User talk:HighKing/Archives/2009/November

Check it out
Matt Lewis' talk-page history. It's the same editor. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:IECOLL
RE: "everyone else smiled behind their hands and took it as 'job done'" - I don't think that's true. To my eyes it was the anti-ROIs that dropped the project. Myself, Bastun, and other all hung on making proposals but they were all dropped. There's some discussion starting again re: in-article references etc.

I was strongly pro-ROI for the article title, as you know, but always to pro-IRE for in-article references and titles where there is no need to dab. I think the "anti-ROI"/"pro-ROI" labels are a duds. Yes, people were very divided on the article titles, but there was a general consensus on in-article references. Once you go past the two articles the labels break down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the comment wasn't aimed so much at you in particular. Or Bastun either.  More the editors that contributed extremely little to the discussion/debate beyond stonewalling and name calling.
 * While there appears to be more agreement on in-article usage, I believe it would be a mistake for those editors who quit the project to return at this point. I've outlined previously why the poll was invalid and not sanctioned by the Arbcom guidelines (piecemeal VS full agreement), and why the poll itself was flawed (don't get me started).  To further engage directly with the project might be seen to semi-endorse it. I tried to work within the process for as long as possible, but my objections were never taken seriously or addressed, despite overwhelming evidence.
 * I appreciate where you're coming from and your point of view. And I predict another renaming request in 2010 on this article, since we've really made no progress at all (in fact, gone backwards.  I weep).  --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy HK. Do you have any clues as to what RTG is posting? I find him difficult to understand. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He is examining the claims that the Good Friday Agreement shows that Ireland no longer asserts itself politically in reard to the North. Surprisingly uncovered thus far, the opposite is true according to the first page of declaration in the document. I am sorry to see that you feel your progress is going backward Highking but perhaps you have been progressing in the wrong direction, an assumption you and others rarely seem to consider but regardless there is a response from me to your deletion request. ~ R.T.G 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....

 * Much appreciated. --HighKing (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're in some strange company with that award, HK. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah right. Speaking up for you regardless of the worth. Hardly defending the wiki. ~ R.T.G 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol! In the phrase "for battling POV", is "battling" intended to be a verb, or an adjective? ðarkun coll 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee - all the people I would've invited to the fan club seems to have turned anyway! Who's round is it?  --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Texaco Cup
It was a case of serious overcategorization. I think you will find that the remaining categories are all sub-categories of the ones I removed. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Noteable Article?
Hi. My name is Sean Wolfington and you recently decided to delete the article written about me and it was then deleted. Over a year ago i recieved a message that someone wanted to delete the article but other people decided to keep the article after making edits and adding references. Since i am not very familiar with Wikipedia I wanted to find out why the article was not noteworthy. In addition to not being noteworthy some people said it was self-promoting. This is not true. I discovered this wikipedia page when i googled my name for something else. A freind showed me how i could update it and i updated it so there was more accurate information and then i was told i should not do that. Since that time i never updated it again.

Since i don't know alot about Wikipedia i asked a freind and they suggested i provide information to the people on the business page of Wikipedia to get their oppinion of wheter the article is noteworthy and i wanted to give you additional information that was not on the article you deleted to see if that may change whether the article is noteworthy.

Here is a summary of my background so you can evaluate whether it is noteworthy. All of this information is available through major news outlets and some of it was referenced in the article that was deleted, which i thought was the criteria for determining if something was noteworthy... but again i don't know alot about how this site works. Below is my background information, please tell me if any of this is noteworthy. Some of the information was not in the original article and the additional information may effect whether the article is noteworthy.

