User talk:The wisest fool in Christendom

Welcome!

Hello, The wisest fool in Christendom! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your excellent, detailed work on checking the sources at British Isles naming to make sure the article text properly reflects them. Waggers TALK 10:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Waggers. I enjoy the task. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Isles naming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronicles. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British possession

I noticed that you have hurriedly created a stub, British possession, sourced to one WP:RS and citing various primary sources. As you will see, in this simple search among books published by university presses, the term is variously interpreted. We are really not at liberty to spam a large number of articles with sub-standard stubs. Please revert all your edits, develop your stub, take time to do it and then ask some editors at Talk:British Empire about which WP articles might benefit from wikilinking the term to your article. If you don't, I will eventually post on the user talk pages of administrators. Sorry to sound like this, as you seem to be a new user, but when such wikilinking edits are made in dozens of articles, they can bring down the standards on WP, as on such a scale they become difficult to judge Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler Can you quote any of those various interpretations you allege? A brief survey of the link you supplied does not suggest that there is any definition other than the one established by statute. Your allegations of "spam", followed by threats, are derogatory and unnecessary. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have defined the term in its very narrow legal meaning today. How do the two acts (1978, 1869) apply to Company rule in India, which ended in 1858? Please read the sources I have supplied, and I have supplied a minuscule proportion. Again, if you don't revert your premature Wikilinking, I will be posting on the user talk pages of administrators. The WP notion of an encyclopedia anyone can edit does not involve circumventing WP:ONUS, which is WP policy. Meanwhile I am going to tag your stub for what it is right now. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler I heave read the sources you supplied. I suggest you do the same and answer my question. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for an example of the linking referred to above and found The Bahamas which seems good (although a trivial issue is that [[British possession]]s which renders as British possessions would be better—but don't re-edit a bunch of pages for that). However, the above suggests that acts in 1978 and 1869 cannot be applicable to something that ended in 1858 and a similar problem might apply to The Bahamas (that is, is the link appropriate?). I will not be entering that debate but raise the matter as it appears to be a strong point requiring consideration but all I see above is a debating parry. Further discussion is at Talk:Great Seal of the Realm and Talk:British Empire#A stub: British possession. Whether right or wrong, it would be better for a new user to ask questions and slow down. A more conciliatory approach would be wise. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq As I have pointed out elsewhere, "British possession" was used in law and in common speech long before 1889. The 1889 act simply codified its exact meaning relative to other legalese terms: it modified the meaning of "British possession" in the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, for example. Like "dominions", which existed long before the formal definition of Dominion in the early 20th century, "possessions" had wide application long before its meaning was expressly set out in law, probably because both words have very obvious meanings. The meaning of "British possession" in this 1795 book is obviously no different to the 1889 definition. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit for example, where you have indiscriminately linked a term in quote marks, as if it is a pre-existing term with a precise meaning. You have linked your newly created page from about 50-odd pages in a few hours, spening less than a minute on each. They cannot possibly regarded as well-considered edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, it is a pre-existing term with a precise meaning. The meaning is precise, but extremely broad, and encompasses all the territories of the British Empire outside the UK itself. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is the obvious meaning in English language. Such terms should not be linked. WP:OVERLINKing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 The obvious meaning in English language is the same as the meaning in legislation. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no need to link anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 If that were true then, there would be no need to link to articles like "British Empire", whose meaning is the obvious meaning in English language. Manifestly, this is not the case. Please undo your unjustified edits. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. I share the concerns of User:Fowler&fowler. You have created a small page with a legal definition of "British possession", and mass-linked it to all mentions of that term anywhere in Wikipedia. This is WP:disruptive editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. This is the correct warning template for the overlinking issue. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which article do you refer to here? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of British possession

The article British possession has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is a recently created stub, it has the narrow legal definition and has a couple of tangentially related legal cases to bulk out the article. Removing fluff I can't see this article as being anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable ie it is more suited for Wiktionary. Note: Article creator has vociferously defended the article at Talk:British Empire and has been active in adding links to this stub; even when not appropriate.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. W C M_email 08:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion discussions

There is a strange paradox in these discussions. Those who say the least are the most likely to prevail. In them I choose to opine once, well, and with regard to policy. I try very hard to stick to "once" because there is an overwhelming temptation to counter every point made by every editor who does not share my opinion, especially when one wishes to defend a piece of work.

Countering every argument works in debate, but fails in Wikipedia discussions, that is the paradox, if paradox it be. It is far better to treat one's opinion as a "Fire and Forget" missile than to attempt to steer it all the time.

This holds as true for the nominator as for you in the current discussion. The closer will not be persuaded by the cut and thrust of debate, only on the policy based opinions. Indeed, they may not "Supervote" by expressing their own opinion when closing the discussion. Their role is solely to state the policy based consensus which has formed.

Peculiar? Certainly. This is Wikipedia! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent I will try to bear that in mind, thanks. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You might want to look at MOS:OVERLINK because spamming links like you have been doing is not constructive and not helpful in building an encyclopedia. W C M_email 08:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster I have already explained that I am neither overlinking nor linkspamming. You are wrong to say otherwise. You might want to look at MOS:LINK because baselessly removing links like you have been doing is not constructive and not helpful in building an encyclopedia. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing both. W C M_email 18:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the British Isles

Hi there, I've removed some formatting (blockquote, smallcaps, and lang) from an image of Ignazio Danti's map that you recently added to Names of the British Isles. The image had never shown up correctly since it was added, which I assume had to do with something gone wrong with the nested formatting. I played with it for a bit, but couldn't figure out the error, so I stripped it down until the image at least displayed. Just wanted to let you know, if case you wanted to add some or all back in. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swastik

Reverting your edit was bit heavy handed in normal circumstances but that article is grievously over-length already. If you really feel it is merited then you will need to WP:write the article first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your rationale; Hindu Mahasabha, The Bombay Chronicle, and M. R. Jayakar all do have articles, and I'm not sure (not) having a working link is evidence for notability. The very first line of WP:Write the article first says "Wikipedia editors should write a new article before they create links to that article in list pages, disambiguation pages, "See also" sections, templates, or redirects in the encyclopedia. This is an exception to the general rule encouraging red links for notable subjects." So the general rule is to encourage, not to discourage, the addition of red links. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. R. Jayakar founded the Swastik League, began monthly publication of the Swastik Herald,

Since your addition was about the League and the magazine (rather than about Mr Jayakar), that's where the notability question arises and they are red links.

I don't pretend that is a robust test and in most other articles it would be left unchallenged for subsequent backfill. But this article has become so bloated that every new addition really has to justify its inclusion.

Maybe we have reached the point where the article has to be split but that really would be the last resort. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted text which had nothing to do with the Swastik League, so that's not a justification. (What is the problem with the material on the Hindu Mahasabha?) Jayakar was chairman of the League and it can be regarded as his political vehicle, and since he was a prominent politician, the scholarly analysis of his group and of the Hindu Mahasabha and their common use of the swastika and sympathy with "Aryanism" is an important point. Nowhere else (yet) on the page is this explicit link between early Hindu nationalism and contemporary European nationalisms described. If "this article has become so bloated" the the solution is not "that every new addition really has to justify its inclusion", but that existing material should make way for any new material which is more significant. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your fresh eyes can see material that is unimportant, undue or fringe. A good weeding is what it needs. That would clear the way.

You might also want to take into account the first sentence of MOS:IMAGEREL as it seems to me that there are quite a few images that don't illustrate anything, making the article a WP:CFORK of Commons.

If you look at talk:Swastika, you will see many recent updates being challenged for justification. It is time for the existing text to be assessed critically in the same way. Mission Impossible!

Right now, the article is an exemplar of tl;dr. It has become self-defeating. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]