User talk:HighKing/Archives/2011/February

Speedy deletion nomination of Béal Organic Cheese


A tag has been placed on Béal Organic Cheese, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Cind. amuse  13:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

British Isles
As you know, additions and removals of British Isles must be discussed at BISE prior to action being taken. I am disappointed to see that you are, again, trying to circumvent this agreement. LemonMonday   Talk   12:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you assuming BISE as now functionally over as regards yourself HK? I see LM is right and you are making regular changes again - I assume the sanction is still formally in place though? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, BISE in it's current form is dead. Has been dead for ages.  This section was started by Cailil and puts the onus firmly back at the article Talk page to reach consensus.  Snowded had offered to help draw up a new set of processes and procedures.
 * In the meantime, I'm following all processes (as I've always done). LemonMonday is now in breach of standard policies and procedures.  It's fine to revert according to BRD, but it's not fine for him to then not engage at the Talk page and justify his reverts.  --HighKing (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not convinced it is over - I can't see that the sanction policy has been removed. I also think you are pushing against it before it is resolved - if you support policies like talking through BRDs, surely you support getting sensible frameworks to agree in-place sanctions agreed before going out and acting as if they aren't there any more, against a background of ferocious controversy? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Come off it. I purposely didn't post at BISE for months.  Was there any activity?  (In fact, ask yourself where was LemonMonday during that period?)
 * I've always supported all policies, and even volunteered for other "procedures" to "limit disruption". But then I see socks like LemonMonday being allowed to continue to shadow my edits, without sanction, and while being actively *supported* by editors like you.  And I see numerous topics at BISE just sat there without any meaningful discussion or progress.  I see no support by the admin community as they simply see all of the disruption as a British-Irish content brawl - look at the lack of interest at the AN/I filings.
 * So we've come full circle. I was asked to volunteer for BISE to centralize discussions.  We tried.  But it hasn't worked.  Standard WP policies and procedures have nothing in them about a BISE-type page - Cailil captured the essence of standard practices in his posting.  So I'll simply go back to following standard policies.
 * I predict it'll now go like this. I'll edit articles, I'll provide references, etc.  LM (or another of his socks) will probably revert each and every article, regardless of the merits of the edit, quoting BRD.  I'll open the Article Talk page discussion (cos he won't) to discuss the revert.  I'll wait a reasonable period of time (say 2 days) for a response and will either get none, or get a dubious reference.  After a while, the discussion will peter out.  I'll remake the change, he'll revert stating no consensus.  I'll ask him to produce an argument based on references, etc.  The discussion will peter out.  I'll wait a reasonable period of time.  I'll remake the changes.  He'll revert, etc.  I'll complain.  He'll finally get banned.  Another sock will appear, etc.  --HighKing (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought there'd been a sock investigation on LM and it came back negative? If that's so, you shouldn't keep repeating the allegation. If it's not so, you should ask for one, if you're so sure. I don't support or defend him, but I do want to see processes followed as there's more than enough anarchic behaviour around here already. On your other point, I don't see how the perceived lack of development on BISE affects this - I could equally say that you could have raised a discussion there about it being over, but no, you dived straight in. Your last few comments seem to me an excellent description of utterly futile edit-warring. Is that really how you want to spend your time? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the sock investigation did not come back as negative. Just that admins couldn't be bothered taking any action.  The only action that admins will take regarding BISE is to try to create a situation where all involved editors are banned.
 * And no, it is not how I want to spend my time. It may look like edit-warring, but this is the same mistake that the aforementioned admins are also making.  Please pick out, from above, what behavioural elements I should change, or something that I can do differently.  --HighKing (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I got to agree with HK's take on the situation. I have refrained from BI activity in the hope that BISE would become active but it is dead. Bjmullan (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever HighKing does or doesn't do, I simply don't like LemonMonday's first "awakening" from his slumber since 14 December to be a wholesale revert of this editor. It's... creepy. It's SPA "city". Open proxies being used, maybe? How did I know this wasn't a dead issue? ;> Doc   talk  05:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We could review Lemon's third edit in this incarnation as suggestive. :) The problem as always is separating the issue itself from those of us in Wikipedia that follow it. The real objective issue of how we deal with the situation is that English Wikipedia covers multiple territories where English is the first or most common language, where there are fundamental disagreements about the meaning of apparently common phrases in English between people in those territories, and between editors in Wikipedia who hail from them. Then there's how we handle the strong passions in Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking only the other day that we should kill WP:BISE formally and agree a new set processes around Calil's suggestions. Fmph (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)