Talk:Burnt orchid/BISE

Use of 'British Isles'
Triton rocker made a direct change to British Isles Burnt orchid. I have made an ANI report for failure to abide by the general sanction and reverted the change for the moment. However it seems to me that this is one of those cases where British Isles would be better. If there are no objections I will revert my revert. -- Snowded TALK  05:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What Triton rocker did was add yet another CLEAR academic reference ... replaced here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burnt_orchid&action=historysubmit&diff=376385533&oldid=376380419


 * "'''There really is no need to troll and snitch on me in attempt to provoke edit wars.

'''
 * For God's sake, open your mind. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are under a general sanction not to insert British Isles into articles. That general sanction is in place to prevent edit wars, as is this project page.   All you have to do is to bring proposals here.  If you break sanctions you will find yourself subject to blocks of increasing length which would be a pity as you are a good content editor.  You just need to learn to work with others -- Snowded  TALK  06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The species is unrecorded in Ireland and Scotland, and the only record from Wales is almost certainly an error ...Did you miss that bit Triton? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at it again it would make most sense to delete the two titles Status and Britain, neither add anything to what is a stub, the largest population in Wiltshire is significant but it doesn't need two headings! Comments? -- Snowded  TALK  07:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The current heading (Britain) implies a wider distribution than is fact the case.CyrilThePig4 (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence my suggestion to remove the two headings and just leave the reference to the largest cluster. -- Snowded TALK  07:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I Agree CyrilThePig4 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed the headings are not needed. This is an example of my point about using the title of books to guide the use of BI, the context here clearly is that it is talking about an area of England so BI is not appropriate but Triton Rocker feels he is able to added it because the ref uses the term. Codf1977 (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree it can't be universal, but it is a good starting point. -- Snowded  TALK  08:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is I don't think it makes for a good starting point as (setting aside his Topic ban for the moment) it was what enabled Triton Rocker to insert it in this article. It should only be used as the last point if there is nothing else left to guide. Codf1977 (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * no need for British Isles in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actioned -- Snowded TALK  12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've blocked TritonRocker for 48 hours. It's disappointing that TritonRocker clearly knows where this page is, yet appears unable to post here until they need to defend their actions. TFOWR 07:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TR has put in a reference - what is the problem with that? Is the reference not valid? Does it not conform to WP:RS? Oh, it contains the words "British Isles" in the title, that seems to be the problem. Well I would suggest you stop judging it on the basis of whether or not it contains some words that a few editors don't like, and judge it on its merits. It seems to me to be a perfectly valid reference for the subject in question. It's just unfortunate for some that it happens to include "British Isles" in the title. LevenBoy (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue IMO is that the context of the topic did not warrant the change from Britain to British Isles, it was an action by Triton Rocker that he either knew or at least should have suspected was in contravention of his Topic ban and was not appropriate. Codf1977 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference was no problem, but he also changed Britain to British Isles when he was under a general prohibition not to add BI without consent. -- Snowded  TALK  12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite. Both of these edits, for an editor who wasn't subject to a topic ban, would most likely be OK. The problem here isn't "an editor adding the term British Isles once." It's an editor who has a history of doing this and a topic ban prohibiting them from doing it and a recent block for violating their topic ban. TFOWR 12:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TR knows where the BISE page is. It's up to him, as to whether he gets blocked or not. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)