User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/October

Glowworm

Since I am almost certainly correct in assuming that half of this little comedy act is you editing as an IP, I'll say this now - any more, and I won't just block the IP next time. Give it a rest, please. Black Kite 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, not me - I don't anon edit ever. Feel free to check out the IP.

On another note, the actions by the anon IP's and Tharky amount to a form of censorship. They revert without discussion or providing references as per policy. Makes no difference if I wait for a discussion before making further edits or not - none will be forthcoming. I note here that the anon IP in question even goes so far as to say that my edits are irratating to use his words - not wrong, but irratating. I even note that Tharky has reverted your compromise - again without providing a reference even though one has been asked for on the Talk page. We've tried multiple discussions and compromises - most notably on WP:BISLES recently - and nothing doing. Tharky (and others) find it easier to revert by calling my edits political. Yet I don't have any particular views on the politics - check my edit history - I don't edit on any political matters. But I am interested in accurate usage of this term. So what to do? You tell me? --HighKing (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No doubt BlackKite will tell you in due course, but allow me to do so as well. You don't like the term British Isles. I could hazard a guess as to why, but I won't bother. Regardless, you seem to be on a mission to eliminate its usage from Wikipedia. You dress up this elimination as a need for accuracy; quite laughable. You cause mayhem across the encyclopedia resulting in much wasted effort on the part of other editors trying to sort out your edits. You are persistent in the extreme, to the extent that many good editors simply give up and clear off. You issue ridiculous warnings to anyone who attempts to reverse your edits, accusing them of vandalism and ad hominem attacks. In short, you are a liability to this project. What to do? Direct your energies elsewhere and leave alone anything to do with British Isles. LemonMonday (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a template warning on your User Talk page for this personal attack and your threats. Funny how there's a growing cabal of anon IP addresses and SPA's that pop up when corrections are made to articles using the term British Isles. I'm sure BlackKite and other admins will realize that I'm very happy to follow policy and process. If you've a problem with my edits, point out the inaccuracy and lets discuss, preferably on the Article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

HK- you are very keen to label others criticising you as a 'personal attack.' Please WP:AGF. And it is your edits most people are seeing as a form of censorship. It is you that admins have told off for similar edits at various times, and even blocked specifically for them. Sticky Parkin 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SP - you are always very quick to jump into someone elses discussions. Your position on condoning personal attacks has already been commented on by me and others in the past. Rather than directing me to AGF, you'd be better off reading up on what constitutes a personal attack, and stop wagging your finger until you have a clue what you're talking about. Comments such as "you dress up this elimination as a need for accuracy" and "you are a liability to this project" from LemonMonday are clearly in breach. Maybe spend you energies looking at my edits and seeing if they're actually wrong - wouldn't that be a novel start! Or try taking a look at the guidelines being hammered out by editors actually trying to make a contribution at WP:BISLES and then put away your knee-jerk reactions and look at my edits compared to editors like Lemons or Tharkys. --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Radio Luxembourg

Hi,

You reverted too much here. Please be careful when using automated rollback. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rockybiggs

You have asked for possible motavation on his motives this might shed light on the subject. And in showing you this it will now probably be used as evidence against me in not showing good faith. His Irish scum account says it all to me. BigDunc^Talk 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So a known abusive anti-Irish sock-puppet it is then. Thanks BD. --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Sorry 'bout the outburst HK. I was getting annoyed with DG's bashing of Wikipedia & his (IMO) veering off from the topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

PS- Have ya noticed the paradox in that discussion? It seems editors who call for the Article Title to be changed? are also calling for the mentioning of how the term British Isles is objected to; and vise-versa. Thus the reason, I claim we have a compromise: article in named British Isles & we have the objections to the term mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is too wide-sweeping and broad for it to have any practical or quantifiable results - and I believe this is a tactic being employed rather too successfully by a number of experienced editors. Much better to set a limited scope terms of reference (such as WP:BISLES) and complete the discussions, with recommendations/policy, without getting distracted or drawn into discussions that aren't relevant and are really a soapbox for a set of views. Just my 2c. --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the IPs are (IMHO) getting in the way, again. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldunreal Official 227 Patch Link removal

This link must not be removed. I will keep having people add it back from the community as I contact them via MSN Messenger. This links to the official OldUnreal Community patch granted permissions to Smirftsch by Epic Megagames. It is important that this link is seen by old players and new who have played or are just starting to play Unreal (the original). This patch fixes major networking issues in the original 1998 versions of unreal. I don't know who is contacting you about removing this link (namely The Stalwart UK 'TSUK') but this link should be considered a privilege for Wikipedia articles. (providing that most of Wikipedia articles are only based off of fact). You can email my back at jackrabbit@unrealcoop.net if you would like to discuss this further. If not, I will have people spam the royal shit out of the unreal wiki article.

First of all, I did not remove the link. Second, threats and ignoring policy usually results in getting blocked from editing. Please read WP:EL and argue the case for including the link rather than making threats. --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette case

I beat ya to it, HK. I've already begun to focus more on Tharky's behaviour & have contacted him. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should also look at HK's behaviour. ðarkuncoll 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, you both need to got to the Mediation Cmt, big time. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

At least consider a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

How about when you find a page with British Isles and think it should be deleted, post the article in a section here on your talk page with a brief reason why. I (and I am sure others) would agree to place it on watch and indicate agreement or disagreement. If you were prepared to do that, then it would strengthen the case to prevent others inserting it without consultation or reverting reasonable deletions. The current edit wars are getting no where and will just lead to an admin loosing patience and banning both sides. I would also suggest a monitorium on either side posting on each others talk pages --Snowded TALK 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, thank you for trying to settle this issue - I appreciate that. But *I'm* waiting for Tharky's behaviour to be settled first before agreeing to anything on my part - you're aware of the WQA. I think it is curious and controversial in its own right that I'm being asked to stop editing - done in a perfectly legitimate way, and following high behaviour standards - while Tharky's behaviour is being condoned and ignored. Not once has he been asked to stop, nor has anyone commented asking him to stop. Do you agree with his behaviour? This issue isn't going anywhere. If I am being threatened with being banned, I'd like to understand why an editor can get banned for following policy, remaining civil, not edit-warring, etc. This complete process smacks of a cabal of British POV pushers bullying the project. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:AE section:

I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement section regarding your wars with TharkunColl. Please see [1]. SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

An official complaint about you

Although I honestly hate to do this, this latest round of accusations has forced my hand. I've lodged a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#British_Isles_and_User:HighKing. ðarkuncoll 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I honestly would prefer to get this sorted, so whatever works. You know, just to be clear, I've only a problem with your blind reverting and not providing references - but I've no problem with discussing edits with you or anyone else. If you could acknowledge that the term British Isles is misused in articles, it'd be a start... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been ruled as forum shopping & has been removed, HK. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ty, GD. --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think censored is the word you're looking for. May I ask, by the way, why you appear to be taking the side of a serial vandal? Because when it boils down to it, that's what his campain amounts to. Those who revert vandals don't usually get this sort of treatment. ðarkuncoll 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And then you go and call me a serial vandal.... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As if that wasn't enough...

Hello, HighKing/Archives/2008. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Veteran IP accounts

Yep, their refusal to create an account (and saying so), only causes (IMO) suspiscion (which one would think, they'd wanna avoid). GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Point me towards an example of incivility please. I'm direct and insist on references. That makes some people uncomfortable. That's fine. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you believed I was having a pop at you - it was intended as just a friendly warning. There's a lot of anon IP's out there that hide behind an IP address in order to leave incivility and disruption in their wake, and I have a feeling that with the recent attention this subject is getting, there will be little tolerence for incivility and disruption. Not just for anon IP's either hopefully... I don't believe you have anything to worry about though, as a brief look through your edit history shows. Gracias y miro adelante a sus contribuciones --HighKing (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mal entendido entonces, lo siento. Espero que podemos trabajar juntos y mejorar el proyecto. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:Why is IP 79.155.154.185 speaking for IP 79.155.245.81? He/she only started posting today. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind HK, I'm a little slow today. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Different person obviously! One doesn't speak any english.  ;-) --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Hiya HK. The line ...offensive to Irish Nationalist..., works for me. Afterall, not every resident of Ireland, are Irish Nationalist. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little more to the subject. --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BITASK

