Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 9 April 2013

Realisable sources

Sources confirming the nationalities of these people have now been applied. Sources cannot be argued with, nor changed! The edit war will not cease. Thanks Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

They do not in anyway count as confirmation. It's just the individuals writing the articles saying that. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

These articles however still confirm their nationality! No articles had I found said British! What satisfaction are you getting from this? And once again! Why are you not changing the likes of Adele, Billy Idol, Paul McCartney? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No they don't. Not in any way what so ever do they prove that. All it is is somebody writing their nationality as such. As for why not random english ones. We'll because I'm not going to change everything am I. I'm more annoyed about the attempts to pretend that the UK does not exist then referring to people as Scottish. Why Scottish is more appropriate, for example with Alex Salmond, I would champion that. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well you could start? So far, you seem to be very very anti-Scottish! Alex Salmond has nothing to do with this! And for your information, no one is "pretending" that the UK doesn't exist! It mentions it in the Scotland articles first line!!! Just because UK isnt added onto a KT Tunstall article doesn't mean the UK has ceased to exist!!! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Alex Salmond was an excellent example of someone who it would be inappropriate to refer to as British over Scottish. I'm not anti-Scottish, I'm anti-nationalism yes, but not anti-Scottish. KT Tunstall in particularly is prominent as a British artist. Not mentioning the UK in the origin tag would thus be dis-honest. However, there is no particularly strong association with Scotland but not Britain so British is more appropriate (especially given the whole BRIT award thing) since the rule of thumb is to use the sovereign state. 78.150.28.18 (talk)

Again, winning a BRIT award has nothing to do with being British? Look, can't we just let this go? Let the articles remain English, Scottish etc respectively! People know that the UK is four countries, and just because British or whatever, UK etc isnt added into a music article, doesn't mean the UK doesnt exists. People know that Scotland is in the UK so what is the big deal? Ps, I'm also not a nationalist but however I think the articles should be left as they are. As this. Right here is what happens! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Leave them as they were? The KT Tunstall article said British when I first came along. In-fact I've actually generally been undoing edit by 90.213.93.226 which generally ammount to removing mention of the UK. Sadly, many people don't know that the UK is not England or that Scotland is not an independent country. The rule of thumb is the mention the sovereign state that an individual comes from. In these cases that would be the UK. I would not say that the constituent country not be mentioned as well (and as you may well notice, I've not been removing that). You must realise that this is not a one way street, you are fueling this as well. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I 100% agree, but the constituent countries identities should not be demolished. You have however been removing it from the Texas article I see? However, I can say the KT Tunstall article has long read Scottish, like all the other articles, so why change? (I've been here on Misplaced Pages a long time). What are you really achieving from this? It's now an edit war, so really its pointless, as everything you do from now will end up removed etc, even if it is a good edit! Please, let's leave it there? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first came across the KT Tunstall page it read British, and jumping back to a couple random older ones also read the same. It really is a more appropriate description as she is widely know as a British artist. The fact that the google test of "KT Tunstall """ returns almost 3 times more results for British backs this up. I could ask you all the same things. If you want me to compromise, you need to be willing to do the same. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Other users are now also reverting your edits, simply because a source has now been provided and you are removing the source. The only reason a Google search is reading British is because you are changing it to British. If you were to leave it as Scottish, on Google it would say Scottish by the finish up. People know, anyone who is Scottish is British, so either way, I don't see how having British in the article justified your caseUh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war at Annie Lennox?

I think you have just broken WP:3RR at Annie Lennox. Could I suggest that you discuss full at the article Talk Page before before making any more reverting edits? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Please do not remove properly sourced content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Annie Lennox with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That link was not "properly sourced". It was one chosen to support another user's position that proved nothing. Also, Overlinking? Really? 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to KT Tunstall with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)