Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HighKing (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 31 October 2009 (→WASP: enough is enough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi MidnightBlueMan. I'm not taking the piss in any way. You on the other hand, with your higher levels of knowledge - superior to all Cambridge and Oxford University Press authors and other similar reputable sources, are wasting people's time. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The British Isles dispute would (IMO) be resolved quicker if IP accounts were barred from those discussions (until they sign-in). GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay but I can't agree. Anonymous IP editors are a valuable resource as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets work something out here

Hey, I've mentioned your recent edits as part of this discussion. Let's try to work this out here - TharkunColl Wikiquette Alert. --HighKing (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI case of HK & Tharky

Have no fear MBM. Now that an established IP account has posted? I've nothing further to add at the ANI case. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

IP account

Passerby IP accounts or IPs under 1-month old? I've no problem with. Veteran IP accounts, who refuse to create an account? I've a problem with that refusal. 'Cause I have a problem with those who refuse? I choose for the discussion's sake (aswell as their's & mine) to take min-breaks. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's your decision of course. I'll say no more about it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

'Tis alright, you've made a good point. It's just a choice I've made for now; It's obvious (from recent discussions) that the vet IP accounts annoy me (thus my reason for pulling back). GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the ip discussion on Jimbo Wales page. Jack forbes (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

In regard to your comment on British Isles, if someone objects to the term their reasoning must be perverse?? I would rather not have it used, although it's not something I or many Scots lose sleep over, but surely everone has a right to their opinion withought it being called perverse. I want Scotland to be independent, I presume you don't, does that make one of our opinions perverse? Of course not, although you may consider it wrong. The world is full of different people and different ideas and as long as it doesn't lead to violence it makes the world a more interesting place. I sometimes wonder how many volunteers wiki would have if there were not an element of disagreement and dare I say it, political pov from every side. I've never met a human being yet who does not have an opinion, although some can hide it better than others. I'm probably not one of them. Jack forbes (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion considering the term British Isles to be offensive is perverse. People might not like the term, they might object to its use and they might try to disuade others from using it, but to consider it offensive? Nigger is offensive; British Isles surely isn't. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Nigger was not always regarded as an offensive word. Now it is. Even more, it is (AFAIK) often not regarded as offensive if said by one black person to another. The offensiveness of a word depends on context, time, and audience. The references say that "British Isles" is offensive to many Irish people. Why do you have a problem with that? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

From Snowded page

Sorry MBM, but I'll do things my way (like removing articles from my watchlist). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. It's your choice, of course. However, give some more thought to the benefits, as well as the downside, of IP editing. Don't forget that anyone who wanted to buck the system if registration was mandatory, would simply create multiple IDs. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with IPs on Misplaced Pages. I have problems with them participating in Topic/content discussions, such as British Isles & Republic of Ireland & the relating Taskforces. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Donncha Ó Dulaing

It may need additional information to reinforce notability.-SilverOrion

I'll add further info in due course; maybe other editors will as well. I just added some initial info to get the article started. He was previously a "redlink" on an article about People of the Year Awards winners. Cheers, MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Winning the "People of the Year Awards" would definately assert notability, as long as you have references, it should be fine-SilverOrion

Progress on the Manual of Style?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Task_Force_terms_of_reference and in particular the subsection Compromise Proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

That's gotta be my final comment (at that article), for awhile. I may have commented there, too much, already. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. No problem with that. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is an antiquated colonial term

The British Isles is a defunct political term--on that there is no debate. No government recognizes its legitimacy. As a traditional geographic term, it is overly confusing and has been disfavored by academics, laymen and workers for peace.

I added Atlantic Isles to the title of British Isles article, as is conventional on other such articles. The term I used is an academic term explained within the article. Clearly the term British Isles is one of a few choices, and it is fast becoming the least favored among post-colonial people, who respect the United Nations and the end of the British Empire. The encyclopedia article should reflect that diversity of terminology in the entry title.

