User talk:HighKing/Archives/2012/July

Disingenuous
This was a cheap point, and unworthy of you. If I was "scolding", I was scolding myself as much as anybody else, because I allowed myself to be drawn into an off-topic discussion. I could have answered your last point to me, but I chose not to. That left it open to you to have The Last Word, by making out that the discussion "wasn't going my way". Well, I've left you the Last Word. I hope it makes you happy. Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that just as I was getting what I consider an important point across, you tried to shut down the discussion as being off topic. It was written in a hurry so came across poorly.  Wasn't trying and didn't mean to offend.  --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, you weren't making any headway with me at all. I can't speak for JonChapple, but I'd be surprised if your argument convinced him when it wasn't convincing me. I think it's a safe bet that if we'd both responded to you, you would hve been disappointed/frustrated with the response. That's precisely why I decided it was time to stop: not only was the discussion off-topic but it was going around in circles.
 * BTW, if you think that post came across poorly, you still have the option of striking it. I'm not bothered whether you do or not, just reminding you that the option is there. Scolaire (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed about myself that I tend to be logical and pedantic, which can be as bad and come across as pigheaddedly stubborn and argumentative, and a big flaw is I sometimes/often miss a "bigger picture" or miss some context. When I get bogged down, I can be a bit slow.  And I'm not as articulate as some others here.  For me, discussions are extremely helpful and sometimes result in illuminating an aspect that changes my viewpoint.  For example, you made a good point about usage of the word "thereof" that I'd missed - and the implications were interesting.  I found it frustrating/interesting that your (and JonC's) entire argument hinges around the interpretation of the word "may", and you immediately tried to shut down the discussion after I presented a legal interpretation.  You might (or might not) find the following extract from a judgement in the High Court enlightening as it also corrects another of your postings in a response to Murray:


 * You may also tangentially find this reaction/discussion in 1998 interesting and enlightening (or possibly not). In a discussion in how to handle extradition warrents in the future, Lord Lester of Herne Hill states:


 * Perhaps you already knew all this, hence your dismissal of the point I was making, and the lack of headway. --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did, and yes, that was why. If you want to trawl through the archives you'll find my response to those back in 2008, probably more than once. I don't want to go round the roundabout again :-) Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is even more puzzling that you'd say That is not the same thing as "there, it is the official name for the state." No country has an official name for any other independent country. I can't see how our differences are down to interpretation TBH. --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Video Helmet Cam
Your comment about eliminating any reference to "the Mark Schulze fan club" is duly noted; however, I really think it would be good to show the second helmet cam config which Martin Graf wore, so please put it back in there. This connects some dots between the first and later helmet cameras and is an intrinsic part of the early evolution of the helmet camera. Photographs of early helmet cameras are rare enough. Why would you want to dispose of it??? (i.e., throw baby out with bath water...)? Sincerely, PKM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that relevant. Sure, helmet cams evolved, but what is the notable difference for the Graf model?  It seems a relatively small incremental improvement - still basically sticks a chip camera on a helmet and records the feed to a backpack.  Anyway, I don't "own" the article - if you think it's notable, go ahead and put it into the article and help readers understand why it deserves mention.  --HighKing (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ireland Portal
If you're worried about Eirinn/Eire/na hEireann etc you could try the Irish language wikipedia. I don't really have an opinion on this other than gramatically it shouldn't be "na hEireann", and probably should be a dative form (but TBH I'm not be fussed about it). The 'Éirinn' form is the same as Failte Ireland (who curiously don't translate their name) or the phrase Go bhfanad in Éirinn go brách it forms off the word Éire after go dti, ar, in or ó. ( and ppl say rote learning grammar doesn't work eh :) ). But again I have no strong feelings here and if the irish wikipedians correct me go ahead and use their expertise. BTW I mentioned BHG because I thought she contributed to the Irish wikipedia I must have been confused-- Cailil  talk 14:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go raibh maith agat. Maith an smaoineamh é! --HighKing (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to "Britain (placename)" comments
Hi. I replied to that on my talk page, to keep it all togther.Dave (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @HighKing. I'm reluctant to get into an edit war over there, but I have very serious reservations about all the new text being added.  There seems to be a great deal of OR, synthesis, and irrelevant commentary being included in what should be a (probably quite short) article about the origin of the name, and nothing else.  It may be possible to try and wait until he has "finished" doing what he is doing, but it will then need a very thorough reappraisal.  Or, if you think it should be nipped in the bud sooner, I will go along with that.  What do you think?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping an eye as well. There's a general lack of citations, and definitely some irrelevant commentary, but it's probably best to see where the article ends up, then just tag and copy-edit for clarity.  I've been doing a little copy-editting and tagging when I see it drifting, but overall I'm keeping hands off for now.  Actually .... I wasn't really sure why he decided to change the article in the first place.  I thought the original article was just fine really.  --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)