Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 14 April 2013

My Talk Archives

1

Aidan Burley

Regarding your undoing of my revision on Aidan Burley's wikipedia page, you asserted that it contravened BLP policy, positing -- incorrectly -- that my addition was 'unsourced'. You are wrong. The Mail article included the requisite reference material. I would suggest you cease with your conspicuously politically partisan editing.

PresidentJBartlet (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You added controversial material to an article, i reverted it. It in no way is political partisan editing, im no fan of the guy for the comments he made about the recent opening ceremony. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Only by consensus will Rangers FC article be retained

I urge you to reconsider your opposition to the sentence "Formed in 1872, Rangers were relaunched in 2012 immediately after entering liquidation." No where does it say Rangers are a new club, or mention "New Rangers", or imply their history is not continuous. Your entrenchment is adding to the impression that no consensus will be reached, which will inevitably mean to this one shot at an all-encompassing Rangers article - an absolute essential to my mind - before permantly mired in paralysis of disputes. The absurdity of having that nonsensical "Newco Rangers" aritcle as the only operational page representing Rangers on wikipedia becomes increasingly more likely with every step taken away from, or post seeming to undermine, the possibility of a consensus article. All the best.Gefetane (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I find the sentence extremely misleading. If incorporated in 1899 was added then i would accept it. I was prepared to support the wording that existed yesterday but it has changed since then. Simply saying 1872 to relaunched in 2012 misses out fundamental information. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just one thing to say to you... QUACK BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't do walking away...

I'm not going anywhere - I'll keep watching what is being said on the talk pages but won't waste my time trying to get involved in answering points when it is absolutely clear that some editors are just continually posting the same points despite them having already been responded to. I can tell what is going on and certainly won't be walking away to allow those tactics to succeed. Articles must not be allowed to be biased by groups of committed editors forcing their opinions by grinding down those who disagree with them. I can at least hold my head up as being neither pro-Rangers or Anti-Rangers - I'm from London! I couldn't care less about the tribal issues here. All I care about is that articles are not being distorted by a group of committed supporters - I don't intend to walk away and let that happen.

Have a good evening. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If the SFL, SFA, old company, new company, HMRC and the media did not view this as the same club, i would not be involved in this debate, but the facts are clear. I agree that we are going round and round in circles, so hopefully there will be far less need for things to be repeated in the coming days and weeks, but it is right this situation gets resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. Thank you! Ogwikitem (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. related articles

Hiya,

Since you seem to be doing most of the updates and reverting do you want me to post the articles that are affected by this dispute so you can make sure there all fine and watched so dont get changed without a consensus being changed, i have step backed now i have put it to formal mediation and i have now made the articles as per what seems to be the consensus not saying i agree with it or that i say there is but there no real edit warring so i feel there a consensus that being agreed. As i say i have done the work to keep both sides of the dispute views in check i now want to step back so leave it to everyone else. If you want the list i will post them to you there is a lot. Although a consensus appears to be reached mediation is still required so it can be shown this is where the consensus was reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i have the main articles already on my watchlist, other editors have made most of the content changes though, in particular the entire new article at Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. PLC‎ was written by someone else. Will try and make improvements to that paragraph on the newco rangers article later, but i do think a lot of progress is being made across the board, and i hope we will be able to maintain consensus and resolve the matter permanently. I will also try to make a start on potential few points for a FAQ to propose to put at the top of article talkpages to try and help prevent new editors arriving not understanding all of the previous discussions that have taken place. Well done for all your efforts, lets hope that the dispute is close to resolution., BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please put this in the formation and early years please British Watcher? Celtic 1-9 Rangers 11th August 1888

There's a source mate, where it says rangers highest score under the picture. http://www.rangerspedia.org/index.php/Celtic_FC AND THAT'S ON THE OFFICIAL RANGERS WIKIPIDIA!!!