When I tried to include the alternate terms at the top of the article as opposed to deep within it, I was accused of vandalism, being uninformed and politically motivated. There was no reasoning in the outright rejection of my contribution. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be inclusive and reasonable. Instead it is exclusively propagating a hold-over empire term that is not wholly appropriate,as the empire is dead. There are historical reasons that it is used, and many why it is not. Why should the article title imply its use is the standard one. It is not. National Geographic has scrapped it. So has the Irish government, and all governments in point of fact, including the British government. Yet Misplaced Pages implies it is the standard. It is the historical term, but not the modern one. The modern terminology is diverse, where the old one is being phased out by a number of important institutions, cited in the article.

Many important British historians agree the term is an imperial hold-over that is no longer accurate. The great British historian Norman Davies is one example that comes to mind. There are many others, some of whom are cited within the article.

To whom can I appeal the unreasoned and defamatory destruction of my contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.252.192 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Isles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. Please check the history of British Isles and you'll see I've made one revert in the last 24 hrs. Furthermore, there was no reason for the 'Admin from nowhere' to suddenly spring up and protect the article. Yes, there were disagreements, and some reverting, but nothing too serious. I see a complete over-reaction on the part of the admin, and others. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin from nowhere? No this happens often on the British Isles article, it often gets involved in such edit wars and it often needs protecting as a result. Protection for edit wars on British Isles is quite normal, and justified to prevent the continued disruption to the article like we've seen in the last two days. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

I have struck out the word disgrace from my comment on British Isles as I think it was way over the top and too emotive. I really don't care if people want to call the islands British Isles or Britain and Ireland. If ultimately a consensus is formed not to use one or both of the refs then fair enough, but if we use references we should represent them properly. I've asked for a request for comment so hopefuly others may come in and help towards a consensus. As for me, I think I will take a back seat and watch how things progress. yours Titch Tucker (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have put in another request for comment. Once it has been added you can maybe move the previous posts on the RFC to the new section. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that last post. I have moved the previous discussion to the correct section. Yours, Titch Tucker (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles"

Incidentally, I think you'll find that Armagh is still in Éire (unless there has been an iceage in the past few minutes), and has been in Éire for, well, a couple of thousand years longer than this rather fissiparous "United Kingdom" phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.117.220 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you simply didn't know that 'Ireland' is just the English for 'Éire' and consequently everywhere in Ireland could only be in Éire as well. Next time, try and learn the basics before coming over to my page and claiming Armagh, Ireland is not Ard Mhaca, Éire. It's just silly trying to change the reality to fit into your partitionist British viewpoint. 86.42.117.220 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Armagh, is in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, for the moment. It's not so long ago since Dublin was forced to be part of that same entity, which certainly will not exist in 30 years time if the Scots and others have their way. 86.42.117.220 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's still willingly within the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to the growing 'edit war' at talk:British Isles, I'm getting my old feeling of mistrusting & despising IP accounts again. Their cowardly refusal to register-in, annoys the heck out of me. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at British Isles. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Derry - 1RR Imposition

Please read Talk:Derry#1RR_on_City_Walls_edits. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 01:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Please read my comments before reverting to a version which you should know has no chance of achieving consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging British Isles naming dispute

I've removed your tag; the article is clearly linked to a dispute under consideration by an Arbcom sponsored process. Sarah777 (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's back, and please leave it. The onus is on you to prove that it's not OR. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to prove that under the various Arbcom rulings that you are not edit warring. I have no intention of removing it myself; nor will I join a tag-team as you have just done. Sarah777 (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag team? I merely put it there - once. You removed it (edit warring) and Thark put it back. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP 86

Hiya MBM. I've my suspicions about who the IP is, but I won't say anymore. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know who he is, and I know you know, and I know how you know. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

BI

This might help too The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll deal with all those if you haven't already done so. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My attempt at undoing this has already been reverted by him. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have commented at your behaviuor at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And as per the reply on that page, if anyone was at fault it was you for engaging in an undiscussed one-man campaign to make a series of edits that you full well know would be contentious. As I've said before, if there is a community decision to stop using the term, I'd disagree with it but would abide by it. Furthermore, if you are adding new content and decide not to use the term "BI", that's fine. But to go around and remove the term yourself from others' edits is simply not on. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Sent to User:TharkunColl, User:HighKing, User:MidnightBlueMan.

