Wotapalaver

Hello. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article Damien Foxall has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post placeholder articles -- write the article, then post it. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Windsurfing edits to Curacao

Hey there. I don't want to revert your edits, but they really appear like original research, smack of POV, and are uncited. Can you comment on this? Thanks! Tan | 39 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the edits in question: [1], [2]. Tan | 39 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to your edit to my talk page, then go ahead and add your references! As you probably know, citing your sources isn't optional here, it's policy. Thanks! Tan | 39 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again in response to your response on my talk page, I do not dispute the edits you made to Curacao. I do not endorse them, either. I am completely neutral. What I am concerned about is that, after 6000+ edits on here, I have learned to spot certain "red flags", if you will. Your edits could be (and probably are) entirely valid. However, they appear to be your own personal experience and/or knowledge, which isn't what Wikipedia is based on. Remember, it sounds odd, but Wikipedia is not based on truth, it's based on verifiability. I couldn't add to an article that a certain place off the coast of California is fantastic for windsurfing, even if I was there, experienced it, and other people concurred. It has to be published information. Tan | 39 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I see you've taken an interest and checked out some articles involved. Just thought I'd say Thanks. Bardcom (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous

Is it erroneous to call the UK "England"? A very large number of people round the world do, so that presumably means you think it's okay, right? TharkunColl (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles

Please do not add material to an article talk page solely to discuss [in negative terms] the personalities of individual users, as you did here and here. That talk page is there to discuss the article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for information about use of talk pages on wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also consider that line of discussion to be excessively disruptive. The discussion on Talk:British Isles has been closed; further comments along those lines will not be appreciated. Please focus on the content, or if you have concerns/problems about an editor, take them to a Dispute resolution forum. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Many Irish object?"

Please don't get the page locked by insisting on the word "many" - do you really need it, whith all the other stuff? There is no evidence that backs up the evidence that says it. The collected evidence is not strong, not current, not actually all Irish, is not from the actual people of Ireland (as the intro suggests), and is in very short supply. It is not enough to warrant the word "many" - more must be found (and believe me I've been looking). I believe it doesn't exist simply because it is not currently the climate to go after the term "British Isles": the climate is one concerned with consolidation, mediation, focus and peace. Wikipedia is not a forum to river-push and encourage an anti-"British Isles" climate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re;Removing comments on British Isles talk

To the uninvolved like me those comments look like baiting. Removing the comments though is not a judgment of their truth, but article talk pages are not the place per Wikipedia:DISCUSSION#How_to_use_article_talk_pages Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. See also John Vandenberg's recommendations on Dispute resolution forum. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Will look in a bit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where it was supposed to start, so just deleted it. Your gonna have to do with the latest one because I don't have any psychic powers that tell me how someone else intended their reference to start and finish. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just protecting the page, not adding material for you. I added <ref>, which made the format work, and that's all I can do. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You do understand, don't you, that I can't contribute to the debate or change the content of the article while it's under a protection I imposed? The protected version does not endorse any one POV, it's just the random one that was there when I turned up. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please note this notice is being sent to you due to the recent edits to the artice British Isles. Just information for future reference. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, I have never breached 3RR. Haven't and don't intend to. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR on British Isles

Hello Wotapalaver. You are one of the editors who is named in the plan I have proposed on the 3RR board for ending the edit war on British Isles. For details see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver .28Result: .29. You are welcome to add your own opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Hi. Regarding this, please remember to comment on content and not the contributor. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

