User talk:N-HH/Archive 4

Delinking, again
Firstly, to clarify, I'm not running a bot. I use a script.

I would delink 'France' in an article about French wine because the reader has come to that article to learn about wine, not about France. (Similarly, I would delink 'river' in an article about the River Thames, for example, becsause the reader has not come there to find out what a river is - they already know that). In the 'French wine' article they may well want to click on the more specific links later in the article to wine-producing regions of France, since these are directly relevant to the subject of the article.

No community decision can ever involve all editors - you are free to contest that decision at any time of you wish. And you're free to contest my judgment about what's too common to be worth linking. I'm not going to get involved in an edit war about it. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I'm not too up on the technical side of things here, and simply assume that when so many pages are being changed, it must be being done automatically rather than someone doing that much manually. Anyway, I'm unlikely to change any of them unless they show up on pages on my watchlist, so it's not going to be a huge issue. I just do think that it's seriously wrong - both in terms of the consensus, and particularly in your interpretation of it. You're now being quite explicit about the fact that you are taking it upon yourself to decide whether a word/link is relevant. You're also making very generalised assumptions about what everyone else goes to pages for in the first place, and then where they might wish to go to from there (the two are not the same thing, of course). And of course, someone might well know what X is - that doesn't mean they don't want to go the relevant WP page. Anyway, this all seems, forgive me, a little arrogant. As I said, where's the harm in just leaving things as they are when the links are already there, so that the reader has the choice each time?  N-HH   talk / edits  12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any editor who chooses to make, or not make, a link in an article is making a judgment about what s/he believes would be useful to the reader of the article. Otherwise we'd be linking every word and phrase, or none of them. I'm as entitled to my opinion about that as you are. It's not arrogance to say that, it's just disagreement on a matter of judgment. There is a benefit in restricting the number of links, as it lends more prominence to the truly useful links instead of swamping them with low-value ones that are likely to be rarely used. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, no, there's no assumption or judgment involved in providing or retaining a link, in terms of whether and how often people are going to use them or not, or whether they ought to be using them. It's merely saying that some people might want to click through, others might not - but they at least have the option to make that decision themselves. By removing the link unilaterally, you are denying them that choice, based solely on your prior judgment about which pages they should or shouldn't have quick access to. That's the rather obvious difference, and it's precisely the point I've been making. In my view, if something's worth having an article on, it's generally worth having a link to it on related pages. And that's never going to lead to "every word and phrase" being linked, that's just a ridiculous statement.


 * Links don't interrupt the flow or readability of the text in any way (unlike, eg footnotes, or, say, if the links came as pop-ups or something), and they don't "swamp" the reader in any other way either, unless you are assuming people can't make their own rational or personal choices about things in front of them. Your following observation that we need to give "prominence" to "truly useful" links, kind of suggests that you think they can't, or can't do it properly without guidance from the great and the good. And even if some links are "rarely used" - so what? How "rarely" would that have to be, and do you have the statistics to back up which links that would apply to anyway?  N-HH   talk / edits  15:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Over-linking does "swamp" (devalue if you prefer) the high-value links. The standard linking colour (blue) also causes disruption when reading text that contains too many links. A subjective decision does have to be made sooner than later regarding what to link, or you risk reaching the point where too many links are introduced. (Or do you believe that readers can also make "their own rational or personal choices" about what to click in the previous sentence?) In the case being discussed, it's easy for someone (whilst reading about French wines) to enter the word "France" in the search box, and then to click the Go button; however the "France" article adds little to the topics covered in an article on French wines. Relevant regions?—yes; grape varieties?—yes; esoteric production terms?—yes; but "France"—no. Here's a broad rule-of-thumb: link deeper often, sideways sometimes, upwards hardly. (It's interesting that "French" got mentioned, because the French WP contains some of the most hideously over-linked articles imaginable. We should avoid joining them.) HWV258 . 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder on how to use the search function, I had quite forgotten. Anyway, I refer you to my comments above, where I have already expressed views on the bizarre “what if we end up linking every word” argument, and on the thinking that says “readers should only be able to click through to certain types of articles, as decided by me”. To be more concise, perhaps – why remove things on multiple pages that could be useful to at least some readers, through unilateral diktat? Having said that I really don’t want to continue this conversation – I’ve said my piece, and everyone who's coming here is just repeating themselves and not actually responding to the specific points I've made. Chris may be having fun trawling through page after page removing what are often perfectly decent links, which other editors introduced at some point and which readers have no doubt clicked on in the past, I certainly have no intention of spending hours restoring them.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * N-HH: I've responded at Chris's page. Tony   (talk)  13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

One other point to consider: there are a lot of editors for whom edit-counts are of great importance, and for them, linking terms on a page is a soft target. There are two broad stances when it comes to linking: 1) be liberal and then slowly weed out the unnecessary links, or 2) start sparingly and gradually link the important items. The editors who have followed this closely for a while now believe that the second stance produces the best result for WP; and that is the mentality that we are trying to foster. Personally, I believe a fewer number of high-quality links produces a more professional publication. HWV258 . 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is this "we" of which you speak, and who put you in charge of Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, a small group of somewhat obsessed editors - no more than four or five - have unilaterally decided what the hundreds of thousands of the rest of us are allowed to link through to, and are busy, for example, removing any link to "France" or "England" from every single WP article they can find, including from infoboxes of all places. And as for the edit count point, I'm not sure it's relevant, but in so far as it is, it would appear to be those editors who are going to have the most "impressive" edit counts. As for "different approaches", you seem to have missed out a third one: avoid using any discretion, or analysis of what links might be relevant in one context but not in another, and remove en masse thousands of perfectly decent links, which other editors - who were looking at that specific page at the time - thought reasonable enough to include at one point.