editor, but when HighKing does it, well, make up your own mind (look at this one as an example of what must surely be POV [3]. LevenBoy (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that one - I'm trying to decide on the key issue of steak sauce being merely American or a case of American English. Brown Sauce could of course be either a property of these islands or else a case of linguistic isolation. This is a toughie and I may be some time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Potato chip for a similar example. --HighKing (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles SE page

I believe the concept of this page is flawed. It takes discussion away from article talk pages so regular editors, who one assumes actually know something about the subject (unlike HighKing or the rest of us), are excluded from the debate unless they happen to pick up on the edit wars that usually accompany attempts to remove British Isles. I don't know of any other examples in Wikipedia - though there may be some - where editors (in this case it just singular editor) try to influence article content away from the talk page. You'll also find that HighKing is very reluctant to take no for an answer. LevenBoy (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not bother wasting a second of your quality time at that page or on resisting that project, just look out of your window and see the tree swaying softly in soft breeze and take a deep breath and have yourself a great big belly laugh. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about this - it kind of flips both ways, in that the "campaign" (for want of a better word) is never really interested in the particular issue at that article - so that is kind of an irritant for the dedicated people who actually know something about a subject and have this thing suddenly erupt out of the blue - and on the other hand I agree it would be nice to hear from editors who actually know about a given topic. Reluctantly I've come down on centralisation as the local editors invariably are not familiar with the big picture and the "campaign" is really about use of the phrase, not the local issue. A bigger question seems to be Wikipedia-wide - is it right that an editor, driven by a determined POV, can relentlessly crusade to remove a specific phrase when this global removal is highly contested? At the moment, as far as I can tell, the answer appears to be that it is indeed perfectly possible, so long as they have support from others equally committed to the Master Plan and there are no obvious breaches of individual editing policies. So opposing the "campaign" if that's what you want to do would always have to come back to the particularities of each edit and that's best done at the "global" level for the reasons stated above. At least as far as I can tell with my so far somewhat limited experience. I recognise your sense of frustration LevenBoy, but it appears to me to be the way Wikedia policies work out in practise that you are frustrated with, rather than the actions of any particular editor. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger question seems to be Wikipedia-wide - is it right that an editor, driven by a determined POV, can relentlessly crusade to remove a specific phrase when this global removal is highly contested?. It's not right and it flies in the face of everything that Wikipedia stands for. However, it seems to be a relatively easy thing to accomplish, as HighKing's efforts demonstrate. LevenBoy (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It might be better to expend effort trying to get this discussed at a higher policy level. There are bound to be other examples of such crusading outside the British Isles issue. Do you know of higher-level forums where this can be engaged with? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, in the interests of WP:AGF, think about how it appears to me when you talk about "campaigns" and "driven by a determined POV, can relentlessly crusade to remove a specific phrase when this global removal is highly contested?". If I was being disruptive, I would simply copy LevenBoys behaviour and revert without discussion or explanation, make personal comments, and try to recruit other like-minded individuals to edit war. If you're truly coming at this with a genuine effort to create guidelines, and discuss edits, you'll avoid being brainwashed, you'll avoid using this type of language, and you'll pick your editing collegues carefully. --HighKing (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not acting with any "editing colleagues" that I'm aware of HighKing and I will also strive to avoid being brain-washed. As regards it being a "campaign" or a "crusade", you seem pretty open yourself about the hundreds of removals of "British Isles" you've achieved and so forth, so I'm not quite clear why that seems offensive to you - are you not committed to removing British Isles everywhere you see it then? If not, what are the limits to the removal as you perceive them? It may be the word "crusade" is a bit harsh though, so I withdraw that remark. How about "sustained and determined commitment to remove "British Isles"? Is that fair? Not that it really worries me that much in a way, but it would be useful for us all to be open about what we're doing. For my part, I've seen good places where you've removed it that made sense and others where it seems just removal for it's own sake. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James - fair points made in an open way. I'm on record (several times) as to my stance on British Isles usage. I'm not trying to remove it everywhere I see it - as a starting point, look at WP:BIDRAFT2 for previous discussions, or look at the SE page for suggested MOS guidelines. --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your latest list, your hit rate of picking up on badly used cases is pretty high, so in general I have to say you are doing a useful piece of work. I do agree it is useful though on a broad-brush project like this which cuts across so many articles to pre-publish intended lists of changes so that people can review and discuss. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it's appreciated. I used to post everything in advance at the SE page (voluntarily), but if you check back on the contributions of those sock accounts previously mentioned, you'll see it wasn't easy. We're close to removing all the socking accounts (and we can see the new ones popping up), so things will get less frentic afterwards, and I expect we can go back to using the SE page for everything. --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best in the meantime (if you can) to just ignore them and continue to discuss sensible points as if the distraction is not there. It's not really anything personal to do with you, as it's about a policy and disagreeing with the way Wikipedia works, even if it looks personal. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot easier when other editors are supportive. They don't necessarily agree with me or my position, but they'll happily fight the abuse and disruption when needed, and even revert articles while discussions are ongoing, etc. That way, the disruption doesn't last too long. The problem with socks is that it can appear that multiple editors feel the same way. Now that we've reduced (but not eliminated yet) the socking, we should make good progress. --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

polanski

[4]. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gwen, that doesn't confirm it - just gives the widely available story that an announcement is planned. The story is continuing live on a number of channels - I am just awaiting the websites to refresh their Europe sections with details of the announcement. BBC journalist just said "Mr Polanski is free to go". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence reads Switzerland announced Monday that it will nto extradite Roman Polanski to the United States. That is a confirmation. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry, missed that - lots of versions coming up online now, have started referencing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterly disappointed

James, funny, but of all the people that supported the topic ban, yours stands out and surprises the most. A topic ban! In the Canterbury-York debate, I wasn't rude or uncivil, and when you produced the reference I accepted that and thanked you. You say it was a silly and lengthy debate - why? How are we do decide which usage is OK and which is not, if we're not to have discussions? Did you realize that following on from that debate, I suggested in the MOS that the Anglican church uses the term, and that those articles should be recognized as being a valid use? Not once have I edit warred when the issue has been decided on the SE page or even on the article Talk page. The ANI report was to deal with LevenBoy's mass reversions, without discussion, and without a meaningful edit summary. I look at many of the "supporters" and they haven't had meaningful dealing with this topic, but you indicated you would like to, so your support of a topic ban for me is a huge disappointment. --HighKing (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A polite request to review your support of the topic ban. I'd support a community-wide topic ban myself until the MOS is figured out (or not), but a personal topic ban is wrong. Is there a different form of remedy that might satisfy you perhaps? --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my latest comment at the ANI discussion HK - I did say on my original remarks that I was reluctant and I do think this is about policies and that the non-sock editors are generally trying their best to work at it seriously. The MOS discussion is getting good and I think we should take time and consider out responses to things on there in a consensual spirit if possible. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated, and that proposal is fair and reasonable. --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles MOS entry

Hi, I have put forward a proposal that might address the concerns you expressed at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style. Many thanks, --RA (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RA, studying your new discussion thread now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall discussion

Hello, "Felix folio secundus 05:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)" appears on the page as my signature (since I changed the setting recently). Perhaps it would be better to provide the normal linked signature instead. Neither the proposed text nor the statement about the census guidance are meant to be really essential additions, they just follow on from earlier points of discussion between editors who disagree to some extent. You could try adding your own draft and see what happens then. It is a very difficult subject to write about neutrally since there are great variations in the feelings about Cornish identity between different parts of Cornwall and different groups of people. Previous discussions in WikiProject Cornwall show the problems that can arise here.--Felix folio secundus 06:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that Felix and happy to go through it more at the Cornwall article. I was just wondering why your sign didn't contain a link! Not seen it done before. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences provides an option to unlink the signature (I wonder why it is there if creates a problem for other editors). I think I have cancelled it now. User:Mjroots made the apparently unsigned comment as part of his reply re Albemarle. (When comments have no signatures something called SineBot comes along and supplies one at some stage.) The Cornwall article has not had any more editing so far though the balance could get upset at any time. The lead section should only contain statements broadly in accordance with what is said in more detail in the rest of the article which I feel is quite hard to do in this case.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your signature now - thanks for that. I don't totally agree with your sentiments in the latter part of your comment. I see two points that could be changed. One is the large number of refs (several now broken) supporting the "Cornwall is one of the celtic nations" statement - we don't need nearly that many for something so well known - usually these blitzes of refs seem to happen when something obvious gets disputed, but I have the article on my list and will check regularly to make sure nobody is seeking to overturn such a basic fact if we lower the referencing overdose. The other more serious query I have is on the ".... some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a nationalist movement seeks greater autonomy within the United Kingdom in the form of a devolved legislative assembly, and greater recognition of the Cornish people as a national minority.[12]" statement. I think we need to get tighter in this bit. "Some people" is ambiguous, which is why I previously tried to introduce the census data debated in the demog section which joowwww reverted. Clearly we need to try to put figures on it. Having spent a lot of time in Cornwall and read the local press there and watched the local media every day for many months, I am convinced it is not that large a percentage of the population. The party and pressure groups are tiny. Sources need to be tracked down to put better figures on it. We also need to say what "greater recognition of the Cornish people as a national minority" means. I think it's a pretty vague statement. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, As I emigrated from Cornwall so long ago I cannot really summarise the present state of "feelings of Cornish identity in Cornwall". My additions only came from what had been said in the discussion which only involved a few editors with firm opinions. The Cornwall article cannot really be dealt with on its own as the subject is relevant to Cornish people, Constitutional status of Cornwall and Duchy of Cornwall as well. Using the Launcells survey and the article by Philip Hosking will probably lead to disputes, so I hope you can find some more appropriate references.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Films