John, re commenting on content content Vs editors, I'm perfectly happy to stick to content as long as people will back up their "opinion" with some verifiable sources. So, please explain why your "opinion" is at all relevant or perhaps you should consider that your opinion on the topic is worthless. Your input is typical of many people's, who have had no exposure to the well documented fact that the term is offensive to many Irish people. It was a surprise to me, but it's very well supported. The fact that the term is still the most common term in use is NOT contradictory to this other fact. Have a look at the references and tell me why your opinion is of any weight, and please bring reference. The British Isles page is a fantastic "my opinion"-fest, with all sorts of editors weighing in with their "opinion", yet NOT A SINGLE reference to counter the number of references saying that the term is offensive or objectionable to many Irish. If all you bring is "your opinion" then all I can comment on is your opinion seems to illustrate your ignorance, since they don't bring any actual content to discuss. What else can I comment on?? Since you are apparently an admin you have even more responsibility to bring reference rather than opinion, especially to a page where reference is so wildly ignored. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately our policies are not negotiable. If you are unable to follow our policies you will find yourself unable to edit, regardless of the other points you make. I strongly suggest saying nothing at all if you are unable to think of anything civil or constructive to say. There's no need to post to my talk page; I have yours watchlisted. --John (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I believe I have not broken any policy and that I have been resolutely civil. If anything I am insisting on policy, a fundamental policy, that Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources. This is both civil and constructive. You - on the other hand - weighed in with your "opinion" and nothing else, an unhelpful and unconstructive course of action on an article where the fundaments of Wikipedia are under threat, and apparently have been for years, by editors who put their personal preference in front of reputable sources. Read the multitude of references and then see if your "opinion" is sustainable in the face of Oxford and Cambridge published scholars. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And I believe that the diff I highlighted was way uncivil. I do not dispute that the term is disliked by many Irish people; I do not believe anybody disputes that. However, Irish people make up a very small minority of English-speaking people (our target audience), and even of the inhabitants of the British Isles. Irish-speaking people make up an even smaller minority. My point was that while it is correct to mention this in the article, at the moment is has disproportionate coverage. However, such discussion is better taken up at the article talk page. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situations, and any disagreements you might get into in the future, I do not want to see you personalizing a dispute with me or anyone else again. It only raises the temperature, and is not likely to encourage compromise, which is the inevitable way these things have to end. I'll be happy to ask another admin to comment if you genuinely think I am out of line here, but I'd prefer it if you could review the diff, and consider trying a little harder to internalize the policy referred to. That way we can both get on with making improvements to the encyclopedia. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

John. I am NOT personalizing anything. I never said anything about you personally. I DID say that I believed your comment was illustrating ignorance of the references and I try to make my talk page contributions as specific as possible by directing specific points in reply to previous editor's comments. What you now say is a clarified version; essentially that you don't dispute that many Irish people find the term offensive, just that it doesn't matter. This is odd, given that the authors of several recent textbooks on the British Isles think it DOES matter, as does the Irish Government. So, I still think your view illustrates an extremely odd point of view,and apparently ignorance of the references. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"but John knows more. Just a mystery HOW he knows more since - again - not a single reference is produced..." (from the diff above) is personalizing it. I don't need references to have an opinion on a talk page; indeed that is what they are for. Please try to avoid doing this again. Your statement above, "...essentially that you don't dispute that many Irish people find the term offensive, just that it doesn't matter" is a mischaracterization of my view. Of course it matters, but it shouldn't, as a minority viewpoint, dominate the lead of the article. Check out WP:UNDUE for an explanation if you aren't getting this. It's the same reason our article on the Earth doesn't focus on the flat Earth theory (although it mentions it). Thanks. --John (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

John, that is still not personalizing anything, it's attaching a name to a view and identifying specifically the editor contribution that I felt/feel was unreasonable in the context of the overall discussion so that my contributions are easier to understand in context. So, you feel that many Irish people do find the term objectionable/offensive but that - in an article about the British Isles - the well documented fact that many Irish people and the Irish government regards the term as offensive/objectionable/misnomer does not belong in the lead. WOW! I read WP:UNDUE several times already. It's clear that the view that the term is objectionable has - at the very least - "prominent adherents" and since these sources represent that the objection is "many" and "often" then the objection must be noted in the lead. No-one has actually produced any reference to show that the understanding that the term is offensive/objectionable/etc, is not actually the majority view. As for the continued assertion that the term is used in the UK and that its meaning is clear and uncontroversial there, this is not supported by any really good references and is actually CONTRADICTED by several references already supplied, but you still apparently haven't read them. Meantime, the comparison with Earth and flat Earth is laughable and illustrates the weakness and intellectual unsustainability of your view. The earth is verifiably not flat. The reputable sources tell us so. A minority view that it is flat is the province of lunatics and can be safely treated as a minority view. The term "British Isles" is verifiably offensive/objectionable/rejected, etc. Oxford and Cambridge textbooks - among others - tell us so. This is not the province of lunatics. I'm stopping this here and bringing this back to the BI talk page. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