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who put you in charge? Tony   (talk)  21:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody. If you can point me to where I've been adding (or removing) hundreds of links, thereby imposing my own views on hundreds of articles, or where anything I've said or done gives the impression that I think "everything should be linked", your throwing back the accusation might have some relevance. As I have consistently suggested, these decisions can be left to individual editors, making discretionary judgments in the context of each page, with agreed guidelines forming the background to any such changes.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...on hundreds of articles..."—have you stopped to consider why you are receding into the tiny minority of editors involved with those articles who don't appreciate the removal of the links? The overwhelming majority of edits are seen as they are intended: as improving the readability and professionalism of WP. Perhaps it would be good for you to take a break, examine more of the edits in question, and see if you too can appreciate the merit underpinning them—the improvement of WP by dedicated and experienced editors. HWV258 . 10:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide the testimonials for these sweeping assertions about what the majority think? And please re-read my comments where I acknowledge - sometimes explicitly - that plenty of the removals are fine. And even that's only my personal view - others may disagree even with that, as is their right. No one has a monopoly on skill, dedication, professionalism or experience. The fundamental point is is about editors running scripts that make blanket removals of terms from all articles and failing to exercise any discretion.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If your argument is that this is proven because people are not for the most part reverting or amending the changes, that would seem to be a big assumption. There could be many reasons for that -
 * People haven't even noticed
 * They don't care one way or the other
 * They think that the sweeping removals are part of some kind of "official" clean-up
 * Or, yes, they do agree with the removal of the links
 * I'm sorry, but again all I can see is sweeping assumptions about what everyone else thinks, and arrogance about who's "professional" and "dedicated to improvement", or otherwise. And, as noted, you don't seem to have grasped that quite often even I fall into category four. I don't need to take a step back or "appreciate" anything. Not least because I'm not making hundreds of changes to articles.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Optimising our wikilinking system
N-HH, I refer to a note you left on the talk page of Colonies Chris. WP:LINK specifies that well-known geographical names should not generally be linked. Colonies Chris is doing readers a service by reducing the dilution of high-value links; ironically, this makes readers more likely to click on linked items—the high-value ones. Tony  (talk)  23:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m well aware he’s justifying his actions by reference to WP:LINK – that’s why I based most of my point-by-point criticism of his rationale around it. Pointing me back to it again isn't really explaining much, or dealing with any of those points. Your subsequent comments about “high value” links and what readers are “more likely” to click on kind of justifies my comments about assumptions and judgments in the extended conversation above. Several readers – myself included – seem unsure that this mass removal of links by a single editor is doing them much of a service at all. Perhaps we should learn to be more grateful, and understand that it is all being done for our own good.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nahum Shahaf
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nahum Shahaf, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ← George talk 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, no worries, wasn't aware you were topic banned. Just saw you as an editor involved in a similar discussion in 2008, so thought I'd extend the courtesy of an invite. Cheers. ← George talk 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, it was a supremely dumb and disproportionate "ban every name we can see in front of us" decision, especially given the fact that certain editors still have licence to roam around those pages, but actually I'm not too bothered in the end, as it saves me from getting bogged down in all those intractable disputes. I quite admire those who have the perseverance, and who also endeavour to do it from a neutral and reasonable perspective amidst all the partisan politics.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking, delinking, and the greater good
N-HH, I just wanted to express my appreciation after reading your thoughts on internal links and the "overlink" script-based delinking that some users are currently involved in. I've no desire to drag you into this mess, so I'll simply state that I feel I've been subject to a lot of abuse from certain parties for opposing their mass delinking effort. (Among other things, I've been told in no uncertain terms that I won't be happy until the entire project is reduced to a "sea of blue". News to me, but apparently others know best.) Along the way, I've never managed to find a way to properly express where I lie in the over- versus under-linked continuum. Your thoughts over the past few days have thus been very helpful for me in terms of clarifying matters, as we share similar views regarding the use of links. So, again, thanks for making the effort to stand up and speak your mind. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  20:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note - while quickly checking around this issue, after one of the removals came up via my watchlist, I did notice that you were under siege a little, and nearly got in touch myself. I think it's one of things where the silent majority will gradually start to rouse itself, once all these mass removals start filtering into people's consciousness. Most people probably won't care one way or the other, but I'm guessing many, like you and I, will start asking what the point of this all is, and sometimes conclude that it's actually incredibly unhelpful, even borderline vandalism. Yes you can have crazy overlinking, and unnecessary repeat links within an article, but as both us keep having to point out, that's not the point at issue. That can be dealt with in the course of normal editing. Linking is more than a simple MoS issue, it's about content as well. However, potentially useful links to clearly relevant pages and major topics are being removed en masse, on the say so of three to four editors running automated systems, as if they were removing typos or standardising punctuation. Where is the consensus for any of this? Does it actually improve "readability" anyway?  