Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HighKing (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 1 August 2011 (→Myrmica ruginodis: resp2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. Do not leave a template to say you've responded on your Talk page. I said I'm watching. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them and may even delete them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Salthouse

Hi HighKing, I am not a fan of inline URL citations but was OK as it conforms to WP:ECITE and is in the correct context. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't (and still isn't) OK since there's no full citation in the references section (there was a link in the "External Links" section). I'm not a fan of the inline either, and using ref tags are easier to maintain as they guarantee a correct entry in the References section. --HighKing (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BI edits

HighKing I'm afraid I have to pick you up on a few of your edits with regard to the term 'British Isles'. As you know I recently ran through your namespace edits from June 5 - July 5 in this area, and apart from the introduction of some unsourced material (which you explained) I was (& remain) satisfied that no serious breaches of the community probation occurred in that period. However a few edits from July 8 to present (17:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)) have no apparent sourcing.
While removing original research is important to the project such edits should not introduce ANY further unsourced statements. All information added must be verified. In regard to the above 6 edits I list - don't just remove a term from an unsourced paragraph, source the paragraph, and reword if appropriate. There is one other diff that I want to examine: your logic here is that ' Mixing "country" names and "geographical" ' ". This correct. However the only country name used in the paragraph was Sweden. The Upper Midwest, and New England, along with the British Isles are regional epithets. However like the above 6 this should have been sourced either way.
There are 7 name-space edits here, out of 45, that are at issue. The rest of these 45 edits do follow policy (by way of clarity for others these 45 other edits are not all focussed on the British Isles term) but these 6 don't. I had already mentioned the issue of sourcing on July 6 and you were aware of it (and replied in answer to my queries) that same day.
Because the topic is under probation such editing practices cannot persist. All alterations, insertions and removals of the term British Isles must be source or policy based. I know that you're fully aware of the probation and its terms, as such I will warn you to take greater care in verifying ALL material added to wikipedia articles.--Cailil 17:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I want say that while I personally don't view the above as 'malicious' edits (for lack of a better term), it must be stated that even when edits are factually correct they must provide a source, per WP:V: "the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth". This is especially so under topic probation--Cailil 17:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, thanks for giving me a chance to respond. First off, I'd say that sometimes the "removal" of a term doesn't have a source - either for the term being removed, or for an alternative. In those cases, I'd usually tag the term or sentence, but for some of the more obvious ones, I'll just remove the term and explain in my edit summary. I'll go through the edits and explain:

• Bunzl] used "with major operations in the British Isles and Continental Europe" which is a very British saying, but just a long winded way of simply stating Europe, but I on rare occasions find it used in a source, so I check each time. The Bunzl website doesn't use the phrase - Bunzl is a growing and successful Group with operations in the Americas, Europe and Australasia.. The first page of their annual report, already referenced in the article, also uses the same phrasing.
• Tall Tale used Fionn mac Cumhaill also known by many other British Isles' names including Finn MacCool doesn't make sense as a point to make. I assumed the point was that Fionn is known by different names (using one example) rather than saying that Fionn is also known as Finn in English. Therefore, saying that Fionn is known by other names, fine. Which he is. Finn is a simple translation into a different language - from Irish into English. But he's also known as "Fion MaCool" in Newfoundland and this isn't in the British Isles. I acknowledge my edit summary should have been better than it was.
• Bonar Law was described as the only "British Prime Minister" to have been born outside the British Isles. In fact, leaving Bonar aside, only England, Scotland, and Ireland have been the birthplaces for British Prime Ministers. None from Wales, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Therefore the largest geographical area is either the list of countries as above, or GB&I. Not using a larger than necessary geographical area is something that the people at BISE agreed with in the past - otherwise the sentence could just as easily have said "first outside Europe" or something like that.
• Tele Time - there's a bunch of articles on Greek TV stations. None are sourced. I checked the TV weekly schedules and the English language shows are typically animations such as Hey Arnold, Spongebob, iCarly, Dora the Explorer and Teletubbies. Thinking about it now that the edit has been questioned, I should have tagged these instead (or even PRODed them).
• Blackett is not only found throughout the British Isles, but the Demographics section of the article already state it is found in Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the United States of America. I added the "originated" bit because it should be in the lede anyway.
• Largest Naval Battle in History this edit is for clarity. The sentence states that the Armada were destroyed by powerful gales - this occurred after they rounded Ireland into the Atlantic - and it's a very famous part of Irish history too.
• Rhubarb pie - the logic is mixing country names with regions. We mention Sweden, a country. It also mentions the country of the United States, and mentions two regions within that country - the New England region and the Upper Midwest region. But it lists British Isles among these, which isn't right. Listing regions that are within countries isn't a problem because there's no risk of misleading readers into thinking that a region within a country is a separate country.