I see from Talk:British Isles that others have told you repeated accusations of vandalism against normal users amount to attacks. Vandalism is understood to refer very specifically to hit-and-run editors who disrupt wikipedia purely for the sake of it. Well, if that doesn't work for you, let me tell you that when you do it, it has absolutely no effect, contrary to what you might instinctively think. Such accusations are commonplace, are ignored, and what's more neutrals, esp. neutral admins, will begin thinking of you as a tendentious editor. I'm sure you will recognise this is not a good idea. Why not avoid it? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse what Deacon has said here. I have just read Talk:British Isles and came away very unimpressed with your contributions. This is an online encyclopedia, not Usenet. If you are unable to internalize the advice several admins have given you (focus on content without personalizing disputes, do not use "vandalism" to describe the good faith attempts of others to improve the article), you are likely to be blocked. I know you are capable of behaving better than this; please make an effort to do so. Be aware that our policies are not optional and apply to everybody. Regarding your argument as being more "correct" than the other guy is no defense; in these disputes, everybody thinks they are right. When a solution is found, it will likely consist of a compromise supported by consensus. Please try to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Good luck, --John (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

John, you should read the diffs that are the actual reason for the discussion on that page. TharkunColl deleted text that was totally supported by reference, he did it several times, and he did it with deliberately misleading edit summaries - claiming very loudly that the text he was removing was NOT supported by reference.

This isn't about me preferring one version or other of the content, it's about what the contributor did, which was to lie to everyone on the article and delete supported text while claiming it wasn't supported. If he can do what he did with impunity then Wikipedia is indeed no better than Usenet and civility is pointless and consensus is a joke. I'm sure that you'll do better and look at the actual facts, rather than focusing on an incorrect initial impression that I'm fighting over content. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the diffs you are disputing. I stand by everything I said above. You will either learn to edit within our norms (you'll find that a calm and measured approach is actually more effective at getting the things you want), or you will be blocked for longer and longer periods until you get fed up and go away. This is not a threat, by the way, it is a prediction based on years of experience here. I really hope you can take the former path as we need good editors on these articles. Please let me know if there is any more concrete advice or help that you need. --John (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I have been calm and measured. I have also never been blocked for anything. However, my issue/question is simple. On that article in the last week, there has been a breach of 3rr and a case of lying/vandalism. So far the offending editors have "got away with it". Now the 3RR case is one thing, an editor can suffer a "rush of blood to the head". The case of lying seems to be to be a SERIOUS issue. What is to be done about it, or will admins continue to ignore it? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, saying someone has lied is not being calm and measured. If you are able to describe in a calm and objective way what you think the problem is and what you would like me to do about it, I may be able to help you. There's no need to answer at my page as I have this one watched. Thanks, --John (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

John, how else should one describe it? Let's recap. A user deleted text saying it isn't supported by reference then repeated the deletion a few minutes later, again saying the text wasn't supported by reference. Then when the text was reinserted again, the user AGAIN repeated the assertion that the text was not supported by reference, and in parallel was very loudly claiming in talk that the text was inserted by POV pushers and that he was defending the truth. When it's demonstrated that the text IS supported by reference, the editor then changed the story and said that they weren't objecting to the text because it wasn't supported by the reference at all, but rather that it wasn't relevant AND they state that they didn't read the references in the first place. Now, logically if they didn't read the references then the very loud claims that the text wasn't supported by reference were at least untruths. So, it seems calm and measured to call it "untruth", being "economical with the actualite", "misleading the House" or something similar. If you wish to apply parliamentary rules and insist that the word "lie" is out-of-bounds then (A) What should one call it and (B) will parliamentary sanctions be applied? As for your question on what I think should happen? I highlighted the issue because I expected admins to have a view on defending WP from this kind of thing. I expected some sort of Do you think that what happened is "reasonable" or that the edits were in good faith? I believe neither of these things and I find admin reaction to be amazing. (p.s. note, I was not one of the editors who reverted the text after it was deleted. I came late to the issue, but may have been the only editor who READ the references.) Wotapalaver (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)John, this is a very interesting thread - please excuse me, Wotapalaver for hijacking this a little. John, I too have been following the Talk page on British Isles, and I've also been very unimpressed with the shouting match. But I find it very odd and peculiar that TharkunColl has so far avoided any warnings on his Talk page from any admins for his behaviour, and yet Wotapalaver is warned by not one, but two admins. Yet, I really see little to separate their behaviour, and on balance I would find more fault with Tharky than with Wot. It's also interesting that I reported Tharky for a completely different matter yesterday and not one warning was placed on his Talk page. But for the exact same behaviour, 2 anon IP editors were immediately blocked. I'd love to know why Tharky can appear to get away with all sorts of disruptful behaviour, with not even a warning on his Talk page, while other editors get banned/blocked/warned for lesser or similar behaviour..... --Bardcom (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Those were two very productive posts. Wotapalaver, believe me that I am only here to try to help. I have seen an edge of anger in your posts that I fear will lead to you being blocked. The whole area of UK-Ireland relations has been subject to enormous scrutiny and stringent sanctions. I do not intend and never intended to block you; I would be acting unethically if I did, in my opinion. But someone else, and I know a lot of people are watching these issues just now, just might. I'd say you're a few more warnings off from getting into that area, but you need to be careful. As I said, we need good people who are up with the facts on these areas (recognize yourself here?), but we need them most of all to be productive editors. And those who waste energy in anger and name-calling aren't being productive editors. Here, as in real life, at least 50% of what you effectively do is concerned with interactions with others. Calling someone a liar is never good. Since you ask, were I in the situation you describe, I hope I would say something like "You must be mistaken. This reliable source disagrees with you". It has a very similar meaning to "You bloody liar! Can't you read this reliable source?"(I paraphrase of course), of course, but it is very much more effective in the longer term, as I think several others have pointed out already.

Bardcom, I'll be happy to drop TharkunColl a note. It has to be with a view to putting all this annoyance behind us and moving on with the constructive discussions to improve the article though. Agreed? --John (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I'm much more supportive of you than it might appear. I would strongly enforce WP:CIVIL and be very strict on ad hominen attacks if I were in your shoes. But I'd also be even-handed and consistent. It's for that reason that I'm trying to point out what I see as an unbalanced reaction. I've also left a similar comment on the Admin notice board. If Tharky does not get at least a warning, pointing out specifically what areas of his behavior are not acceptable (and that goes for everybody, not singling out Tharky), and if editors were encouraged to avoid ad hominen attacks, this forum would not be as contentious and would not require as much monitoring. --Bardcom (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And if nothing else, TharkunColl actually started with the liar accusations, in his case accusing the original editor of putting in "lies" about this John Dee character, plus accusing the editors who reverted him of being political, POV, etc., but of course no-one seems to have said anything to him about this. Perhaps one should wonder why this is. And yes, I am angry that someone can go around Wikipedia deleting valid text, being economical with the actualite about it, and getting away with it. As for me being angry about something in the content, of you review what I've said on the page you won't find me saying anything that allows anyone easily to pigeonhole my views. I've stuck with reference. A few simple things I've done or said spring to mind, (A) oppose to renaming the article and (B) putting the phrase "very commonly used worldwide" into the intro about the term "British Isles". I'm not angry about content. Content depends on references. I'm frankly amazed that no-one if focused on defending verifiability. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be pleased to have a word with the other editor, but I don't want to get into the content dispute at this point. It's my belief that if we can sort out the conduct issues, the content will become a lot easier to agree on. As I stated above, I do this on condition that you let go of your annoyance and move on with working productively to reach agreement on how the article can best move forwards. --John (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This was never a content dispute. It's a pure integrity, honesty, behaviour issue. If editors can delete supported text, accuse other editors of lying, being POV, etc, when they're actually deleting 100% supported text then there's a problem and it's not about content. As I said to RocketPocket, if verifiability is not defended, civility is at best a thin blanket covering the progress of the serious disease that Wikipedia may already have - that is the disease that killed most usenet groups, the disease of lunatic opinion. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Look, I know how difficult this can be. Whether you think someone else's opinion is a lunatic one, whether you think they are wrong, insane, possessed by spirits, or whatever, you still have to follow our policies. Our policies have evolved over a long time to allow us to edit the encyclopedia productively. If you disagree with them, or think they are insufficient, there are discussion pages I can point to where you can suggest amendments or improvements. However, as long as you are editing here, such editing implies acceptance of our policies as they are, not how you think they should be. If you fail to follow them, you may be blocked. These policies, imperfect as they are, are the best we have to protect us. You need to make sure you are following them yourself, and then it will be your opponent who gets blocked instead. Of course it would be even better if nobody had to get blocked. The best thing you can do right now would be to shake hands, make up, try to avoid the user for a week or so, and always, always, remain civil. The next time you feel the red mist descending, send me a message and let me deal with it. I have a lot of experience with sorting out these messes. Best, --John (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if their opinion is lunatic or not. Again, that isn't the point. Their opinion shouldn't matter much. On one side the point is truth and verifiability and on the other side the point is editors engaging in plain and simple manipulation, lying, etc. in deleting supported text while claiming it wasn't. As for me following policy, I am following policy as much as I can. Please stop hinting me that I'm not. I wasn't even involved in the edit war I'm complaining about. The editor that I am complaining about has engaged in blatant misleading, deletion of valid text, etc., and is so far getting away with it, i.e. there is no consequence for such behaviour. I'm just shocked about this. If getting away with this kind of thing is is possible then it undermines the validity of everything about Wikipedia. Either truth and verifiability count, or they don't. You tell me which it is, because my ability to believe that you'll "deal with it" in the future depends on this one thing. Either honest editing and verifiable edits count, or they don't. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will do my best to answer this. Truth and verifiability matter very much here. However, in a case like this where people disagree on the truth and verifiability of something, good people skills are what really matter in resolving the situation. Does that make sense?

In terms of "getting away with" stuff, you'll find that we are quite a loosely organized community in terms of enforcement. Other than really obvious misconduct (3RR, legal threats and blatant vandalism and the like spring to mind) it is actually quite rare for good-faith editors to be blocked. It is a last resort. You'll see that I did indeed follow through on my promise to have a word with the editor you seem to be having the problem with. If you're able to let go of the bad feelings you have about the matter and move forwards, there is every chance I can help you to resolve it. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So if I say "the reference says it's black" and I edit-war in articles and repeatedly revert people who say "no, the reference says it's white" and the references actually say it's white, that's something that I could do as a good-faith editor? Really? That meets the definition of good faith? For me it would seem to qualify as really obvious misconduct. I'm not having a problem with an editor, I'm having a problem with his (or her) behaviour and the fact that such behaviour is apparently just fine on Wikipedia. Finally, my "bad" feelings are beside the point. Either trust and verifiability are to be defended, or they are not. If we set my "bad" feelings aside for a moment, do TharkunColl's actions meet Wikipedia's standards? If so, I assume it would be OK for other editors to do the same on that article, or any other and that no consequence would follow. Yes or no? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You've articulated the point I've been making too. Both Wotapalaver and I are (separately!) objecting to Tharky's behaviour, over 3 incidents over 3 days. I've asked the exact same question - does Wikipedia (through you, in your role as admin) condone his behaviour, and believe that not only was he acting in good faith, but that he makes every honest attempt to resolve content disputes without engaging in disruptive behaviour or edit wars? --Bardcom (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all three of you are acting in good faith. I believe that all three of you have been acting in ways which will not in themselves resolve the matter. I want you all to change how you are approaching it. Again, the key is to let go of the annoyance you feel, and move on. Any solution which depends on the other guy changing first, or worse, on exacting some sort of retribution on the other guy, is doomed to failure as that is not how we work here. I will not involve myself further in the merits of the content dispute you are having. I will continue to watch the way all three of you approach this. As I've already said, I will not block anyone myself who continues to misbehave, as I do not believe that would be ethical. I will though guarantee to ensure that sanctions are applied to anyone who continues to misbehave. Clean slate on past indiscretions, and avoid any incivility or edit-warring in future, is the way to go if you want to solve this without anybody getting blocked. Please try. --John (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about Bardcom's issues with TharkunColl, please stick to discussing my complaint, which is NOT a content dispute. I understand your answer to be "It is allowed to write deliberately untrue edit summaries and to repeatedly revert edits with no basis in reference or fact, all the while accusing other editors of lying and engaging in political POV pushing." Is this accurate? Yes or no? If no, then why not, because that's exactly what happened. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, this is not accurate. If I see any of you three accusing others of lying or vandalism or edit-warring, I will either refer the matter to another admin or to an admin noticeboard and recommend blocking whoever is doing it, and whatever the merits of any content dispute they may be embroiled in. You've all been warned and you need to do things differently now. I can't say it any more clearly than that. --John (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And what if the accusations are true? (and why is my description not accurate?)Wotapalaver (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is very rude to accuse other editors of lying etc and saying only those on your side of a debate have The Truth. When others accuse you or those on your side of a debate of that, you would disagree and object repeatedly. Merkin's mum 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkin, once more I have to say something simple. This isn't about content and it isn't about any side or the other and the "accusation" I made is 100% backed up by the diffs. The question is simply whether the sort of behaviour I reported is acceptable. Is it? Wotapalaver (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger

Is it time to call this discussion to the attention of one of the administrators who are overseeing this page and see if we bring this argument to a conclusion? It looks like there's a clear consensus for moving this page to Irish Potato Famine, despite the three vocal opponents. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead. The three vocal opponents need to do more than quote policies that don't actually support their arguments. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a message on the talk pages of the three administrators listed as "mentors" to this article asking for them to close the discussion and move the page to Irish Potato Famine. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Been a couple of days. Any response? Wotapalaver

(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The mentor administrators I contacted indicated they couldn't close it themselves due to a conflict of interest. Another administrator came along and, I think mistakenly, said there was no consensus to move it and closed the argument. I have put in a new request to move it to Irish Potato Famine on that page. Time to vote again and carry on the discussion. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there's been more then one Irish Famine? Why not name each Irish Famine article as this - The Irish Famine (1740-41). GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Howabout re-naming The Great Hunger to The Irish Famines? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha. Try to be serious. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How's that saying go? It's so crazy, it just might work. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It might work, it just wouldn't be right. The famine is - as far as I can see - the Irish potato famine in most references with a tendency towards calling it the Famine or the Great Famine in Ireland. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Article ban.

You reported at the 3RR noticeboard here: [3]. A final warning was given on the The Great Hunger article by User:Daniel about edit warring, you refused to heed that warning. Might I suggest that you engage in a voluntary temporary article ban of the said article [until you and the other editor have come to an agreement]? It'll save you a lot of hassle and prevent you from getting into trouble. Or you can continue to revert, it's your choice. I have posted this on the other guys talk page too. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reported at the 3RR noticeboard. However, Scarian has his times backways. There is no warning that I refused to heed. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I must've messed up somewhere then. My apologies. But still, I don't wanna see anyone blocked. You understand that, right? I just think we could all be much calmer after a break from that particular article. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles References

Thanks, Wotapalaver. I've been hesitanting about posting this Irish Times stuff. Maybe I've just been staring at this BI stuff too long I can't even decide what's stupid and meaningless and what's interesting. I guess there is no reason not to put them out there. It can always be deleted, no? You are saying if I don't sign the contributions my name will be put on there automatically? I suppose it doesn't matter if that's the case. Nuclare (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

I suppose, I ought to ignore the ranting IP. WASP? I'm roughly 5% black; half-Francophone & an athiest (whose family is Catholic). GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent)A number of editors who participated in the previous discussions have not - as far as I can see - been invited to participate in the latest one, e.g. Relata refero, Alai, Cameron, etc. Will you fix that? Better if you do it! Wotapalaver (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see above, I asked you (and others) to do it! A friendly notice is a friendly notice - just copy and paste the text :-) Scolaire (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

request for enforcement

Notification of request for enforcement here--Domer48 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

User 86.xxx.xxx, is just a 'you know what' disturber. Best we just ignore him/her. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

86 described me as a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Yet, I'v got Afro, and possible Native ancestry (along with predominantly caucasian); I'm French, Scottish, English, Irish & Welsh descent; and though baptisted a Roman Catholic? I'm atheist. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath, either. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing

Thanks, but it seem the poll has already been closed. I'm happy with the outcome so there's no harm done, so to speak. = ) Thanks anyway! --Cameron* 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling on Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

I have read your most recent posts on Talk:Great Famine (Ireland). I am not going to respond any further as I really do want you to stop trolling. I'm not going to respond to anything you say here or on my talk page either (in fact I'll delete anything you put on my talk page); I think we have "fed" you enough. Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, when you don't have any real arguments it's important to get the insults in early. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