N-HH   talk / edits  21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "crazy"? "Borderline vandalism"? Please see WP:CIVILITY, which is on the borderline in your accusations. I note that there was never consensus to link such well-known geographical items as "UK", "Australia" and "United States" in the first place. Or perhaps you can point to it. I note that Ckatz has been on a campaign for several years to see these items linked in geographical articles. Why? This is what we ask in wonderment. Tony   (talk)  02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those aren't anywhere close to coming under the auspices of WP:CIVIL. One is describing a personal opinion, and the other is actually referring to overlinking. As for the rest of your statement, Tony, I must admit genuine surprise at your apparent confusion with regard to the linking guideline. Contrary to what you've said above, the guideline was at one point quite clear in its direction with regard to geographical locations:"'In general, do create links to... geographic place names, since many places have similar names, and many readers may be from a distant place.' (Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context)"You unilaterally rewrote that text, as well as text in a related guideline, in July 2008:"'The names of geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should generally not be linked...' (Rewrite of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context)""'The names of geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should generally not be linked where, in the context, they are unlikely to confused with other locations of the same name, and the linked article would not specifically add to readers' understanding of the topic at hand; this includes country names such as United States, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, India and China, and the names of cities such as New York City, London, Moscow and Paris. ' (Rewrite of Wikipedia:Linking, then known as MOSLINK)"You can label my opposition in any way you see fit, but those undiscussed changes dramatically altered the focus of certain aspects of the "what to link" and "what not to link" sections, and mark the genesis of today's contentious "common terms" language. --Ckatz chat spy  05:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be stuck on that, don't you—turning it into a personal vendetta: Tony the evil one. Well, I'm sorry, but it wasn't unilateral, although one editor, clearly, had to make the change. And despite your objections, it has enjoyed wide support. The proper place to suggest whatever you want to go back to is at WT:LINK. However, you don't, because you know it will not succeed. End of story. Tony   (talk)  08:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course, even now, the guideline still talks about including links when they are "relevant". How running automated scripts that remove any link on any page to a given term fits in with that requirement, which presumably requires some appreciation of context and the application of discretion in each case, is slightly beyond me. The value of links, even to what may indeed be "well known" places, has been pointed out. Your argument is that "everyone knows what/where England is, so we shan't be linking to it, in any article, even in an infobox". Well, as pointed out, a) links are not simply there to educate readers about something they may not know about, with what they need to know about being pre-determined uniformly by a cabal of those-who-know-what-is-best; b) why stop there - is Algeria so insignificant a nation that we poor dumb readers are universally assumed not to know where/what it is, and by contrast, but by the same reasoning process, do need the link to that country? And I'm still utterly baffled by the readability point. I can read sentences with blue words in them easily enough. What I can't do is read incivility into attaching the adjective "crazy" to hypothetical overlinking, or see where I said that "everything should be linked", as noted above. Or read the description “evil Tony” anywhere in what CKatz said, even though there does indeed seem to be a pattern in the way you misrepresent the positions of people you disagree with.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ps: as to "where is the consensus to include these links", well it's there in the fact that many pages, edited by many different editors over time, currently include some of them. Anyway this question should not be thrown back at those arguing for discretion and for case-by-case judgment, to be freely exercised by other editors in each such case - the onus to show consensus is clearly on those advocating and practising mass removal of links
 * I've been reading this discussion from afar, and think that it's time to take this to a wider venue (WT:LINKING, probably). I don't think you three will get anywhere, judging the direction in which this discussion is traveling. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV seems increasingly more appropriate, especially given that any concerns are just ignored and rejected flat-out by the two or three editors who claim they know best, while they continue to run their scripts across hundreds of pages regardless. We readers of this encyclopedia are such irritants, I know.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments like that are the exact reason we need this to go to a different venue. I'll assume that you meant WP:ANI and not AIV. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, actually, it's WT:LINK. Tony   (talk)  15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did mean AIV, although I was half-joking. The thing with going back to LINK is that the issue seems to have already been settled there by a small number of editors who pretty much agree on what the problem supposedly is, and how to deal with it. That's part of the problem - these kind of wide-ranging changes need a wider input. There's no proper consensus anywhere for these extensive, blanket changes. The irony is that it would seem myself and Ckatz broadly, as individuals, agree with the position on overlinking, and aren't taking issue with most of what ends up being removed - we've just expressed perfectly reasonable concerns about the use of indiscriminate scripts, as if these were just typos being dealt with. However, we just get brushed off and accused of wanting seas of blue etc. There's no sense that those running them are even prepared to acknowledge that there might be a problem with the results in some cases. That just seems to be common sense, if nothing else. And specific examples have been provided.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that inferring that someone is "ill"] because you don't agree with WP:LINKING really is a serious breach of WP's civility policy. I must ask you to cease and desist such behaviour. Chris clearly finds it offensive, whereas we are all here to do service to the pillars of the project; politeness, even kindness, is part of that. Tony  (talk)  09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Civility at WP