Ha! I don't take it too seriously, but it is a fun resource every now and then. And yes, the people most interested in that page probably aren't the most intellectual of wikipedians :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggins (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BI

Sorry, just couldn't resist temptation --Snowded ^TALK 10:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Well spotted. I agree with that change actually. Now I have one in hand, can I tinker with your user-defined material? The alternative would be to put back those signs saying "Croeso y Cymru" that used to be on the A5 at Oswestry - don't know who took those down, it was always really cool being reminded you were stepping into another country. The local Council perhaps? Can't imagine it was the Assembley. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you want to do, but feel free to tinker. The sign are still up on the Bridge and on the A55, I didn't realise they had gone in Oswestry, but that is and has always been disputed territory - one of the few areas of England to have a welsh speaking cluster.--Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice them on the A55 last time I went that way. There even used to be a "Welcome to England" sign coming the other way at Oswestry! Bit over-familiar for us Sais. I would change on your page the "This user lives in the UK" userbox to have a nice paintshopped background combining the Union Jack, the Queen's head (and possibly Charles, Prince of Wales) and a slow-burning torch in the shape of Edward I. I am honestly and sincerely not trying to be deliberately inflammatory. There is far too much POV-ist winding up already on Wikipedia without me joining in! I won't be adding a photo I have somewhere of a huge welsh graffiti painted on the wall at the bottom of Pont Brittania, politely requesting us to go home, either. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ugg, if you put them all in the slow burning torch it might just be acceptable--Snowded ^TALK 11:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta go - I believe I see an opportunity to add "British Isles" to Peppa Pig. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants at BI examples page

Hi, James. Would it be a good idea to link the list of participants to the WP:BISLES page? As HK has already mentioned there is already a list there, though it's long due an update. Alternatively, we could put the list on the project page itself. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a strong case for a sign up (i) to the sanction (ii) to discuss all cases first and (iii) AGF and NPA. Then we get people to sign up as participants and if people break it down stream its additional evidence. I am loosing patience with childish behaviour and blanket adoption of single positions here.--Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put in some text about that Snowded, or I will if you illustrate an example here - not completely clear on all those points. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Editors participating in this discussion

(Please add your name only) All participating editors agree to abide by WP:GS/BI and further agree that all and any insertion or removal of British Isles requires prior discussion at WT:BISE. All editors agree to strict adherence to the principles and practice of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.--Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good Snowded and I agree that everyone participating should sign up to it. It doesn't mean that everyone will sign up to it or have to sign up to it. If someone removes or adds British Isles without prior discussion it doesn't matters if they have signed or not, they will be sanctioned anyway. What I'm really trying to say is that I'm not sure if it would be any particular benefit to the project. Jack 1314 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it being at the top of the article and will move it. Some of Snowded's text here seems to me to be admin-warning type stuff, not sure if it doesn't sound slightly dictatorial in tone. It is also informing editors of a policy that you would only know really if you were already here. So I suggest this wording:

Important Note When discussing use of the term "British Isles", or adding/removing it from articles, please take note of the British Isles Sanctions Policy WP:GS/BI - this policy states that all and any insertion or removal of British Isles requires prior discussion here at WT:BISE. Also remember the the principles and practice of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And get rid of all lists - much more sensible. Apologies for being irritable over this. --Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long war. We are not yet at the beginning of the end, but perhaps we are at the end of the beginning etc. Oh dear. WSC is always looking over my very English shoulder. Good job you don't share every one of my interests Snowded. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where I grew up WSC was the Home Secretary who turned the guns on the miners, so we tended not to quote him! :-) --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I hadn't forgotten that bit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have most of my certificates from the University of life. Still waiting after all these years for someone to send them to me. :( Jack 1314 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for them as Premium Bonds. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, I might be worth a fortune. This time next year I'll be a millionaire! Jack 1314 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany infobox

Thanks for hinting at a typo in the infobox. If on top of that you disagree with some of the content shown, bring it up on the article's talk page, or just be bold and make a change. Editors would certainly react if they disagree. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's a serious point, why did you just delete it from your talk page and describe it as trolling? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there, you were trying to be funny at my expense [5]. Here, I am just asking if you want to do something about the content or not. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite funny though. Let's review the history. (1) You auto-reacted to my original change to Netherlands because you thought I was running a campaign (I wasn't) and you left an insulting edit remark that assumed bad faith, for which you have not apologised. (2) I then entered into a painfully long process of proving with references THE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy. You only inisted on this because you didn't like me pointing out that your edit comment was insulting and wrong. (3) We then went to great lengths to get it just exactly how you want it and referenced - and you edit-war - hilariously(!) - on the point that it is - wait for it - badly capitalised and lacking the vital "y" in "monarchy" - which is the dab!! Then (4) I point out that a key Wikipedia article infobox - Germany - has exactly this unreferenced infobox govtype format following article title dabbing - and you describe that as trolling! Yes, it's funny. You clearly find it impossible to realise that you aren't the only editor with a brain and you also don't seem to have a clue about assuming good faith. Good luck with it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also don't get the pretty obvious point that there is actually nothing wrong with the Germany infobox govtype description - and it isn't even referenced. In fact, hardly any of them are and they don't need to be, because everyone with half a brain can see at once that they are correct. The really sad thing about this is that the Netherlands infobox has been wrong since 2008 and nobody, including you picked that up - until I came along and you did your best to prevent me from fixing it. Well done - you can go to bed happy tonight - another evening spent blocking easy, good Wikipedia editing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Childish undoing of my edits.

Your childish feuding has to stop. There is no justification for reverting all my edits on the English cuisine articles. English cuisine is not the same thing as British cuisine. Why should only Wales and Scotland have their own cuisine? You are coming across as highly immature and absurdly nationalistic to Britain. It is both amusing and troublesome. The Mummy (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice troll, but I won't rise. I saw an IP (User talk:86.131.245.123) - which presumably is you - carrying out bulk changes to a (then) non -existent category. You then came in, invented the new category, and reverted my corrections. Since then, I haven't changed a single one of your edits as The Mummy and have tried to discuss. I can do without statements like "You are coming across as highly immature and absurdly nationalistic to Britain" and will take them to ANI if you persist. If you don't want to discuss this in an intelligent way, that's up to you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, James, you seem to be a great example of a wikipedia troll, yourself I am sorry to say, and I only say this because you used the term for me. Not only to you outwardly call someone a troll, rather than just mentioning that is what they seem like, you also insult there intelligence. It just seems like you loathe the classification of English food as English rather than British and thus you seemed to have stalked my account to undo all my justified edits without A) asking me for my reasoning (though I do not have to give any as it is English cuisine and should be placed in the appropriate subcategory), and telling me what you wish to have done, and B) you felt the need to revert all my edits because you did't like the creation of a simple subcategory. I was thinking of taking my case to the mods also, as you have no right to revert all the edits that I made without talking to me first, just because you did not like a creation of a category. You have a point that I should have made a discussion about an English brands category, but it seemed to me (and still does) a waste of time and something which most people wouldn't and shouldn't care about. Just a quick look at commerce would reveal that there are English brands, Scottish brands etc.

And you are hardly discussing things in an intelligent manner. I said you are coming across as... because I am telling you want it seems and it is my right to say this. I am not saying that my perception is necessarily correct, mind, and wouldn't do that at all. But this is not against the rules at all, and if it is it would mean that there is no such things as article weaseling on this site, because people wouldn't be allowed to question the intentions and motives of the editor. The Mummy (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take it to the mods. I did try and talk to the IP, but of course had no way of knowing "you" (IP number) were "you" (The Mummy) - and of course I have reverted nothing that "you" have done as The Mummy. It might make a mod wonder though why you need an IP number to do those edits as an unsigned user when you as The Mummy were immediately available! Oh and of course I don't loath any classifications, I was reverting changes by an unsigned user to a category that then didn't exist, until you as The Mummy immediately created it after my reverts. And as for calling you a troll, well, your insulting remarks above only really confirm it. Good luck with it all anyway. Still waiting for those sources. I will also be raising a CFD on the cat you just created. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill and "Brutal"

You are completely correct that Churchill did not use the word "brutally". Thank you for your quick edit and I apologise that I let it creep in the first place. I was also greatly taken with your witty and clever user page.Skreen (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice message Skreen - makes a change to get some appreciation, however ill-deserved. Are you interested in WSC from an India perspective or from the colonialism perspective? I am seeking to clarify some points in the article as you can see - the issue for me being not the unblemished reputation of Churchill but being accurate on things that look bad to us and the other way around. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

There happens to be an island called Ireland, why should the country that took the islands name less than 100 years ago have the primary position and act as though it has ownership over the whole island and its history? The case for not putting the country at Ireland was overwhelming, as was the response from the community which backed the method wikipedia has used for many years. At the very least Ireland would have to be a disam page.

When i first arrived in the Ireland debate (very late) i originally backed a compromise (although ROI would still not have been at Ireland). However after being heavily involved in the debate following Arbcoms ruling that we had to sort the mess out, the case for keeping the status quo was very impressive and strong. The case for the country being at Ireland was extremely weak. Most of the time there was just Brit-Bashing and claims of a conspiracy, which continues to this day as you can see from Sarahs talk page where they debate how Brits voted etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I disagree BW. The reason I disagree is that surely the panoply of UN-recognised nation-states all deserve an article with the correct name for that state. It looks to me as though you are referring to the historical side of Ireland as being the main competitor for that article title. Surely that could be Ireland (island) and not Ireland just as easily as the disambig page you suggest. I would suggest in turn that the agendas some in Northern Ireland have on these issues should not dominate in WP, no more than they should on the BI issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a disam page was certainly an option, like how Georgia is dealt with which proves that a UN member state / country does not automatically get primacy. But i consider the island as a whole and its history which spans far more than todays country's history as the primary article. The current method had been used for many years, the case for making a change was just not strong. Having the country at Ireland and able to claim ownership over the whole island and its history would be totally unacceptable and deeply offensive, far more offensive than using the official governments description (Republic of Ireland) to avoid ambiguity. As for the correct name of the state bit, the vast majority of country articles are not at their official names, but their common names. I would have been fine with Ireland (country) rather than Republic of Ireland but most were against changing it to that too because some did not like the term country being used, we even had a mini poll on what Ireland (xxxx) should be and the winner of that was put into the main poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland (country) would certainly be better than the current silliness, but on Georgia, I'm afraid I see that as an example of POV at work - clearly something that purports to be THE global en-language cyclopedia should put the UN state above a US state. So it's not an example that particularly impresses me. On this one BW I'm seeking to take a global view. All due respect to Ireland's history as well - but lots of states / regions / countries have histories that correspond or do not correspond to current national boundaries but have name overlaps. The important thing is credibility here and to me that says we need an article for each UN state with the internationally approved official name, as a bare minimum. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English language wikipedia must cater for what the English speaking world will be looking for just the same way all other wiki languages do. I came across the fact the Spanish wikipedia gives primacy to a Spanish city over a country with the same name, it happens everywhere and is the reason for all the different language wikipedias. I can see the case for Georgia being the primary article, but a disam page seems fair and of course Georgia does not have a problem of being the name of an island that it does not fully occupy which makes Ireland a different case.

If ROI fully controlled the island of Ireland then of course it has a right to the prime spot, but it does not there for it should not be given Ireland. That has always been my main position and the reason i got involved in the debate, i just strongly oppose the idea that a country is given primacy over an island it does not fully control, which has a bigger population and does not have ownership of its history. At several points i was prepared to support compromises, but the one thing i could not and never will support is the country at Ireland unless there is a united Ireland. Until then though whilst ROI still remains in use and we clearly have an ambiguity problem, i do no see why it can not be use. ROI is an official description by the Irish government, the Irish football team players under the Republic of Ireland title. British media certainly uses ROI extensively still and there were international sources too.

America is a common name for the USA but it is a disam. Great Britain which remains about the island when there could be a case for it to be about the Kingdom of Great Britain or a redirect/disam page. North Korea and Burma are not at their country names simply the English name for them. Most countries are not at their full official names France rather than French Republic, Germany rather than Federal Republic of Germany etc.

One final point though (which i would make over on Sarahs page but my comments often get deleted), ill strongly oppose some form of project being established to debate the matter of page moves. Such a debate should not start until September 2011 when Arbcoms 2 year lock ends. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"America" is not the UN-official name for the USA. The united Ireland issue is a red herring as it goes to partisan debates about Northern Ireland and not the basic name issue. The official name for the state, Ireland, is Ireland. The official name for Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland. The two can co-exist in namespace. This is about official standards, not the politics of Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming standards do not go by official policy as highlighted by vast majority of country articles not being at their official titles. This is not an issue about Ireland and Northern Ireland. The ambiguity problem is between a state called Ireland which has existed for less than one hundred years, and an island called Ireland which has a history spanning back many centuries and has a larger population. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other country names you mention, en-WP should use the English names right off the UN table [6] - you will see that those are France and Germany, for example. The other names like Republic of France are secondary, as long since the UN has agreed on international short names for each nation state. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But such a rule would require us to change the article names of Burma and North Korea to names many people in the English speaking world do not know. It would also mean China would have to become about the country instead of a general summary about China which links to the People's Republic of China and Republic of China. The issue of country names is very difficult and the idea a single standard can be followed i think is unworkable, each case has to be handled in its own way. Especially as Arbcom has made rulings on matters like Ireland and Republic of Macedonia. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and China being another example of where the country does not take primacy but the island/area as a summary. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the UN's en-names table, China is not a problem. Burma should in fact be Myanmar in Wikipedia and Burma a redirect. NK is a funny one, but again, the official title should be used and North Korea redirected. Taiwan is not a UN-recognised nation-state, so the issue does not arise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A general rule like using the UN official title would be a nightmare to get to and avoids taking into account individual circumstances. The country being at Ireland is very different to the situation with Georgia, and some of the other cases. But anyway, a project on this sort of thing at this stage would in my opinion violate Arbcoms ruling which states:

The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

There was also a ruling that all discussions about the Ireland naming issues should occur on the Ireland collaboration project page. A wikipedia wide debate on all country article names i think would be impossible, but if there is to be one it should only take place after all rulings have expired. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be a nightmare if people raise illogical arguments repeatedly. The case is actually a very simple one - use the official UN en-names for countries. And I suspect you resorted to the arbcom memo because you realised you had no valid case on the country names you raised, not least one which is not even a country. I think it would help if you were to say what you real objection to such a policy is BW - it's not about Myanmar or North Korea. It's about something to do with Northern Ireland isn't it? What is it exactly? Just curious. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said before. There is an island called Ireland which has been around for many centuries and has a history. The modern state Ireland has existed for a short period of time in comparison, the case that the country is the primary article today failed to be made. Arbcom at the time also accepted the fact there is an ambiguity problem, its not as simple as the state should be at Ireland. A simple blanket ruling that countries must be just at their UN names is unworkable and unacceptable. The point about all the other country articles is that there is no single pattern used so we are not treating Ireland any differently to how we handle some other countries where there is also problem. I mentioned arbcoms ruling because i do not think e a project page should be set up which attempts to handle the Ireland article names (or all country article names) before September 2011. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this exchange above:

"America" is not the UN-official name for the USA. The united Ireland issue is a red herring as it goes to partisan debates about Northern Ireland and not the basic name issue. The official name for the state, Ireland, is Ireland. The official name for Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland. The two can co-exist in namespace. This is about official standards, not the politics of Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire

Wikipedia naming standards do not go by official policy as highlighted by vast majority of country articles not being at their official titles. This is not an issue about Ireland and Northern Ireland. The ambiguity problem is between a state called Ireland which has existed for less than one hundred years, and an island called Ireland which has a history spanning back many centuries and has a larger population. BritishWatcher

Thank you Jamesinderbyshire for your interest in a civil debate with a common sense approach. BW, my response to your concern is simply, "Thus, choice C" from last year: "Ireland is a modern independent state, a geographic entity, an historic nation, and a cultural identity, all based on the island of Ireland." Entrenchment here is hopeless sometimes, so that is about as far as I want to go. I do not think "Arbcom (read "daddy") said we can't talk about this" has shown the project to be mature enough to handle issues such as this. That is perhaps the macro-debate. I am quoting the above exchange because I find it interesting. In my experience, calling the United States "America" is a Euro-thingy, for what it's worth. I can't baffle you with bullshit, so I'll just punt. The article should be called Ireland, and the UN solution with common sense shortenings would be better than sending everyone to stand in the corner like they are little children for two years. Sswonk (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with C, in fact it was something like option C that i originally supported when i joined the debate. The demand for the state to be given the primary spot, the offensive and negative comments against Britain and British editors, and some of the evidence that was presented changed my mind and i ended up firmly in the Republic of Ireland camp. Im happy to discuss all these things again, i have it booked in for 2011, but we should wait until then. Arbcoms 2 year ruling was a good idea which has helped resolve the issue and make it more stable, it rarely comes up now. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious, it isn't about "what you could live with" BW - if it was, it would be an awfully constrained Wikipedia. :-) It's about what's right. Clearly, the UN names are a good default position. In the case of Ireland, there is a happy co-incidence of common name and UN name and it's really a no-brainer to everyone but those with a particular very strong POV which has no place here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of my earliest posts on this matter..

"I am sorry but that is one of the two options that has alot of opposition and for good reason. It is giving the state priority over the island (which it shares with another state) this is different to the method currently used for both China and Taiwan as well as the country / state of Georgia. People are also rightfully strongly opposed to keeping it at Republic of Ireland which is not its offical title. The sooner the people on this article accept that these two options are going to be opposed by many people the sooner progress can be made. Ireland should either be a disam page or its going to be about the island of Ireland. If we could get rid of the two problematic options (State being on Ireland or Republic of Ireland) then a good debate can be had over if it should be a disam page or about the island. As i said before, people should be asked to vote for the option they STRONGLY oppose, then eliminate the two clear problems. Otherwise this process is just going to go on and on for ever. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"

In the months that followed the case for using Republic of Ireland became stronger and the methods used by some editors changed my position. But like i said at back then, whilst the totally unacceptable option of the state being at Ireland is on the cards, im going to be opposing change. Arbcom ruled itself that there was an ambiguity problem and thankfully the overwhelming majority of the community that voted in the poll took a similar view to my own. The option of the state at Ireland did extremely badly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you saw this User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Poll on Ireland article names but it clearly lists all the votes cast. Just 29 votes went to option B (country at Ireland and the island being moved), 8 voted for A which was basically merge the two so the country has the prime spot too. So in total 37 votes for those two options, compare that to 104 for the present setup, 40 for disam and 36 for a summary article at Ireland, with separate articles for the island / country elsewhere.

So out of about 230 votes, less than 40 supported Ireland being the country. That was an overwhelming verdict and there is absolutely no way all of those editors were British nationalists pushing a British POV or a Northern Irish POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No It Doesn't (cue Punch and Judy routine). Funny how that poll page gets quoted like that. A simple count, or a check of the dates would put paid to the myth of RA's page. I compiled a full list after the poll. Perhaps the time is right for me to post it now. If nothing else, it'll put a sword to RA's page which keeps getting quoted. --HighKing (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(there was an edit conflict) Dunno...I'm seeing a paradox in your words. How can I harmonize "I could live with C" (begins "Ireland is a modern independent state") with "the totally unacceptable option of the state being at Ireland"? The solution I see with C is that the state can be included with a thorough explanation of the full history of Éire/Ireland throughout, and a parallel article on Northern Ireland also exist. The geophysical island can be handled in a subarticle. I have yet to see any arguments, whether by you or even some of the Irish editors who are willing to go with RoI, that hold much water: they are simply too self-conflicted and convoluted to trump the simple, common sense approach. I heartily agree that ethnocentric pride and name calling kill an otherwise good discussion. For lack of a better phrase, it really sucks. But, rather than let that bog everyone down, I have to just realize that doing the right thing is best for the future of providing details on the subject for internet users to consume, and taking offense, while it is not easily avoided, can be. I have understood for some time that, as Sarah recently wrote in so many words, change happens only with experience (she wrote "perspectives differ and truth dies"). If you look at it from the republican side, a long history of mistrust has not been ended here at Wikipedia. From the outside, I see an element of the majority, both in numbers and in wealth, i.e. the British editors, lording it over the Irish to this day. I don't mean to offend by that, I just wish it were easy to see. Sswonk (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the continuous claims about British POV in the debate that helped move my position from supporting something like C to firmly in the camp of Republic of Ireland because editors refused to accept there was a ambiguity problem and suggested it was some form of British Imperialism. Like i mentioned in the reply above showing the votes, if there are really so many British nationalist editors on wikipedia then i do not know where they edit because there is an incredible anti British/unionist bias on wikipedia, it is not the other way around. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option C is very different to option B. Having a general summary at Ireland linking to articles on the country and ireland is a reasonable compromise, although it opens up a huge potential dispute for the future about the contents of that page. To put the country at Ireland and force the island into a secondary spot is completely different. The country that is called Ireland can not claim ownership over the islands history. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(there was another edit conflict) I am not writing about British nationalists. I mean there is an apparently very esoteric undercurrent or foundation of pro-British bias, which is hardest for the residents of the UK to see. You may love the Irish, have Irish relatives, go see U2 at the O2, etc. etc. and still not understand that holding on to calling this article Republic of Ireland is a bad solution. I see no bias whatsoever against British editors, perhaps against unionists but that is a different story. Sswonk (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a bias against editors, but there is certainly a bias against Britain and British people/unionism in the way wikipedia handles certain matters relating to article content. I come across bias everywhere, sometimes its little things, other times its far bigger and more serious issues, but i wont trouble you with my worries lol. When it comes to the Ireland article names, i think it is understandable that many British editors support use of Republic of Ireland, it is a term we hear often it is also part of our country that is impacted by a Ireland having the prime spot. That being said quite a few British editors voted for other options. Arbcom accepted there is ambiguity, a vote of over 200 editors clearly chose the current setup and overwhelmingly rejected the proposal to have the state at Ireland. Claims that this is all just British POV are nonsense, and as i said before, it was some of the very negative claims during the debate which helped change my position to support the current setup. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think it is understandable that many British editors support use of Republic of Ireland, it is a term we hear often - yes. And in my opinion this is because in the UK, the legal name of the Irish state is "Republic of Ireland". So it's actually prefectly fine for the UK government, British media, etc, to use the term. But it's not all right to carry it through to an international encyclopedia. --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BW, you wrote: "The country that is called Ireland can not claim ownership over the islands history." What is the converse, i.e. who can? That is without question where you and I part ways. Sswonk (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an irrelevant question, because the issue of who lays claim to the history of something is entirely seperate to the correct current name for something. Thus it's glaringly wrong to have something as wrong as Republic of Ireland when everyone calls it Ireland, including the UN, Ireland and the UK, not to mention most places in Wikipedia, which have to pipe it. Hence my attempt at a recourse to something a little more solid than sentimental versions of history such as UN nomenclature. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the island of Ireland can. Which is why i support that as the primary topic. When Americans talk of Irish ancestry, the vast majority of the time they will not be thinking about the Republic of Ireland , Northern Ireland or the Kingdom of Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, they will be thinking about the island of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going to draw a halt to this pretty soon as I already know your views BW and don't need them endlessly repeating every 15 secs here, with all due respect to you. Last word to you then I'm drawing a line. 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should your talk page be privileged over those of articles where we get endless repetition every 10 minutes? --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I feel that the BW refresh button followed by panicky ec over-rides had peaked. I suppose we could always take a BW wikibreak to ANI as a traffic-calming measure though. :-) Seriously BW, if you've nothing further to add, this is now closed. Thanks everyone for your thoughts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CLOSED DISCUSSION +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Vodafone

Hi James

Thanks for your message. The changes that I just made to the Vodafone introduction were essentially to tidy it up and only present information which introduces the company. What of the deleted information do you feel should be reinstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoon11 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer here Rangoon11 if you need to. I am not sure yet - I was really just curious as to the reason. I will take some time to study your edit and see if there is anything that comes to mind. Thanks for getting in touch. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Aki

Hello, I've declined the WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion tag you placed on Kiyoshi Aki. Please review the CSD criteria, specifically criterion A7, which states "No indication of importance". The version you tagged did have claims of notability, Feel free to PROD or AFD if you wish, though. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Geller

Derby

Princess Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis

Siegfried Sassoon

Dad's Army on Radio 4 listing

British English place names

BA strike bullying

Terminology of the BIs

tags

Pronunciation

Removal of British Isles from articles

British Isles SE page

polanski

Your recent edits

Bitterly disappointed

British Isles MOS entry

Cornwall discussion

Re: Films

BI

List of participants at BI examples page

Germany infobox

Childish undoing of my edits.

Winston Churchill and "Brutal"

Ireland

Vodafone

Kiyoshi Aki