I'll be clear here; the constant revert wars over these articles are disruptive. I have looked at some of the articles, and clearly in some cases one side is correct. For example, (Greater White-fronted Goose should be "British Isles", or some construct that includes Ireland; it is easily sourceable that the species winters throughout the territory). Equally, Operation Herbstreise should clearly be "United Kingdom", because that's exactly what Operation Sealion was.

Regardless of who's "right" though, all this revert warring is disruptive. All parties have started checking other parties' edits and indulging in mass reverts. WP:BRD might only be an essay, but it's a core part of Misplaced Pages philosophy. So hear this, please; the next time I see any of these three editors taking part in mass reversion of another editor, I will block them, and such blocks will be of increasing time. Similarly, any persistent edit-warring on an article by multiple editors will risk blocking; it doesn't matter if you've breached 3RR or not. Any editor may notify me on my talkpage if they feel there is a problem.

There may be more editors that this needs to be sent to; I have aimed it at the main three protagonists. If other editors need to see this, please mention on my talkpage and I will include them as well. Thanks, Black Kite 10:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Replied on my talkpage. Black Kite 12:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Matter of France

I did give a justification for restoring the link to Great Britain in the Matter of France article - namely, the Matter of Britain deals with, well, Britain, and not the British Isles. Reverting it back again with nothing but a link to the talkpage of a user you're having a squabble with is not terribly productive.--Cúchullain /c 18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Under the current difficult cicumstances with User:HighKing we should try and reference all British Isles removals and deletions. There is a discussion at various locations to this effect. Please see Misplaced Pages:British Isles Terminology task force#Opening up shop, again. I'm not saying your assertion is incorrect and normally the change you've made wouldn't be a problem, but this article has been targetted by HighKing and is therefore under scrutiny. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of all of that. At any rate, "Great Britain" is correct here, and "British Isles" is flat incorrect. I really don't think it's your place to legislate usage across the board simply because HighKing happened to have introduced the change. After the point that I replaced and justified it, the matter should have been dropped.--Cúchullain /c 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Automated link removal

I agree that terms such as British Isles or Scotland are fundamental to the articles you mention, but that's not the same as saying that they should be linked. There's only any value to linking something if a reader is likely to use the link. A reader of List of the busiest airports in the British Isles is there because they want information on the airports - they already know what's meant by the British Isles. As for 'Scotland'; in the first place it's a term widely recognised, in the second place many of the articles could only conceivably be of interest to a person who already knows what Scotland is (EH postcode area, for example) - and thirdly those articles generally contain a more specific link which itself links to the higher level - for example in John Sinclair (d. 1566) there are links to Corstorphine and Restalrig, which link to Edinburgh, which links to Scotland, if someone really doesn't know what Scotland is.