Be advised that an edit such as this one of yours is unacceptable at WP. Insinuating that someone is ill, and categorically stating that you believe they have OCD simply because you don't appreciate their point-of-view is not tolerated at WP. Persisting with edits such as this will lead to further actions being taken against you. HWV258 . 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * N-HH clearly shouldn't have included the offending remarks as part of his comments on CC's page. However, the "warnings" posted here - especially the threats of blocks - are too harsh and should also have been handled differently. As written above, they serve only to aggravate an already tense situation. --Ckatz chat spy  05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue that the comment was not out of order, even if it was meant partly in jest. Obviously it was, and I retract it and apologise. Having said that, I and others have tried reasoning and asking for a little flexibility, but have repeatedly been given the finger. And please note, and as frequently explained, it is also nothing to do with me "not agreeing with WP:LINK" - it is do with my disagreeing with a very rigid interpretation and enforcement of it, by a small minority of editors. I raised reasonable concerns on Chris' page about indiscriminate scripts and suddenly had Chris and two others coming here, telling me I was wrong and should quit whingeing, that this was all for my own good and that of other editors, and that I wanted to "link everything" etc etc. In the meantime, they just carried on as before, continuing to make hundreds of minute-by-minute changes to hundreds of pages, in line with their preferences, without a pause for breath. That indeed seemed to be borderline obsessive behaviour, which led to a comment born out of frustration. It seems increasingly impossible to get anyone to edit here on the basis of what seems to be me to be simple common sense and intelligent judgment, on this and other points. As for block threats, perhaps I would say this, but it's quite clear to me who's being more disruptive here to the overall way this place works.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, the culture has moved on. Tony   (talk)  08:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What, away from the application of common sense and the use of intelligent judgment? You may well be right, assuming it was ever there in the first place. Which seems pretty unlikely when I look at most of the content and most of the people who edit here.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at your contribs page, and you make an impressive contribution to WP. We need more people to do this. Please give this issue the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I can see you're either angry or despondent, or perhaps both: there is no need for this to be so. Tony   (talk)  14:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly either, just wearily resigned, as usual. My substantive contributions are actually quite limited, but I like to think that I help occasionally by making minor corrections where I spot obvious errors, or by trying to inject some reason, or offer some compromise, into the odd talk page debate. I'd spend far less time here if I didn't allow myself to be dragged into some of the wilder spats, especially those involving people who seem to see this place as a platform for their various nationalist or other political and fringe causes. Formatting issues are a secondary concern, but I do see similar elements there, eg of people on a mission, eg to make Wikipedia look the way they want it to look. If everyone was a bit more casual and open-minded in the way they contribute - in the best sense of those terms, ie not in terms of encouraging flakiness - everything would be a little easier, and you'd get better content.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree
... with your quite sensible edit summary as to "too much time". If anyone wants to weigh in on a substantive dispute I'm involved in, just leave word here and I'll be happy to direct them to new terrain ... though I fear that there POV may be leading some to make arguments that are less than good faith. Of course, that just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Never happens on wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (whoops ... signing late)


 * Not sure I'd be on your side in other disputes (I'm not sure whether I had this username when we last "met" - I changed it a while ago). Plus, ideally, I'd rather avoid disputes anyway. Unfortunately I'm easily sucked in, especially when I see rigidity and certainty being imposed on pages here (whether in terms of style, or substantive content). My experience here is that too many people get things the wrong way round, and either try to render complex things too simply, or conversely make what should be simple things too complicated. Btw, you can still sign your name by manually inserting the four tildes.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What was your previous username, if you don't mind my asking? Tony   (talk)  09:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the point of changing it was to preserve my anonymity a little more, so I'm not going to answer that directly, since it would kind of defeat the purpose of that. Plus I never much liked the way it looked in writing. That said, it's all in the user page history. It's not exactly secret, or even that significant.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks; if that's the case, I won't bother looking. :-)  Tony   (talk)  10:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about C/cabinet at WT:MOS
So what should we do about the raft of capitalisation I found in articles on British politics when I did some cleaning up on and after the recent election? I didn't risk making wholesale changes, but something tells me people would be OK if C were changed to c.

IMO, the adjacency of a surname changes nothing: "the Churchill cabinet". Tony  (talk)  10:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As with all these things there needs to be relative consistency of principle one way or the other really I guess, at least within UK-related pages, and probably across the whole site. My point really was that there is no clear external "British" standard that can be referred to, as habits vary considerably between different publications in the UK. In addition of course there are so many variables involved anyway - eg whether you are looking at the ministerial title when preceding the office-holder's name, as compared to general references to the post itself; whether the formal name of the ministerial post is being used, or a shorthand alternative, or a more generic description; specific cabinets, as above, rather than general references to the cabinet. My personal preference is for less capitalisation. I suspect though that people really don't care too much either way, ie whether it's a jumbled mess, or whether most titles, posts and collective nouns are changed to go up or most changed to go down. Currently, the central MoS on caps - as I'm sure you know - is a bit non-committal and lacks details, although does have some basic principles. Maybe drop a note at the UK politics page?  N-HH   talk / edits  15:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I worry that we'll find "he was a Garbage Collector for for the Bristol Council". Tony   (talk)  07:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is lovely of course, but I didn't ask for it .. given in error, or is it like a bonus of some sort?  N-HH   talk / edits  18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's like a Christmas gift in June...! ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 03:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested
See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, I'm probably not even allowed to post on that noticeboard. I like Nableezy's plan, especially for the bit about more stringent sourcing rules, but as you say, it probably won't fly because of the news point. The thing is that it's not about individual editors - although there are "bad" ones on both "sides", who might be better removed from the process sometimes - but about the very nature of the topic. It's contentious in the real world, if you'll forgive the understatement. And if you ban Editors A & B for edit warring/incivility or whatever, Editors C & D will soon sign up and fight the same battles all over again, while still trying to build entire articles based simply on what CAMERA (ok, or George Galloway) has to say about something. The ground rules on sourcing, content and naming conventions etc - based on international norms and perspectives, not the preferences of either side in the real world conflict - have to be set in stone first, and people made to adhere to them. But hey, I tried to push for that, and got topic banned for my trouble ..  N-HH   talk / edits  05:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Occitan wine
Since many pages were unilaterally removed from the category, I believe you and your friends didn't leave much room for discussion. Anyway, if you ever care to read the labels before drinking wine from Southern France, you'll notice that the terms vin de pays d'Oc or even Occitanie are used increasingly to designate not only products from the artificially created Languedoc-Roussillon region, but also from Gascony to Provence. You may also like to know that the French government strictly forbids printing labels in Occitan or giving wines Occitan names (that is, with an Occitan spelling) whereas people from Midi struggle for the recognition of their national identity as Occitans and the teaching of their language at school. Stricto sensu, calling a médoc, a marcillac or a côtes-de-provence French is an aberration as only Burgundy wines can be said to be historically French. Would you say haggis is English just because Scotland was conquered and is now ruled by London? Occitan wine is a relevant category inasmuch as wine, just like cheese and cuisine, is a cultural pride here and a strong symbol of identity when all the rest fails. This being said, you and your friends don't seem to know much about the matter and still play God with Wikipedia so fairness, balance and truth are probably the last things you should think of before deleting any more... Sincerely yours, AnPrionsaBeag (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the purpose of this site. It is not a venue for addressing perceived grievances, or for the assertion of nationalist, ethnic or cultural pride. It is meant to be an accurate record of the world as is, not as one might wish it to be, or as it once might have been in the mists of time. "Occitane wine" is not, as has been pointed out, a common label or term. "Vin de Pays d'Oc" is a commonly used designation, but has a very specific meaning, which does not include AOC wines from Bordeaux and the Rhone. I believe that I and Tomas are entirely correct about those points. However, I would happily be proven wrong about at least the first one, if for example you could provide me with evidence, from a reliable and authoritative source that suggests that "Occitan wine" is in fact commonly used in the real world. Oh, and Haggis is correctly described as Scottish here, simply because most reliable sources describe it that way. The process for writing content here is easier than you're trying to make it.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits and style
Hi

Thanks for the comments - I do not mind anything that helps me improve at all :¬)

I have replied to your comments on my userpage.

I did learn one thing today as a result of your comments and that is always a good thins lol - loth and loath are the same thing apparently. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I unintentionally removed a comment of yours from the EDL talk page. It was restored by another editor. Please accept my apologies. Verbal chat  16:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I always take up too much space with what I say anyway ..  N-HH   talk / edits  16:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just seconding
your recent edit at Howard Zinn. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I suspect there are many more like that elsewhere here, but one does what one can. There's no need to use such a loaded term as "liberation" of course, just as pages shouldn't go the other way and talk about "military aggression" or "criminal invasion" or whatever as if it were fact, even if you think that's the case. People can make their own judgments about all that stuff, without the text shoving it in their face.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Private Eye: Reliable source?
Hi, I see you removed my edit from The Guardian, sourced to Private Eye. Your edit summary mentioned reliable sources; am I to take it that you do not consider Private Eye a reliable source? You can answer below and I will keep an eye on this page. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem I had with the addition as well was that it was a fairly speculative comment, ie that the paper "might" look at the issue of charging again in the light of the Times paywall. Sure it might - it might not as well. Equally it might "look" at the option, and decide to stay as they are. It was all a bit vague really, and I think something a bit more concrete would be needed to be worth including on an encylopedia page about The Guardian, whatever the source.


 * As for PE more generally, I think it kind of depends. The opening pages (eg Street of Shame, HP sauce etc) are mostly gossip and tittle tattle, as well as slightly sarky or even bitchy commentary. Even if some of what it reports is true or accurate, it's usually all a bit trivial for an encyclopedia. The more substantive and serious stuff in the back is better, but the magazine often sticks its neck out quite a lot - sometimes that means it gets there before the rest of the media, at other times it means it gets it badly wrong. Given that we don't need to write WP pages to every passing piece of news, I don't see the problem with waiting for additional sources for specific claims about hard facts. At the very least stuff probably needs to be attributed (eg "according to a Private Eye investigation, the police failed to ..."). Anyway, here's a previous discussion about the issue on the reliable source board. I think they're probably a bit too generous, but they broadly make the same points.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I won't seek to re-introduce the Guardian material. And on adding any other PE stuff I will endeavour always to attempt to find a second source. --bodnotbod (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm not necessarily right of course, but that does seem to be broadly the consensus view in respect of PE. Which, incidentally is a great magazine. But then so is Viz, and I'd be careful about using content from that here as well.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion - the issue of referencing the Eye seems to come up in various articles. I certainly wouldn't compare the Eye to Viz, they are entirely qualitatively different. Private Eye actually does have a long and credible history of it's early stories, obsessions or banged drums later turning out to be very major stories once the "mainstream" media gets off it's collective butts and bothers to take note of them. At which point they generally claim they are their own scoops. Yes, it is true the PE sometimes gets it wrong, but is this really more often that the notoriously sloppy Times, Guardian and Indie? I suspect not. My guess is that the Eye should be regarded as a quality source for stories that appear in the front and back sections. I know people would opppose this, but the bland assumption that it's a valid source if it's from the "quality press" is equally suspect. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The point about Viz was intended as a jokey aside, in that it’s obviously a spoofy and smutty comic really, with some occasional elements of political satire, but nothing of course really in the way of serious journalism. With PE, I think as ever, as with all sources, you just have to exercise some judgment on each occasion, while being conscious of more general issues with those sources. Agreed, proper newspapers get things wrong all the time as well, and have their own biases and viewpoints. The other problem with relying on the media as a whole of course is the sense of recentism and sometimes of trivia or sensationalism it drags into pages here. But I do think all that is more of an issue with PE, and the stuff in the front, as I say, is often as much gossip and sarky commentary as anything else, unsuitable for encyclopedia pages regardless of the likelihood of it being accurate or not. And, as suggested, I think attribution is usually important. As it often is with quality papers.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't really think you were recommending we make Viz an approved quality source. :) True about the gossipy stuff in PE. I do think it can be quoted sometimes in appropriate contexts. Time has shown the Eye to be just as fact-checked as any of the Qualies and more so than most of our esteemed tabloids. There are quite a few Daily Mail cites in Wikipedia and we all know the veracity of that organ! Perhaps we should start a Private Eye fanclub in Wikipedia with the usual aims, denigrating Andrew Neil, the memory of James Goldsmith, popping at the Times, the Indie, the Grauniad, etc. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Elliott Smith
I'm glad I could help out. I didn't do all the album pages, even though I probably could have done that. That particular album had so many reviews that didn't need to be there, however; it stuck out like a sore thumb and needed to be taken care of. Happy editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job on the review modifying so far. You can disregard the second sentence of my previous post on your talk page, because it could be open for mistranslation. I did post something on the anonymous person's talk page about meddlings on the Figure 8 (album) page. Thanks and happy editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, like I said, it was in the back of my mind to strip out loads of those reviews, but I just hadn't got round to it - I tend to accumulate in my mind things I notice that I think need changing or removing, and only get round to doing them days later, so more than happy for someone else to do it. It's good to know that someone else had more or less the same thought at the same time about "From a Basement ..". And as you say, guidelines suggest 10 max - and even not putting them in infoboxes these days, I think, although that doesn't bother me too much. In fact I think I prefer them as straight, selected links to serious websites or sources that people can just click on and go to, rather than in a lengthy narrative para where quotes can be cherry-picked, like a film poster.
 * I think the IP is keen, and that's fine, but more generally, I just don't see the need for endless mentions of random "best of" lists and links to and quotes from obscure reviews, which just come across as an attempt to big up a band or album as if WP were a fansite, or even a music magazine. It's really prevalent on music pages - when it's OTT, it jars with me whether I like the band or not (often more if I like the band), and to me it's just as pointless as scouring the web for bad reviews and highlighting all those would be. Sometimes I wonder if any decade has ever had a band or album that wasn't "massively influential", "critically acclaimed", "landmark" or whatever. Plus the IP just reverts without engaging, even when I've done them the favour of adding and formatting references for content I'd personally rather not have there at all, which is a little irksome. Oh well.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability
A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cornish people
A minor point perhaps, but I am not convinced that the term Celtic nations is restricted to a group of activists. That there are Celtic nations is well documented. It is not the preserve of the Celtic League and/or Celtic Congress. Those I consider to be neither Celtic activists, nor with any particular axe to grind include:

Scottish Government,Welsh Assembly Government, Government of Ireland, Isle of Man Government, The Sunday Times, Robert Salisbury (The Times), Alan Finlayson (The Grauniad), Michael White (The Grauniad), Irish Times, Jenny Randerson AM, George Lyon MSP, Andrew George MP, Alun Ffred Jones AM, historian John Davies (see A History of Wales, Penguin, 1994, "Welsh Origins", p. 54), National Museum Wales, National Library of Wales, Andrew Davies AM, Frank Hennessy, David Joy, Steve Brace and John Allen head of athletics at Scottish Athletics, Athletics Association for Wales and Northern Ireland Athletics Federation respectively, BBC History, John Kelly (BBC News magazine), Lawrie Sanchez, Martin Shipman (Western Mail) and Karen Price (Western Mail). Additionally, reference is made to the Celtic countries (used as a synonym): RTE, Rhodri Morgan AM, Byron Davies, (Chief Executive of Cardiff Council), Irish Government. John T. Koch notes in Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia, Volumes 1-5, p365, “As a conventional term 'the Celtic countries' means Ireland (Eire), Scotland, (Alba), Wales (Cymru), Brittany (Breizh), the Isle of Man (Ellan Vannin) and Cornwall (Kernow). … Galicia is often considered a Celtic country, particularly with regard to its music.”. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for links. Not sure I'll get through them all, but a quick glance at a couple just now kind of proves me half right - quite a few seem to be used in respect of Scotland, Wales and [Northern] Ireland only (ie only internal to the UK or "these" islands, and not including Cornwall) and often in a sporting context, while others are from people who might be said to have an angle on the issue. Nothing wrong with the latter of course, and perhaps my description "activists" was a bit limiting as well, but those were the two points I was making really.  N-HH   talk / edits  19:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cornwall hasn't much of a presence on the world stage. Consequently, Cornwall does not tend to crop up that often. If one were to specifically discuss Nigeria and Uganda, referring to them as 'the African countries' would not mean there are no others. Anyway, now I understand you objection a little better … none of these relate to sports and none have an 'angle' AFAICT: Celtic cookbook, Songs of the 6 Celtic nations (both published in New York), US Army (Germany), North Dakota State Government, Official Tourism Website of the Commonwealth of Virginia, VisitPA.com (Pensylvania), Oklahoma State Senate, Celtic Heritage Society (Mississippi), Winchester News, Ky, Texas Music Office, City of Chicago, Ben Lobb MP (on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages), etc., etc., etc.  Do these help? Daicaregos (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, but talking about a nation or country as being “African” is clearly understood – or at least clearly understandable – and regularly used terminology with a pretty consistent meaning. It’s clear which (sovereign) nations/countries fall within the term, and which don’t. “Celtic” nations/countries is far more subjective and means different things in different contexts. And some of the latest examples are quite clearly of the “Celtic heritage” type, or on tourist sites, which is kind of the point I’m making about angles. Plus, one is talking very specifically from the outset about Galicia – which is not even one of the Celtic nations even under the Celtic League definition, I believe.  