User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/August

Am i just being nosy?

Hello HighKIng. I notice you commented or edited European New Zealanders. Have you any Newzealand blood in you? Jack forbes (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, nope none, but a couple of relatives live there. I merely fixed the wikilink whereby British was piped to British Isles... --HighKing (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do they live? I've lived and worked in both New Zealand and Australia, both of them are great countries. Note: I have not responded to British Isles reference. I may do in six months or so. :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I haven't a clue in New Zealand - South Island somewhere, a tiny town. But I've a brother in Blue Mountains outside Sydney. I've been to visit by brother once for a weekend - fantastic and friendly place, really loved it. I can understand why lots of Irish go to visit and never come back... --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as they did when they went to Scotland, though not always by choice, more by necessity. Jack forbes (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion

I've brought you up in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12#ad hominen → ad hominem and I thought to inform you about it. --Raijinili (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the notification. I hadn't realised that I was spelling the term incorrectly - nice to know. While you are entitled to your opinions (and misplaced concern) on my edits, I respectfully point out that your mileage may vary and I don't agree with you. My interpretation of AGF and ad hominem and meat puppets is well within the bounds of what is considered normal and certainly not a gross (to use your term) misunderstanding. While it might be easy to pick one or two instances of usage that appear strange, often times it is the context of the series of edits or conversations that makes it clear.

As to your comment to Matt that the way he brought this up was improper, it seems that it was you that brought my name into the discussion, and then spent a couple of postings telling the world that I have a gross misunderstanding of the terms.... --HighKing (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I explicitly stated here that I was the one who brought you up. I was referring to the bad faith RfD he made which brought you to my attention.

Anyway, for this example, "meat puppets" typically refers to an account which was created solely to join in on an issue (or possibly if the user had not, for a long time, approached Wikipedia and was asked to do so), similar to a WP:sockpuppet except that there's a real person behind it. Asking other existing Wikipedians to join in on a debate is more akin to WP:CANVAS, which it seems applies to Matt Lewis. Be aware that the term "meat puppets" is highly derogatory, usually not true, and typically should not be applied to accounts with a majority of edits outside of the dispute.

Ad hominem is a personal comment in place of an argument. It's a logical fallacy, which means that someone who uses it simply failed to prove something even though they probably thought they did. Criticizing a user is not ad hominem. Acting as if that criticism proves something would be ad hominem. Ad hominem attacks can be objective observations that are then used to imply that the other person is wrong, such as, "You only think that because you're an admin." They don't have to be insulting, and in fact insults and ad hominem attacks do not have a direct correlation (i.e. each of them is not necessarily a case of the other). Nor should ad hominem attacks necessarily be ignored as if they were completely false.

As for Assume Good Faith, I saw you brought it up a lot in your history up to about half a month ago. See these essays:

• WP:OAGF: "That means, even if the person is dead wrong, deeply misguided, stubborn, rude, biased, bigoted, and acting against overwhelming consensus, we continue to assume that they are trying to make the encyclopedia better, not worse."
• WP:AAGF: "While AGF should still be cited for especially egregious situations, or in debate among new users, it should be avoided whenever possible."

Anyway. I haven't seen any of these mistakes in your recent history, so I hope that you have already learned about these and that this post was a waste of my time. --Raijinili (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, as long as I'm here, you might as well update your archive box. It's under your old name and doesn't include August. --Raijinili (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raijinili - many thanks for pointing out my Archives error! You've taken the time to leave a very helpful response - thank you for that also. It's very difficult for me (or even for Matt or CarterBar or any of the other "involved" editors) to look at individual or isolated incidents. Bear that in mind...

The diff you posted regarding "Meat Puppetery" was posted at the end of May in relation to CarterBar. CarterBar joined at the start of May. If you check CarterBar's edits to that point, you will clearly see the pattern was very much to oppose and revert my editting. I didn't accuse anyone of being a Meat Puppet, but did warn that their behaviour was a type of meat puppetery (in that it appeared that CarterBar's account was solely created to edit-war against me).

An Ad Hominem attack consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. I don't think I incorrectly accused anyone, but perhaps I did.... Often it's just splitting hairs to choose between Ad Hominem and WP:NPA.

Finally, AGF. I *always* AGF, but I've occasionally had to request that people AGF in return. And on occasion other editors have stated that they would not AGF... But I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.... --HighKing (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant to ask - why are you taking such an interest? Morbid curiosity? Disagreement with my edits? Just being nice?

I almost forgot. While I may not agree with either CarterBar or Matt on a number of issues, I have developed a healthy respect for their opinions and advice, and I don't believe there are any "issues" between us that we know won't eventually be worked out. An especial hats-off to Matt for this ongoing and recent work on the Task Force. --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since meat puppetry is basically saying that one user is being controlled by another, saying someone is engaged in meat puppetry means that someone involved is a meat puppet.

AGF: I think the number of times you brought up AGF in what I've read is way too much to be correct all the time, and, as above, citing AGF can escalate situations.

As for why I'm here, I saw the Redirect for Discussion request, and I believe that it's a problem if people involved in a non-personal discussion make personal criticisms of others, and the only alternative is to have completely unrelated parties chime in about these things. I don't have any personal interest in the content of your edits (or European countries), and I've only been looking at your talk page comments. --Raijinili (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments in the spirit of you giving an opinion as a neutral observer, and while I may not agree with the specifics pointed out, I accept that the bigger picture does indicate a trend on my part. It's food for thought, and in fairness it has also been pointed out before. Hopefully the more recent trend also shows that I'm learning to curb this behaviour. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I should apologize for bringing your comments up for review as if it was evidence of a current problem. Sorry. --Raijinili (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles taskforce

Hello HighKing. That's a good idea - archive the discussions. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mocking Bird

Please read. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Strategic Genius?

Great move HK, calling for a vote on the few tiny advances that have been made against the torrent of British pov being imposed on Ireland-related articles. When the numerical weight of British nationalism has its way, as it blindingly obviously will, what is our next move? (I can't figure it - you are obviously way too clever for me). Sarah777 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

These are questions. There's no suggestions, and there's no vote. The next move is to try to see what the fundamental issue is (and not trying to preempt the opinion poll, it looks like the term "Republic of Ireland" as an article name may have to be revisited). You might believe that there were some "tiny advances", but I don't know why. The current situation is a mess, and there's constant edit warring. --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that Djegan is already claiming that this is in fact a vote; that it represents consensus; has "legs" and can't be removed! You really gotta know the terrain before aiming yer gun HK!! Sarah777 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. And Djegan is welcome to any opinion he likes. I'm not apologizing for asking the questions - they needed to be asked. And I'm not trying to twist the answers to suit any particular agenda - the answers will just paint a picture of the lay of the land. It's a simple exercise. If others want to use it to declare victory, or throw toys out of their pram, that's up to them. But I'll say it again. Continuing the way we were was a shambles. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI Questions at WIkipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)

This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BI & RoI topics

Hello HighKing. I've come to the conclusion, that the British Isles & Republic of Ireland disputes are unsolvable (thus my proposal of the 'deal'). GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay - who knows. You could be right. But at least I hope that we can start to divide things into two piles:

Things we Agree On

• Ireland is the official name of the island, consisting of all 32 counties
• Ireland is the official name of the state described by the state itself as 'Republic of Ireland', consisting of 26 counties
• We often need disambiguate between the island, the republic, and Northern Ireland

Things we Don't Agree On

• Pipelinking

Compromise 1 - Perhaps we can agree on articles redirecting. So that a number of articles all redirect to a root article. e.g. "Ireland (state)" redirects to "Republic of Ireland".

etc...

So as we agree, we move from "Don't Agree" to "Agree", slowly but surely....

Am I mad? Do you think it might work? --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're cool, I'm frustrated. If we could just get Republic of Ireland moved to Ireland (state) or even Ireland (republic); then the pipelinking can be avoided. PS- the article Ireland, must remain as the whole island's name. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What about moving the current Ireland to "Ireland (island)" ? Too much? --HighKing (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nay; the island has held the name Ireland, way longer then the republic. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the crux of the disagreement then. For me, two entities use the same name. One is an island. One is a state. It seems to me that there are many arguments (and editors) that skirt around the central issue - to acknowledge that the name of the state is Ireland, and therefore acknowledge that two entities have the *same* rights to the name. One right does not supercede the other. I'm thinking of adding another question.... And I'm a little surprised at your answer in that you appear to be saying the the state does not have a right to be called by its own name... --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would resist changing the article Ireland to Ireland (island); however, if a consensus was reached for such a change? I certainly would abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's OK - you have the right to your opinion. But tell me (if you can), why would you resist moving "Ireland" to some other name? --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

'Cause the island has held the name longer (which is obvious, as the republic & Northern Ireland only came into existance in the 20th century). The island's got a much longer history. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

References proposal on Talk:Republic of Ireland

DoneGnevin (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also doneGnevin (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Triple Twenty

I was about to issue a final warning, but someone else had done it. We can only wait and see what he does now.. Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An idea

Hi there, I have put forward an idea Here on the Republic of Ireland talk page. I would appreciate your views, positive or negative. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)