The Greek TV edits, I hold my hand up to. They are most likely completely unsourced, and were created by a now blocked editor who was blocked for adding unreferenced material. I'll most likely PROD these articles (unless you've any other suggestions). Sorry for the slightly rushed response. --HighKing (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

HK, as above, it's not truth but verifiability that matters (especially in topics under probation). Source everything you add to wikipedia - don't insert or alter anything without providing a reliable source for that info. If there's no source then there can be no change.
WRT proding be careful to assess notability of subject's under the specific criteria (you probably know that anyway)--Cailil 19:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll go over all of the above edits again and look for sources, either way.

WRT the Greek Television articles - you'd imagine that they're notable because of the fact that, well, TV stations must be notable. But sources for these stations (in English at least) are hard to come by though. I can find info on their license, but most of the articles content appears to be completely unsourced. --HighKing (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been noticing that you'ev been adding a few google books links as references HK rather than doing this please cite in full with page references. Also I have to bring-up this edit. Replacing one citation with another (less reliable in wikipedia's terms) that has a differring POV is not appropriate. NPOV dictates that we record information neutrally and with appropriate weight. Fundamentally, finding one source that differs from or contradicts a reliable one is NOT a reason to delete that reliable source. Such deletions are in violation of WP:NPOV--Cailil 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of the "bad" references and the preferred "good" references? As far as I was aware, there's lots of different allowable formats and I didn't think I was doing anything wrong.

As to 1699 in science, the reference cited "The Chronology of British history" does not back up the assertion or make any claim about Eddystone Lighthouse being the first rock lighthouse for anywhere. I did not "replace" one reference with another in violation of NPOV or to back up a preferred POV. The reference I provided is for "Trinity House", the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, The Channel Islands and Gibraltar. There are tons of books written about Eddystone, but very few make any kind of claim about it being the "first" of anything, because it was a teeny legal distinction between a "light" and a "lighthouse". Fantastic book on the matter with "Rock lighthouses of Britain" by Nicholson and it tells the story of Eddystone. Interestingly, page 47 of this book shows the Winstanley construction of 1698 and 1699, and in the book Fearless by Elvira Woodruff it states that on Novemnber 14, 1698, Henry Winstanley was able to do what no person had ever done before him. He climbed up to his lantern room and lit the first candle that was to shine on the Eddystone Reef. The world's first rock (or caisson) lighthouse was lit. This makes a claim for the first in the world. The date of 1698 is also backed up on page 2 of the PDF I linked to, but it is generally agreed (and in numerous books) that the Winstanley construction wasn't *completed* until 1699, so this is the date used at the article. --HighKing (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok with regard to the Palmer's Chronology of British History - I've checked this myself and there's no mention (except in an index). When you are correcting references in this manner please note it in the edit summary.
WRT Trinity house - that website also states that: "The most famous lighthouse in the British Isles is probably the Eddystone". But I'm not getting into content with you HK.
As regards referencing there are a number of allowable formatts - but full citation information is required (especially in contentious areas) ones like this are perfect; ones like this are good but definitely need page references (especially for one's like this - I'm aware of a number of Irish / Anglo-Irish landed Gentry families and I'm surprised by this claim and I would suggest that others will be too, thus giving a page ref allows us to verify); ones like this should be written in full rather than as google books links--Cailil 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand the page refs. I'll make sure a page number is included. As to "most famous in the British Isles is probably..." - it's a different claim and a different discussion (but I'll add that there's also claims that state it's regarded as the most famous lighthouse in the world). --HighKing (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Smith Wilson