It's on the official old firm wikipidia page aswell mate! http://en.wikipedia.org/Old_Firm

It's even here on a scottish football forum! http://www.scottishleague.net/archive/archive78.htm

And see, it says here we beat them 9-1 in a friendly at celtics ground! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100320073059AAFH7Ag

britishwatcher your aware of wikipedia policies please dnt add it as it will be reverted for unreliable source, every source ther eis unreliable as i just explain on the user talk pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rangers F.C.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right hi, its just see that newco page, it isn't right. Thats all i can say about that, there's 5 million Rangers all wanting it to be deleted. PLEASE. I'm begging you. Please delete it! it is still the same club Aradioham (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Kk thanks but with the newco page, please just stick to the company. Nothing to do with the stadium, training ground, players or staff unless its talking about the transfer from oldco to newco. Thanks. It wouldnt be fair talking about the football side of things. Just please stick to admin, liquid process and the money side of things :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradioham (talk • contribs) 11:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing by Fyunck(click)

Since you criticized my supposed canvassing re: Burma/Myanmar (I disagree), I hope you will be equally critical of User:Fyunck(click), who has today posted to about a hundred individual user:talk pages, as well as to the WikiProjects for Australia, England and UK (and only those — not US or Canada or any other). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, he should not have posted on those 3 wikiprojects, although i see no problem with people who were past involved in the debates being informed provided all sides were notified. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

However the tone of his message was not neutral but instead preloaded with a moan about the issue being raised and not closed. Such a tone can encourage one sided responses. Do you have a problem with that? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there are people on both sides who will be unhappy with the debate being dragged up again in such a manner, the important thing is if both sides were notified. If he informed those who voted for the move then it is not a problem like the notification of those 3 wikiprojects. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The last RM was procedurally closed due to the proposer merely slapping on the RM tag and not providing an explanation. That cannot credibly be held up as too recent a discussion (or else it would be easy to abuse). The next previous RM was ten months ago which is about standard on these more contentious ones, especially when each discussion ends in "no consensus" but attempts to find a consensus one way or the other get blocked (usually by status quo supporters). "No consensus" never settles the matter, it just defers it. The situation is very different from the Ireland articles where whatever else can be said the super vote in 2009 annulled the standing of the status quo ante from the outset. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been numerous conversations on the talk page and on another page regarding the naming of the article. there has now been an extensive debate that has lasted two weeks and looks likely to go on for a 3rd week with the template being readded today. Nothing has changed in recent years to justify a move back to Myanmar. There may be change in the coming months as democracy develops which results in a significant development one way or the other. With the opposition either becoming the government and changing the official name or more sources being free to use it once the censorship clears up. Or with the opposition, and western governments along with certain media organisations all switching to Myanmar. We should wait for a real world solution, not change the status quo which has lasted 5 years when there is clearly no consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Rangers F.C., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Scotland

Just a thought, but if it was me I would avoid phrases like the "once the separatists are defeated" you used in Talk:Scotland, if only for the sake of maintaining calm discussions, since many editors are quick to heat up in these spaces at perceived slights. Especially as all issues relating to Scotland articles will intensify during the Salmond campaign. Agree? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to avoid the word separatist just because some dont like it. My comment was not meant to spark a response that was given to it, i simply want people to consider the need for planning ahead so that there is no chaos no matter which way the result goes when it happens. As far as im aware opinions are not prohibited from talkpages unless its extremely offensive, or just large amounts of general chat which is not related to improving the article. 1 small sentence at the end of a paragraph clearly talking about the potential need for change to the intro in the future isnt extreme, i really do not see the big deal. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My general sense is that you remain (as you were when we last went into this in detail) confused about the purpose of talk pages in Misplaced Pages. They are not platforms for political debate, for stating one's own political opinions repeatedly or for trying to provoke battling behaviour. I have to say, you seem unable to grasp this on a very basic level, as your immediate response to my suggestion shows, with the lengthy diatribes and repetitions. As I say, you don't make a case that you should be regarded as an opinion former about how to write NPOV material in the articles. I would suggest if you can't can it, move on to some other area of Misplaced Pages than British-related articles, since you appear to me to get off on restating your politics, which nobody wants or cares about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The talk pages are for discussing improving articles. I think i just said that, and that is exactly what my comment in this case was about. The need for a discussion to take place so that we know what should be put on the article once the separatists are defeated. That is not unreasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You say "endlessly repeating the word "separatist" because someone pulled you up on it is not going to make it so - it isn't an accurate depiction of the realities of the SNP proposals, regardless of how one personally feels about them. " - Im sorry but you are talking about politics there, and are inaccurate too. The SNP seek to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, if that isnt separatism im not quite sure what is... seems to fit with the definition at Separatism. I said separatist once, until one person moaned about my sentence, obviously im going to have to repeat it when defending my comments. It is hardly "endlessly repeating the word", a gross exaggeration. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad anyway that you think the talk pages are about improving articles, because in this current spat your main concern seems to be to try to get your political views across. As that's exactly what you were trying to do last time we had one, it seems little has changed and I take your protestations of being concerned about improving articles with ever so slight a pinch of salt. And yes, talking about your political statements inevitably involved me, for one small period, in politics. Oh dear. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really would love for you to explain how the term separatist does not apply in this case but that is up to you. I had no interest in a debate on separatism with people on that page, except for relating to alterations needed to the article, although im happy to discuss such things here on my talk page if someone comments. "my main concern".. Sorry but i explained the main point or concern which was the reason for the comment. I was pointing out when someone asked about trimming down the introduction, that when those separatists do lose the article is going to need a overhaul. And that is something that would be better discussed in the run up to the referendum result, so that an attempt at consensus can be reached.. rather than waiting until the night in question when things could get extremely heated, with edit wars or an inaccurate article being locked in place for weeks. It seems a wise precaution to prepare for. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some nationalists find the term seperatist unappealing. I (a nationalist) personally have nothing against it as I'm fully aware of what the term seperatist means and our cause is seperatist. We wish to break away from the UK. An incorrect term with pejorative undertones would be for example to call us isolationists or such but seperatist is perfectly valid. It's quite clear however BritishWatcher that you are using the term purely to bait others and prove some obscure point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.194.190 (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits--Tritomex (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

It has been proposed that Rugby union in the Ivory Coast be moved to Rugby union in Ivory Coast. This move request will have far-reaching implications for all sub-articles and categories involving the Ivory Coast. The discussion is located here.

– Fayenatic London 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Military/Armed forces (again)

Sorry to come back on that subject but could you clarify your opinion in Talk:Armed forces#Merge discussion? I'm trying to resolve an interwikilink problem and I need a clear distinction between the meaning of Military and Armed forces in English. The articles don't help very much:

• Military#Etymology and definitions says <military> = <armed forces>
• Armed forces#Organization says <military> + <paramilitary> = <armed forces>
• Paramilitary says just the opposite: <paramilitary> (usually) is not part of <armed forces>

Asking the question on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 94#Armed forces / Military wasn't very helpful as well. Thank you in advance. --Nk (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

White Genocide

A few years ago, you made a very well worded post to Talk:White Genocide. There has been more racist activity lately and I was wondering if you'd be willing to give it another look. Andrew 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

At the Jerusalem RfC discussion

It seems you've lost interest in this discussion, and perhaps Misplaced Pages in general, but it would be great if you could comment on a part of Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion#Question_one:_Accuracy.2Freliability_of_source_opinions that discusses your source summary The government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government. Some of the editors there have interpreted that as meaning (and being intended to mean) "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and seat of government.", whereas I assumed it was intended as a matter-of-fact statement regarding what the Israeli government has done. Can you comment on the matter since, you know, it's your statement? And maybe select an alternative phrasing that gets the same message across (assuming my interpretation was what you intended) but is not so potentially open to misinterpretation? -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)