There's been for a long time an unfortunate tendency to confuse factual importance and linking. Another good example of this is in articles about rivers (River Eden, Cumbria, for example), the term river is often linked. This confuses the importance of the fact (vital) with the value of linking it (zero). Nobody goes to that sort of article not knowing what a river is. My unlinking is aimed at ensuring that the links that are truly likely to be useful aren't swamped by a mass of valueless links. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would (and I do) make the same unlinkings with or without the script. The blocks you refer to were in the course of the date formatting dispute (despite the fact that my actions were fully in line with the will of the community as expressed in several RFCs - in fact an officially approved bot will shortly start performing the very same date unlinkings), and had nothing to do with delinking of common terms. There is not and never has been any ban on the use of that script. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat "I would (and I do) make the same unlinkings with or without the script". If you think those links are useful, explain why, don't blame the script. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not a bot, it's a script. It makes certain standard unlinkings, to which I can add or subtract as I like, before saving the results. The responsibility is all mine, not the script's. Secondly, the dispute over British Isles, which I was unaware of until just now, is irrelevant. Whether the term ultimately agreed on is British Isles, Britain, Great Britain, UK, England or whatever, doesn't matter - it would still be a valueless link. You haven't made a case for it being useful - you've just asserted that it should be linked, in your opinion. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

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

• Yes, but at least it will stop endless pointless edit-wars. The thing is, when people stop to actually discuss, sometimes we find sources or information which actually clear up whose version is "correct". But my main issue at the moment is to stop the continuous reverting. Black Kite 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: your note on my talk. I have already informed HighKing that he shouldn't revert edits even if an editor is blocked for making them. Yet again, they should go to the Specific Examples page. Surely this isn't a difficult concept for anyone? Black Kite 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WASP

Since the quote below the disputed sentence actually says "Northwestern European", why are you changing it to "British Isles"? Whether or not HighKing was logged in or not, his edit appears correct (assumingm, of course, that the quote from the book is correct!). I'd suggest reverting yourself there. Black Kite 13:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think HighKing is an expert in these matters. Those who contribute to the article chose to use the term BI and attributed it to some academics. I can see why BI is better, because the discussion concerns British and Irish people. In terms of who reverted what, HK removed BI and I reverted his removal - after a lengthy period. His revert of my revert is now a "revert of a revert" so if we're following the rules it is he who is at fault. However, I'll compromise by taking the current version to the general discussion page for further comments. I must say that I'm getting increasingly frustrated with this whole matter. HighKing's latest tactics appear now to be a) systematically work through the 2000+ articles with links to British Isles and challenge every one at the discussion page, and b) slap cite tags on articles ranging from William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham to Shit, thereby causing much scurrying around looking for difficult references on matters that are incidental to the articles in question. You did mention something about an RfA. Could you perhaps look at this again? MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree except that the actual quote which is shown on the page says "Northwestern Europe", not "British Isles". This makes it different from the usual disputed articles, because there's an actual source in there already. Black Kite 14:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is incomplete, with Northwest Europe preceded by ellipsis. I can only assume that the authors know what they are talking about and have correctly interpreted the quote by using British Isles. Nevertheless, if you feel stongly about it, I won't object to the removal of it, at that location in the article. Its use elsewhere is a different matter. The real point is, however, that HK is editing from a biased point-of-view (I'm not, I'm merely reverting has edit) and it's been noted by others that such edits inevitably lead to errors. What about the RfA? MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty sick of the mud slinging that goes on here, and admins that blithely let it pass by. If it were the other way around, I'd get a short block to "remind me" of policy. Biased point-of-view? Inevitably lead to errors? My latest tactics? Black Kite, you should not be seen to condone this attitude, name calling and blatant anti-AGF. This tip-toeing around an editor that has blatantly contravened your rules is not a fair way to implement rules. Either the rules are in place, or they're not. Either edits require references, or they don't. And the idea of trying to make a case that an edit made last July which MBM reverts and I overturn is a "revert of a revert" is ridiculous and is clearly gaming the system. Although I note, again with interest, that no sanction was applied to MBM's clear revert-of-a-revert after he reverted my revert. So are we now saying that there's one rule for pro-British-Isles editors, and a different rule for me? Because this isn't the first time I've asked this question, and a pattern is most definitely emerging. From your own rules, MBM should have received a block for inserting British Isles without a reference, and should have received a block for reverting my revert. So not for the first time, why have you decided on a different course of action for this clearly disruptive behaviour from an editor that doesn't appear to be learning? --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)