I’m not disputing it is used in the broader sense you mean it, ie to include various sub-national entities and regions, in several places – including in some mainstream and/or academic contexts - but I just don't think that's the most usual use of it overall. Similar to perhaps how we disagreed previously on what most people would usually mean by "nation". Anyways, the fact that the reference to Celtic nations on the Cornwall page links to the page explaining that definition makes inverted commas redundant, as accepted. I'm happy to agree to disagree on the underlying point, if that's where we're still at.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention most serious scholars of European archaeology, prehistory, language and culture doubt the existence of the "Celts" anyway. Not trolling, just making the point that there is a large element of antiquarian fantasy in the modern conception of Celtica. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I really don't want to start a lengthy debate on this topic on my talk page! But will pass brief comment myself, since it is my page. I think I'd sit somewhere in the middle on that. Yes, much of it is rooted in romantic/revivalist origin myths of the sort that afflict all peoples, and many - not sure how fair "most" is - serious scholars are sceptical in some way. However, at the same time, there are areas of northwest Europe, including Britain - and even England, with or without Cornwall - that are noticeably more what we would now call "Celtic" than others, eg in terms of language use, general culture and place names etc, to a lesser of greater degree. Last word.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I always wonder when I'm in Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, etc, to what extent other much more recent forces have shaped that "differentness" which we English notice so strongly. Of course, our ancient linguistic, genetic and cultural roots do influence us, but so do a lot of other things. I would think of things like non-Conformism in Wales, Catholicism and non-Conformism in Scotland and non-Conformism in Cornwall as being particularly important, as well as socialist struggle and (in Wales particularly) deliberate marginalisation and oppression based on language. Not to mention the last two hundred years of extreme industrialisation and a marked tendancy by the British ruling class (and I include Welsh and Scottish aristocratic families in that) to focus particularly acute oppressive exploitation of working people at those "on the margins" in the West and North. The further away from London, the less trouble you could cause. The Victorian upper-class world-view started in Pall Mall and ended in Ealing. :-) So much racial inter-mingling has taken place over subsequent centuries that I am very sceptical that much "pure Celtic" remains in most of Britain. Most that we see now was re-invented during the last 150 years. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oi, I said last word! Anyway, I agree with that all pretty much. Indeed, my reaction to a lot of this stuff is rooted in an essentially leftist worldview - and the perhaps rather banal idea that most people have a lot more in common in other ways than in terms of what divides them "nationally" or "ethnically" - rather than any sense that English, British or any other nationalisms are an improvement. And of course, a lot of nationalisms gloss over divides within them, in terms of culture as well as economics or whatever - for example doesn't a working class lowland urban Scot have more in common with their equivalent from Newcastle than either do with a highland Laird; a Scottish crofter have more in common with a Lancashire smallholder than an Edinburgh lawyer? Although equally I'm not making the simplistic claim that all nationalism is bad, or equally detrimental - it is of course in large part about power structures and relationships and all that stuff as well, as well as how inclusive any nationalism is. In fact, in the utterly hypothetical scenario of my having to choose sides between Welsh nationalism say and British, where they do conflict, I'd choose the former. At least they have a viable proper socialist party there.


 * Anyway, that's all for my blog, were I to have one. As for how it all affects this place, I think the problem is that the more nationalistically minded editors tend to be more assertive, and articles inevitably tend to highlight that perspective rather than reflecting the attitudes of most people, which is probably slightly more indifferent to all these things - that being a good thing, in my view. I think Wikipedia is at its most boring when it's used as a platform for people to tell the world how great their favourite nation, band or consumer product is. I'm not necessarily suggesting that's a problem all the time, but it can be seen all over this place quite often.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your post on my talk page
It's good to hear from peopel who can work out what's going on.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. WP can and should accommodate people with all sorts of views - including, possibly even those who might have tweeted just the other day in these exact words: "Islam is not a religion. It's a genocidal death cult founded by a hate mongering genocidal murderer" ... "The Qur'an is a handbook of terror, nothing more. Mohammed was a genocidal murderer of Jews" - but why should other people here have to put up with someone who engages in blatant intimidation and harassment and attempted outing of perfectly decent and reasonable editors on their website, with all its quasi-fascist and militaristic trappings? How would talk page interactions with that person work exactly, knowing he held that threat over anyone who disagreed with him, mentor or no mentor? And then of course he ended up posting that vile, doctored rant. There are plenty of people who fight genuine anti-semitism, here and elsewhere, without resorting to that sort of crap. Anyway, here's my bid to out "Mr Appletree".  N-HH   talk / edits  17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Hi. I have a lot of regard for your edits and the work you do, but I would greatly prefer it if you could avoid doing anything like this in the future. We all (and I definitely include myself in this) need to work hard to get along with others here, and it is by far the hardest thing we do. Sometimes just avoiding a user one is having difficulty with is enough. Whatever it takes, but Tony has made it clear that he finds this sort of thing offensive, as anybody would. Please don't do it again. --John (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken and I'm sure it won't happen again, but equally I find Tony's constant and continuing descriptions of me - usually now in discussions with other users behind my back, while at the same time dropping a manifestly insincere message on my talk page, just as people were raising the issue of a trip to arbcom - as a "stalker", as being on a "hysterical campaign" and as posting "vomit" on his talk page to be rather egregious breaches of NPA (as was his recent description of another user's hypen-related edits and comments as "ignorant"). They are also grossly hypocritical, given his constant bleating and demands for immediate action when he feels himself slighted, however vaguely and occasionally. Motes and beams and all that.