Just a heads up, discussion has resumed on the BITASK page. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can you help me understand the issue with using the OED (and others) definition when drafting a guideline? I don't understand it right now. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I'll try. There is no issue with using the OED, but it's not the only source. We don't blindly accept any single source - the only criteria for sources is in WP:VS. So if SourceA says X, and SourceB says Y, usually a discussion ensues and often the credibility and weight of each source is discussed. But more often than not, both POVs will be represented in the resulting article. So in the example at hand, the OED says that the British Isles includes the Channel Islands, but other sources inform us that the term "British Isles" can also be used in technical discussions to exclude the Channel Islands. It just means that in technical articles, for example geology, it can be OK to use the term while excluding the Channel Islands, but it does not necessarily translate that non-technical articles can do the same. I understand the point you are making at the task force page, and allowing for the exceptions, your are largely correct in your view. --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's old news that many documents and books misuse the term, but we shouldn't do the same thing and there are not multiple different definitions. I don't know of any source that excludes the Channel Islands. Many dictionary definitions don't include any of the small islands specifically. OED, Encarta, and many others specifically include the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands certainly consider themselves part of the British Isles. Britannica lists the Channel Islands in "related topics" alongside Great Britain, Ireland, etc. and obviously include them. Besides, if we are to have a guideline about how WIKIPEDIA uses the term we can easily stick to ONE definition and not cause further confusion. Otherwise we just add to the mess. I mean, the BBC even uses the "British Isles" to mean the UK when it talks about geology (see [[2]]). Let's adopt BBC usage, by all means! (not serious) I know one editor that wouldn't like it. Even older texts like the 1918 "Geology of the British Isles" (which is pre Irish independence and pre Wikipedia) include the Channel Islands. They put them in an appendix since they're geologically separate but they are certainly included in the book. There is a geographical archipelago and it's called "Britain and Ireland", again simply according to OED. This is simple, clear, non confusing, in accordance with external sources, etc. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, look at the 1981 "Stratigraphy of the British Isles" on google books [[3]]. Channel Islands is an integral part of the book. It does say that they're basically part of Normandy or Brittany as far as geology is concerned, but includes them. This is a Cambridge University Press textbook. I know that there are editors that consider themselves above caring about such sources, but we shouldn't. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your logic and the argument you are using. It makes some very strong points and I wouldn't even try to argue with them. But unfortunately WP does not make decisions on ONE definition over another if there are editors that show that a non-mainstream view is valid and current. The reference I provided for the British Geological Survey (BGS) is not my own, but one that was pointed out during an earlier discussion. Additionally, the OED is a good reference but not arguably not perfect. For example, it calls Ireland (the state) by "Republic of Ireland", so I would argue that it is not always accurate since the correct name is "Ireland" according to the state itself. --HighKing (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear - I don't care about the politics involved, but it can sometimes appear that arguing a point of logic is the same a promoting a political POV. I am not accusing you of this but be aware that to other people who dip in and out of these related topics, they might believe this of you, or me, or anyone else. That said, Guide to the Standard Floras of the World articulates some of the other views very well in one short place. It's a book published in 2001 and uses the term "British Isles and Ireland" for example, and also excludes the Channel Islands. --HighKing (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We're still talking about usage versus definition. Many different usages are in play. I a unaware of many (or even two) different definitions. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, missed your comment till now. You make a point about definitions vs usage - well, that's a circular argument in many ways. But equally, this is not a dictionary, so while definitions certainly play a part, usage is equally important. The bottom line for WP though is consensus, using guidelines and policies such as WP:V to help decide consensus. Since many references exist that do not follow any single definition, the articles tend to reflect this. You're not wrong in your point, but the relevance of your point must be taken in the context of what WP is. You might disagree, and that's fine, and your views help to shape consensus. --HighKing (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)