message from Matt Lewis

I've never been one for warnings. But you and I have been too personal with each other. I believe all my own 'personal comments' to you have been linked to the direct arguments we are have been immersed in at the time - but many of yours have simply been general digs. I could compile a number of personal digs from you, that are pretty much 'asides' (even when I'm not around). Neither of us are admins - so I will have to protect myself from it if it carries on, via looking for help somewhere. I believe you and Bardcom's/HighKings unnecessary 'Warnings' to me were partly responsible for that big block I had too (and you've tried to get me blocked before for 3RR when an IP was involved). I could easily have returned those warnings (esp to you at one very specific point) but it was never my style. I don't want to start doing it now - but I will if things carry on being personal. We have to try and resolve the BI dispute. Please reply here if you want to iron this out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah Yes, Matt Lewis. I see that Matt has since retired from Wikipedia, although he neglected to do something he'd promised for a LONG time - which was to address and critique all the references that he kept insisting were nonsense ... despite the fact that they came from reputable publishers like Cambridge University Press. It's wonderful what strongly held opinion can manage, even in the absence of any supporting evidence and even in contradiction to evidence! Arguing with Matt was like arguing with supporters of homeopathy. No appeal to reason or reference was even relevant. They BELIEVE. Matt BELIEVED he was right. It was just a pity for him that he had no supporting evidence. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Matt was like arguing with supporters of homeopathy. No appeal to reason or reference was even relevant. A bit like you then? MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So show me some cases where I didn't have reference in support of what I said. I can show multiple times when Matt was asked for references. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:11, 6 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)

It's true, I did three (but not more) reverts of an edit which was totally nuts; an edit that turned a statement "is" in a reputable reference into a "some commentators say" type of weaselly garbage. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

not a commentary on the edits, I'm just trying to stop an edit war. Canterbury Tail talk 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Regarding your comments on User talk:Ddstretch: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment on DDStretch's own page, which he is now posting spurious warnings about, was reasonable comment and not a personal attack. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign State

I don't mean to seem condescending coming here and explaining this and I don't want to start an argument - take this as a piece of (perfectly ignorable) advice. The term sovereign state refers to a state which has sovereignty. Sovereignty is an important political concept referring to the absolute right to govern, specifically to control a territory, to defend it against external threats and to maintain security within it. This ability then needs to be recognised by other sovereign states for sovereignty to exist.

The term 'state' is used elsewhere - in the USA, most notably, but also in Mexico and in Germany (though in its German translation, Land). So, Mississippi, Baja California and Bayern are all states but, as they lack absolute right to govern, due to the superiority of their respective national or federal governments, they are not sovereign states. Similarly, whilst territories such as Guam, the Faroe Islands or the Isle of Man have almost complete control, they are ultimately the responsibility of the USA, Denmark and the UK respectively and thus don't have sovereignty. Somewhere such as South Ossetia or Kosovo may have full internal and external territorial control but, as they are not recognised by the majority of sovereign states, are not usually considered to be sovereign states.

The term 'nation' refers to the concept of an ethnic or cultural grouping. The notion of a 'sovereign state' is typically built around the nation - it is from this concept that a leader gains the legitimacy required to attain sovereignty - but not exclusively so - the UAE is a good example of a non-nation state. The word 'country' is simply an ambiguous one to be avoided in technical debate - it is used to refer to sovereign states, but also to other units such as England and Scotland which are not sovereign states. There are other linguistic complications, such as the fact that a member of a sovereign state has that as his nationality (e.g. a citizen of the UK has a British nationality), and these tend to arise from the mixture of the ideology of nationality with political governance.

So, what differs the UK and the Republic of Ireland from the other political, cultural and ethnic groupings within the isles is that they are sovereign states. This is not a vague statement, but in fact a technical one. Obviously the issue of sovereignty is more complex than that presented above - there are fascinating debates about different territorial situations in the world and their relation to sovereignty, the relationship between NATO, the UN and the EU and sovereignty etc. These are, however, debates largely of political philosophy and too specialised for a generalist encyclopaedia- the discussion above is a reasonable and fair operationalization of sovereignty and the sovereign state.

As I say, feel free to delete and ignore this, but I'm simply describing what is, in the study of politics, seen pretty much as political fact. Pretty Green (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A nicely vague opinion, but ignoring details like - for instance - the apparent fact that one can theoretically be a citizen of a US state yet not a citizen of the USA. Similarly, none of the EU states have absolute sovereignty since all are subject to EU law and EU governance, with EU law taking precedent over national law. So, by Pretty Green's definition, neither the UK nor Ireland are sovereign states. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Who who that?

Me :-) --RA (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No bother. It was from years back. There was a different standards of referencing then. What's disappointing is that there has been so little genuine work on the article since that the section hadn't developed much past what I wrote so refs never got added as they did with other articles. You were right to mark it up. I'll work on doing getting some. --RA (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)