Here is my background: I am an Entreprenuer and a film maker. I founded and sold 2 technology companies by the age of 34. The first company, HAC Group which operated as Cyber Car and Automark, sold for $200 million (article with info can be viewed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/18/business/company-news-reynolds-reynolds-to-buy-hac-group-for-200-million.html) and the second for $125 million dollars of enterprise value (BZ Results article- http://www.dealerrefresh.com/adp-buys-bz-results/ - there are many articles about these companies but these are links i just found). My company was recognized as the "Innovative company of the year" from Auto Success Magazine along with SAP (http://www.autosuccessonline.com/leadership.aspx) and I was a finalist for the Ernst & Young "Entreprenuer of the Year" when i was 34 years old and a few months ago was recognized by Haute Living Magazine as one of the top 100 most influential leaders in the Haute 100 (view at:http://www.hauteliving.com/?s=sean+wolfington). After selling the second company, I started a film production company where i financed, produced and distributed the first film myself (Bella)and it was the #1 top grossing film in its category. (here is an article i wrote for the Huffington Post about it- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wolfington/what-i-learned-about-maki_b_102704.html and LA Times wrote an article about it - articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/04/entertainment/et-bella4) It also was the #1 rated movie on Yahoo, NY Times, Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes while in theaters and it is currently one of the top 50 Rated Films of All Time on Yahoo and it was the #1 Rated movie of 2007 by the users of the largest film review site in the world, RottenTomatoes.com. After that i produced 2 other films including a new motion picture called Mighty Macks (you can view at IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034324/ and you can view my film history at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2055676/). In addition to the film production company i currently own 6 companies in the technology, real estate and entertainment industries.

I can provide more information but this is a summary of my background. Please let me know if you believe this is noteworthy enough. Thank you.Seanwolfington (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Sean. I'll make the point that there are no special editors with special editing powers here.  All editors are equal when it comes to content (within the context of consensus).  I have no more "powers" or "authority" than you on content matters on this encyclopedia.  Every editor and any editor is free to edits articles so long as they follow the policies, remain civil, and contribute positively.
 * Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for factual articles. It's not a discussion forum, or a social networking site (although for some people it kinda it), or a media outlet.  Articles have got to meet a minimal standard.
 * It can be overwhelming wading through various policies, and there are a lot. Since your article concerns a living person (you), the main policy is WP:BIO.  So the basic criteria for an article concerning a living person is:
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject."
 * You article had references for companies and projects you were involved with, and not enough to indicate that you were notable. Sure, the company is notable.  The movie is notable.  But notability isn't inherited or transferred. The award you were nominated for wasn't by itself deemed notable (since it doesn't have an article here).
 * Finally, also be aware of WP:COI and this is the reason that some editors mentioned WP:PEACOCK. The article was very promotional in tone and content.  It should not read like a CV, and it should be "intellectually independent".  There is absolutely nothing to prevent you from recreating the article again.  You could always recreate it as a subpage/sandbox off your own Talk page and ask editors to comment (but be aware of WP:COI) before recreating your page.  --HighKing (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. After reading the additional information about my bio and the independent news sources that reference me does that change your original oppinion about whether i am noteable. The LA Times, IMDB, Yahoo, AOL amongs others have written about me personally because of the business i founded, sold, films made and distributed. These publications don't just mention the companies i founded and the films i made but they also reference me. I know many of these references were not in the article you deleted but i did not update the article because i thought i was not supposed to edit it. Please let me know your thoughts. Also, what is a subpage/sandbox off your own Talk page? How do i create an article there? Thanks.Seanwolfington (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, you can create a new subpage by simply treating it like a folder from your main Talk page. For example, the URL for your Talk page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seanwolfington and if you appended /sandbox to this URL, you could create a subpage titled Sandbox.  To link to that page, simply insert User Talk:Seanwolfington/Sandbox into an article or comment.
 * You ask if I believe you are notable but please bear in mind that we are looking for facts and not opinion. Notability should be easily and clearly established from published sources and articles about the person.  Some advice - you would make any case/argument much stronger if you pointed out, using WP:BIO policy, which articles establish your notability (and why).  If you argue using policy instead of opinion, you'll stand a better chance of being heard.  --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles" usage
I noted you didnt like the term in Christmas decorations section, and subsequently a couple of users had issue with this. I'm Irish and from the north, and i personally dont have any problem with any term... but i edited it to UK, Ireland to avoid conflict. Andymcgrath (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy. It's very daft to try to edit articles to make it seem as if Britain and Ireland are not part of Europe.  Thanks for fixing things.  --HighKing (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hook Lighthouse
Thanks for making that change, now here's a suggestion; of the 2000+ articles that link to British Isles why don't you, and I, and others, identify the ones where the use of BI is definitely wrong (no arguments) and deal with those? No one wants incorrect information and there are bound to be many instances of usage that are undeniably incorrect, and there'll also be some where use of the alternative terms is incorrect. This is surely better than picking up usage at random, or focussing on the many cases where there's no right or wrong, or where there's likely to be disagreement - these are the troublesome articles, and we should leave them alone, at least for now. I do occasionally come across incorrect usage and I'm happy to report it. I suggest uncontroversial changes should still be brought to the SE page first, so that everyone can see what's going on. MidnightBlue (Talk)  19:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The bigger picture is to develop an "understanding" as to where it's OK, and where it's not. Call them broad guidelines, and that's what I'd like to see happening on the SE page.  If we can agree broad guidelines, even on what we'd consider as deffo wrong, we're making progress.  Have you any articles in mind that we'd agree are deffo wrong?  (Oh, and thnx btw)  --HighKing (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it with broad guidelines is that they become an excuse to limit usage of the term for political reasons - but - to state what's definitely wrong, as a precise guideline, if that's not a contradiction, is fine. Here's an example from the latest crop of additions and deletions which to my mind is obviously wrong; BS 1363, and here's one that I find intensely irritating; Full breakfast. If there's anything that unites the people of these islands it's their eating habits, broadly speaking. So I would say BI is good here, but this article is under constant attack, with the latest excuse for removal being completely misguided. MidnightBlue (Talk)  21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi MBM, sorry I'm not as active here at the moment. You make a point above which I believe lies at the heart of the disagreement.  You're happy to use "British Isles" in "Full Breakfast" because it points to a united/shared cultural heritage/history ??  I'm not of the same mindset and I disagree.  The British Isles may have some things in common, for sure, but I firmly believe the term should not be used as a "cultural unit" in modern topics.  --HighKing (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. Therein lies the problem. There is no right or wrong in whether the term should be used in matters of culture, and it's those areas where difficulties arise. However, here's a few more. Recent additions and deletions have thrown up this little lot:


 * Most definitely wrong?
 * Risk (game) (if your assertion elsewhere is correct about this)
 * Snow White and the Giants


 * Correct usage, but removed (and I'm going to re-instate)
 * Afro-Eurasia
 * Europe
 * MidnightBlue (Talk)  11:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone's beaten me to Europe. I'll deal with Snow White and let you check out Risk. MidnightBlue (Talk)  12:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi MBM, I've fixed Risk. And you're right about both Afro-Eurasia and Europe.  And that got me thinking.  So far, the SE page appears to deal solely with articles that I believe are wrong and only a handful have been shown as examples where it's fine.  Perhaps we should also use the SE page to highlight articles where usage if correct?  What do you think?  It might move this debate forward.  --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My involvement
Hi HK, it's not I'm not getting involved, I'm very busy IRL at the moment so I'm only popping into the site on and off and not spending any time here as you'll see from my contribs. Once I do, I'll be able to spend some time looking at the issues - I'd definitely say that the SE is productive, though. Black Kite 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on BI articles
I shouldn't need to do this, but this is a reminder for everyone to use the Specific Examples page for discussion on the use of British Isles nomenclature. I do not want to have to intervene by using admin tools, but there have been a number of issues of disruptive editing revently. I am sending this message to all users involved in this issue, so do not assume that I am accusing you of such behaviour. Thanks, Black Kite 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

SE page's survival
Howdy HK, shutting down the SE would be counter-productive. It's a buffer, that limits edit-wars & editors getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also obvious that without support from the very people who urged my participation, it's finished. I would guess that Snowded isn't really all that interested in the topic, and judging by many of his comments, continues to see my efforts as an anti-BI crusade.  BK doesn't want to continue and has pointedly ignored the last 3 or 4 of my requests for his intercession and participation.  How is it possible to continue on the SE page without support, in the face of LevenBoy and MisterFlash?  How is it that their disruption continues unchecked and uncommented?  I think I know the answer, and many people wouldn't like it... --HighKing (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If LB & MF want somebody to throw stuff at, inform them to throw stuff at me; I'd enjoy the attention. Admittedly, my concerns about the inclusion/exclusion of British Isles on Wikipedia, is based on preventing edit-wars (which lead to page-protections & blocks); not on wheiter it's right/wrong. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, my silliness overcomes me (the brown bears comment). GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to everyone
I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing. However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear. Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted. This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. Black Kite 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article
 * Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR
 * Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI