User talk:HighKing/Archives/2009/April

WP:IECOLL
Hi, HighKing. Please see my comment here. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland, the republic
Hiya HK. I wonder if it's possible, to persuade the republic to change it's name, until atleast re-unification. It would make Wiki-life easier. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL - it would probably be easier than getting people to agree here! --HighKing (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"British" Isles
There is nothing "undeniable" about the assertion that Ireland should be referred to, geographically or otherwise, as a "British" Isle. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * HighKing, what is a turtle car?! Sounds like a child's toy with a string, not something the President of the USA would be travelling in. IMO, you were right to remove it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea, and Google isn't helpful either. Funny, but not helpful :-)  --HighKing (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did a Google search. I saw a photo of a pimped turtle car which is green and in the shape of a turtle; anyroad, it does not bear even a passing resemblance to the Kennedy Lincoln Continental!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the rule and i wont breach it however something has to be done about removing the claim (although i see its been reworded slightly again). What i do not understand is how anyone could accept the previous wording. When u look at the BBC Style Guide it clearly is not just talking about the British Isles being confusing, its talking about all the different terms (UK, Britain, British Isles). The previous wording simply said the BBC style guide says about the British Isles (confused already)? thats misleading as it places it in no context. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The British Isles is most confusing. Does it contain Jersey? Now that worth another 10 archives. PurpleA (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is the BBC style guide did not say the British Isles is confusing, it was taken out of context and was grossly misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in noting that you took and reuploaded it in exactly the same form, simply because it was named 'United Kingdom' and happened to picture Ireland as well? Not only is that incorrect (the border of NI is clearly marked), it's... it's... well, a five-letter adjective that I won't mention because you'll probably take it as a personal insult. Both parties that are warring over British Isles continue to amaze me in how trivial their battles go. --78.151.109.18 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are correct. And I'm in the process of finding a version without the Northern Ireland border marked for my version - it's a tad misleading to call it a satellite photo when it's been marked up with borders.  And rather than start an argument, I did it to avoid an argument.  I did not replace the existing picture - that is still available for articles concerned with the United Kingdom.  I "renamed" and created this image so that it may be used in places that deal with Britain and Ireland or the British Isles.  --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, 'created'? It's the exact same image!! Haven't you just changed the name and then inserted it into articles where the previous one was with the incredibly dubious edit summary of "better image"? Are you honestly proposing that the same image should be duplicated across articles under two different names? --78.151.109.18 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Check again. It's a different image - it doesn't have the border marked in.  --HighKing (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits of Glam, NetObjects, Samir Arora
You have edited several articles: Glam Media, NetObjects, and Samir Arora. I find not all of your edits constructive and will assess them carefully. Beneath other changes, in all three articles you have deleted content, which you see as "not notable" or which is about people you regard as "dubious", no matter whether they belong to the founders of the respective company. While this content is "not notable" to you, it may well be to others. If I didn't find it notable, I would not have included it, and no other editor was disturbed until now. I will not revert but bring in some of the deleted content if I find it appropriate. This doesn't apply to the extensive list of key people at Glam. Please see also the Glam talk page.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter - there is a close connection between all of the subjects you appear to have an interest in - by any chance do you have a connection with the subject matter? I edited the articles because most of it (still) reads in a promotional tone, and it also includes many trivial facts that could easily be summarized.  Feel free to revert and discuss on the article talk pages --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have no connection at all with the exception that I use the web design software and my English is best at this technical level because I know the jargon and the literature. If you visit my German user page, you see that my Wikipedia work covers much broader topics. My longest article is about an Italian TV series.
 * As I said before, I agree in the Glam article are some passages that can be summarized in a modest way, e.g. the several financing rounds. That work will be done. I also agree in the NetObjects articles are a few rare problematic sentences, which I already had an eye on. My articles always stay in a development process, and discussions with other editors and admins had been held before to satisfaction on both sides.
 * I disagree with other edits and opinions you expressed, especially about "not notable" or "trivial" facts and the length of articles. These are a matter of taste to a certain extent, and we should respect each other's work.
 * With much interest I noticed your crusade (no offense) against the phrase "British Isles". I wasn't aware of the connotations of this phrase before.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Marketcetera
Hi there! Thank you for your edits and comments. I wonder if I could just have your opinion on something. I feel that editor Wenzi is nit-picking and that his contributions are not constructive, as he is causing me to repeatedly defend what I consider are generally pretty week arguments most of the time (except the last one which is actually a little more debatable I think). This wastes a lot of time. I don't think this editor will stop trying to pick faults until he gets his way and strips the article and taints it with banners. You have suggested AfD and he just ignored that since I don't think he is as confident as he is making out, but would rather try and strip the article instead. Because he is mainly taking action in the talk page it appears hard to classify his actions as disruptive editing or anything. Do you agree that he it nit-picking, or do you think his comments are genuine? Do you think it is appropriate to ask for outside assistance like a request for comment? Sorry to bother you on this one, but I know you are somewhat familiar already. Thanks. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)