User talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/August

Articles for deletion nomination of Cahills Farm cheese

I have nominated Cahills Farm cheese, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cahills Farm cheese. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving at BISE

I wasn't sure how to add a proper archive box HK, do you know? It might be better than the one you just did, as easier to examine for casual viewers. I did discuss this briefly with Snowded and he suggested Collapses. I'm not quite clear how you decided what to archive - if you were just doing resolveds, how did you decide which ones to leave in the page? Invited Snowded in here as well. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't me. The [1] shows the archiving carried out by User:Fmph and it looks like he's manually moving the "Resolved" stuff. I don't see a problem with that - it's what BlackKite and others have done in the past. --HighKing (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry, getting confused in the history. On the more general point, how do we do a proper archive box for it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to look at that when I got a mo, but feel free to get your hands dirty and go for it.

I did create a list here, but it would be better with a real archive box. Fmph (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The other thing i thought might be helpful, would a sort of table of contents type of link on the SE page, but for each of the archive pages. So that we had a list of articles that have been resolved. What do you think? Fmph (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest, once things quieten down some more, that we attempt to analyse the "closed" articles to see if any patterns emerge about the types of decisions taken. That would also fit very well with a table of contents listing the articles that have been examined. I'm no expert at creating tables and things, but I'll see if I get a chance this weekend. I'll probably set it up at a subpage here first and post a link here too. --HighKing (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs a table, with a reference to the achive discussion - we have a week of calm .... --Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to both of the two comments above - I may have some time over this weekend to look at how to build structured archive boxes, so I will help if poss HK. I think we also have a couple of stumbling blocks we could use making a policy on - (1) when a case is marked as "Resolved" - who makes any agreed changes and then how long that holds up before further edits change content and leave invoke a fresh debate and (2) I would like to see a standard template go on to any article where a case is raised, with neutral and agreed wording, which asks local editors if they have any comments, points them to the case debate, welcomes comments and promises them they won't be flamed. We need point (2) because it is increasingly clear that local article knowledge is often the stumbling block to a successful close. Agreed? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds for too sensible for WP:BISE. Are you sure you're in the right place? --Fmph (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR has approved having the standard text part, so we need to agree it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick post - I've some stuff happening IRL and will be unavailable for a couple of days at least. James, thanks for pushing that. I think your ideas sound great, my quick feedback. (1) Anybody should be able to make an agreed change. The concern I have at the moment is that the scope of BISE is extending beyond looking at usage, and we have an editor actively adding content solely to insert "British Isles" (which is against the sanction). (2) Great idea. So in summary you've my agreement on both items in principle, but we might need to add a (3) to deal with some concerns. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

BI terminology & Ireland

Re: your comments at the BI task force page, just to be fully clear HK, I would 100% support any move to put Ireland the State at Ireland and have something seperate such as Island of Ireland for the whole thing. I see no contradiction whatever in the seperate article for Northern Ireland. It is just the names those places have. All internationally accepted definitions, including that preferred by the UK government, support "Ireland" as the official name for the state. Wikipedia should not be calling it something else. This isn't one of those cases with a linguistic translation issue. Just so you know my position. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

I removed part of your post(s) here. (I removed part of another editor's post(s) too). I realise the pair of you have issues with each other, but frankly I do not care very much. Both of you are being disruptive. I've now closed the entire thread with no action taken - instead of locating sources the pair of you have bickered and I've had enough. If you two can't disengage of your own accords I'll enforce disengagement. I'd prefer to have some sort of topic-ban option to keep the pair of you off WT:BISE but in the absence of that I'll settle for a block. TFOWR 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A little advice

HighKing the best advice I could give you is to completely disengage with any contact with MickMcNee, he is goading you and his posts are constantly an attack on you please don't raise to the bait as can be seen above blocks are coming. Mo ainm~Talk 18:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully, if you get hit by another editor with attacks one of us will pick it up --Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Best to disengaged, indeed. Reading a post which is about 1 kilometre long, will cause stigmatism. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

More like stigmata in some cases --Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought "stigmata" referred to the mother of The Stig. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll ref

Re: this comment at my talk HK: " 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."

Yes, it would be useful to see that data, can you republish it here please if you have a minute? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've created a page. --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)