I have declined the A7 speedy tag you placed at Ronald Smith Wilson because the article sufficiently asserted importance of the subject. Please remember that WP:A7 specifically states The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. It is must meet a much lower standard than notability to ward off an instant deletion. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ancient trackway

Hello HighKing, I again reverted your change at Ancient trackway. You are deleting far too much material. While there is a need to reference some of this, it is being discussed on the article Talk page. Could you enter into the discussions there, please. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on the article Talk page. It seems your revert happened in between two of my edits. --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fin Whales and sources

Hi HighKing I just want to check this source 'Fin whale abundance in the eastern temperate North Atlantic for 1993' by Goujon. Your edit infers that you were able to check it - what database did you use (I can't find it on Jstor or Project Muse)?--Cailil 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, ya gotta take a break from the BI stuff, HK. It's over-powering you. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Gotta" take a break? Over-powering me? Care to explain, with diffs and details, or are you stirring it. Again... --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're still labouring over replacing/removing British Isles wherever possible. Give it a break, the world won't suffer for it. GoodDay (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

GD, you've been told before about making these types of generalizations on Talk pages. Without diffs or specific examples as to policy breaches, guideline breaches, etc, they're little more than opinionated thinly-veiled admonishments (personal attacks) that serve only to get people's backs up. --HighKing (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, this report makes it pretty clear. Page 30, 2nd page of Annex H. Paragraph heading is "Spain/Portugal/France sub-area". It states:

The Spanish NASS survey in 1989 covered an area from 42° -52°S in July and August, extending out to 25°W (Buckland et al., 1992). The survey covered the Bay of Biscay and also a large section of the Atlantic Ocean northwest of Spain, extending north to the southern tip of Ireland. The survey extended past the western boundary (18°W) of the ‘Spain-Portugal-British Isles’ stock (Donovan, 1991). The best estimate for the entire survey area is 17,355 (CV 0.265). As the earlier NASS survey in 1987 (Sanpera and Jover, 1989) covered about one half of the area covered in the 1989 survey (it did not extend as far east into the Bay of Biscay north of Spain or as far west) and thus is not used here. There is also an estimate from 1982 of 1,696 (Mizroch and Sanpera, 1984), but that survey also apparently covered a smaller area, so that estimate is not used here either. Further there is an estimate of 7,500 in 1993 (Goujon et al., 1995) from a survey designed primarily for small cetaceans; it is thought that this survey also covered a small area but this was not checked at the workshop.

From this paragraph, it's clear that the area extended past the "Spain-Portugal-British Isles" area. Also, the Goujon estimate of 7,500 is stated to have covered a "small area but this was not checked at the workshop" so it's unclear what area was surveyed. Let me know if I should also reference this doc in the article. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've taken some time over this HK and I must say the report provided does not support the removal of the term British Isles. Rather it supports the term's inclusion somewhere. While you are right that there is a heading 'Spain-Portugal-France' this relates to a 1989 survey but there are two references to Spain-Portugal-British Isles / British Isles-Spain-Portugal stocks. This division (Spain-Portugal-British Isles) was one of "seven management stocks" from the 1970s and thus it could be mentioned in the article as an historical division of stock statistics.
  The second matter is this, you removed the Goujon reference without actually reading it. Rather than doing this you could have tagged it with {{dubious}} or {{clarify}} and discussed it on the talk page - giving time for someone with access to the source to provide a quote. The problem is this, the above quote from the provided report does not make clear what the area Goujon used was (and indeed states that "it was not checked at the workshop"). Thus unless you have actually read Goujon you should not have removed it. Adding the France-Spain-Portugal ref was absolutely fine but there is no apparent reason that both should not have been included - this is the point of NPOV. Fact-checked removals/insertions/alterations require fact-checking of the actual source not just second assumptions/interpretations about it (especially ones that remove themselves from the category of reliable sources on that particular source by declaring that they did not check it), thus such removals will end up violating policies (particularly WP:NPOV)--Cailil 16:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, a couple of things. When you say "it supports the term's inclusion somewhere", I don't disagree. If someone wanted to say that historically, divisions were created in seven main geographic regions, then great.

I disagree that Goujon should be included - the survey was for small cetaceans (which doesn't include Fin whales) and for a survey area that has no bearing on the heading of "North Atlantic". Even up to 2008 (Page 449 - Annex H: Compilation and Calculation of North Atlantic Fin Whale Abundance by Sub-area), the IWC has reiterated that the best estimate for the entire survey area (being Spain/Portugal/France) is 17,355. I disagree that it was necessary to read Goujon at all.

I also don't understand your point about NPOV. It's not like Goujon was representing a different set of figures for Fin Whales for the "North Atlantic" area. In part, perhaps the problems arise from the fact that the article itself it out of date, and tries to discuss Population and Trends using sub-areas that are not used by the IWC (Original Research).

So I guess I'm back to agreeing with you. I'll restore the original mess and take it up on the article Talk page to get it updated/refreshed/cleared up. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, but I wouldn't necessarily remove your addition of the Spain-Portugal-France bit - that seems informative to me. It's just that from where I stand I don't think anything definitive can be said about a source until it's been read (the report you provided just isn't reliable enough on Goujon to inform an opinion). As regard the NPOV mention - well according to the way the info in the wikipedia article was presenting Goujon's article, it had a population for the Spain-Portugal-British Isles division, and this report has Spain-Portugal-France population. These are 2 different POVs (in this case 2 ways of looking at/recording/modeling stats, rather than 2 different political/theoretical arguments) on one topic. Together they form a richer picture for the reader and if given due weight provide a neutral point of view--Cailil 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've left it alone for the moment, I'm not sure if putting Goujon back is necessary. I've asked that question and others at the article Talk page. I've also located the most up-to-date figures which are available in the 2010 NAMMCO 2010 annual report. Let me know if you think it's best to put Goujon back first. --HighKing (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Westernesse

Hello. I have removed your deletion proposal because we do need the page to disambiguate between the quite popular Westernesse of Tolkien's literature and King Horn's realm. Please feel free to merge the content to King Horn but the page should then be turned into a proper disambiguation instead of being deleted. Regards, De728631 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Myrmica ruginodis

HighKing, you are engaged in a slow edit war with User:Stemonitis. Please stop. You know that the unsourced alteration/insertion/removal of the term British Isles is under probation. User:Stemonitis has also been warned for edit-warring.--Cailil 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've written to you at length about making sure alterations/removals/insertions were sourced. The anthillwood.co.uk uses the term 'British Isles' with regard to Myrmica ruginodis, and although I don't think the site is of the best reliability you did not provide a different source. However, contrary to both your and Stemonitis' edits the source does not state that " the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties" just that " found well dispersed throughout the British Isles".
This has to be an official warning under the terms of the probation, and I am bound to state that further breaches of the probation may result in sanctions. Please try to build consensus and source changes rather than slowly revert waring--Cailil 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil. The source states This small red ant is found well dispersed throughout the British Isles. ..... Myrmica ruginodis is the only species to have reached the Isle of Shetland to the north of Scotland; and so far, it is the only ant found in all 152 vice- counties in Britain. You may be right about this website not being a reliable source, but last edit tried to accurately reflect this data, while catering for the "campaign" comment in the edit summary. I understand what your concerns are, but I believed my last edits should have been acceptable or a discussion started at the Talk page as per BRD. --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And. The Channel Islands is sometimes referred to with a designation of 'C', and sometimes counted as the vice-county 113, both of which are "unofficial" - but either was would count as an extra, and make a total of 153 "vice-counties". So when this source says 152, it is not talking about the "British Isles", but only GB&I (Isle of Man) included as part of GB. --HighKing (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

HK don't interprete/correct sources that's original research. The source says British Isles. Another source was found that also says British Isles--Cailil 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, a couple of points.

• You state The source says British Isles. Another source was found that also says British Isles - eh, actually no. Or perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "the source says British Isles". Cos I bet the source doesn't say "the 152 vice-counties of the British Isles" which is the *wrong* part of the sentence.
• You state that I removed "British Isles" without sourcing, and issued an official warning under the terms of the sanctions. Can you please revise this as I've shown that your original assumption wasn't accurate, and that the text I used was supported by the reference.
• A number of times, you've pointed out that a reference uses or doesn't use "British Isles". What you should ask, does the reference use the term "British Isles" in the context of the fact or assertion being made. That's a different question and one more pertinent.
• Which is not relevant in this case. I in fact changed is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which the British Isles are divided to is abundant throughout the British Isles and is the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties into which Great Britain and Ireland are divided which is closer to what the source actually states.
• You state that I am interpreting/correcting sources - and that makes it original research. If anything, the opposite is true, and using "British Isles" is original research. The reference within the article states "it is the only ant found in all 152 vice- counties in Britain. There are 112 vice-counties in Great Britain. There are 40 vice-counties in Ireland. The Isle of Man is classified (and has always been so) as a vice-county of Great Britain (number 71). Sure, I could have left the reference to state Britain, but it is not WP:OR to change Britain to Great Britain and Ireland since the data points to this fact.
• The Channel Islands are *not* part of the Watsonian vice-counties. So saying that the British Isles is divided up into Watsonian vice-counties is wrong, and nowhere will you find a source that says otherwise. That's not to say that some websites may count the Channel Islands as the 113th vice-county (such as the BSBI), or give it the letter 'C', but that's their own interpretation and is not a Watsonian vice-county.
• User:Stemonitis has now started to incorrectly alter] articles, using WP:OR. I'll revert as per WP:BRD and make my case at the article Talk page including discussion of the reference he is relying on.
• I will make the case at the discussion page of Myrmica ruginodis too, but my understanding of WP:BRD is that the person reinserting removed material should start the discussion, and I would expect an admin like Stemonitis to be aware of this. --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No HK the warning stands. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about an edit - editwarring is prohibitted. And you are well aware of the topic probation. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with Stemonitis' edits either to the Watsonian article (if the sources state that "the British Isles" are so divided that's what wikipedia says) or to the Myrmica ruginodis (again the source anthill.co.uk very clearly uses the term British Isles in its first sentence - "This small red ant is found well dispersed throughout the British Isles" - and the new source, which looks to be of a high quality, seems to clear also).
Enter into dialogue seeking consensus with Stemonitis as further reversions are not of benefit to the project and will be in breach of the topic probation.
With regard to WP:BRD, there is no formal sequence to who should start the discussion in a BRD cycle but there is no exemption from it. Whether you're being bold, or reverting, if the other guy doesn't start talking you should--Cailil 17:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You state that the BRD cycle does not have a formal sequence to who should start the discussion. Well, it seemed unequivocally clear to me. It states: 1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (Stemonitis) 2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. (me) You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. 3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

You say - if the sources state that "the British Isles" are so divided that's what wikipedia says - well that's the crux of the matter. I was correcting the statement specifically relating to the 152 vice-counties because saying that there are 152 vice-counties in the British Isles is wrong, and not supported by any reference. Also, the statement "This small red ant is found well dispersed throughout the British Isles" was added by me, not Stemonitis (perhaps you missed that). The warning relating to edit-warring over the inclusion/removal of the term British Isles seems unfair in the extreme, especially in the light of how I added the term to include the "well dispersed" comment while correcting the 152 vice-counties inaccuracy. --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)