 * I disagree with him about a couple of fairly trivial linking and style points, and that's what it descends to, even though I actually only make very occasional (and usually very minor) edits here. I also have him - and others do the same thing - repeatedly making bizarre and transparently mendacious claims about what I supposedly think about linking, for example. That derails any discussion and poisons the debate, as well as misleading any third party who briefly comes across that debate. A little dig at him on my own talk page, now hidden in the archives, seems trivial by comparison; and a better option than following his example and ranging across noticeboards and other users' talk pages to fling my shit around. As you suggest, it also avoids direct interaction. Not big and not clever, but there you go.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * N-HH, it was an apology in good faith, and it still stands. For what it's worth, I think your writing skills are impressive; and we share, apparently, a love for at least one novel that should provide a basis for conviviality. There's no reason not to wipe the slate clean. Tony   (talk)  13:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll accept that - as noted, my issue was the contrast with comments elsewhere that were being made at the same time and afterwards. Equally, the observation was not one born of preciousness, in that I am demanding an apology as such (the whole notion of penitence and apology is overplayed as I see the world). So happy to leave it all behind. Oh, and I have no particular interest in the Patrick White novel (or, it has to be admitted, fiction writing as a whole). It just happened to be yet another front in one of Wikipedia's interminable ethnic/nationalist debates, where cherry-picking, exaggeration and misquoting is valued more than objective analysis and description. When I do edit, I'm more likely to on a page about something that is of substantive interest, but not always - often it's just random serendipity that got me there, or something I happened to look up to find out quite how bad the page on that topic was.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail?
For a while now, I've been trying to think of a way to push this whole "linking/delinking" issue forward (as opposed to rehashing the "same old" arguments), because the current situation surely cannot be called "consensus". I have an idea that I want to discuss with you before I present it to others who don't agree with my general view on linking. Would you be interested in talking off-wiki about it? If so, please e-mail me from my user page. - dcljr (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tended to keep my occasional forays into editing and participating here all on the site itself and I think I'll probably stay with that I think, I'm afraid. It's just easier to keep one's involvement compartmentalised and limited that way; plus - I'm sure it doesn't apply here, but it feeds into the general principle - I think things are better discussed in the open as it avoids any suspicions of plotting. I did try to kick off an RfC a while ago, but, as usual, it just descended into bitchy sparring and repetition of argument between those who'd already had their say. Even then, I can't see how we'd ever avoid wrangling over subsequent interpretation.
 * I'm really not sure what the answer is - what would help more generally I think is if people were less rigid about asserting what is "right" or "wrong" for linking and also thought more from the perspective of the more casual readers here, who of course all come from massively diverse backgrounds and who come here for very different reasons. As soon as we start talking about "common" or "well known" terms, which we should supposedly not be linking, we're in the realm of the indefinable. By contrast, focusing more on relevance - or "salience", related information, or whatever - to the main topic offers a more clearly measurable criteria, as well as making obvious sense when we're talking about a reference encyclopedia. Busy editors who roam over thousands of articles looking at linking and style issues are obviously going to start asking "what do we need all these links to United States for"? But that's not the way most people will look at or use the site.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. I was mainly just wanting someone to bounce ideas off of regarding a framework for moving forward, not any specific discussion of what the principles, guidelines, etc., should actually be. I have an idea that I think will work, but probably only if it's presented clearly at the outset. Two other users have expressed an interest (both responding, unsolicited, to this message on your talk page, BTW), so I'll do the off-wiki preliminaries with them and post something to Wikipedia talk:LINK, Wikipedia talk:LEAD, and Wikipedia talk:MOS (not three copies of the same thing, of course), hopefully within the next week. Again, I stress that nothing will be discussed off-wiki (much less decided off-wiki) that will preempt or substitute for on-wiki discussion of the "actual issues"; the goal is strictly to encourage, as much as possible, a more effective on-wiki discussion going forward. (That last remark was mainly for other users' benefit, since clearly others will read this besides you.) - dcljr (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries .. and just to stress that I really wasn't suggesting that a plot of any sort was underway! In this case, it's more about time and compartmentalisation really (ie that when I'm not logged in here, I'm not here). But I'm all in favour of something that might clear these issues up, to the extent that will ever be possible; and I can't help but notice the growing level of broad scepticism being expressed about some of the more determined and rigid delinking that is going on. In fact, ever since I first came across the problem, most people who pass by briefly to comment or ask questions - at wp:link or on individual editor talk pages - have expressed slight puzzlement. It's only a hardcore of 3-4 people who have taken it upon themselves to impose their own rules on this.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The community at large is very satisfied with the more selective linking at en.WP that evolved between about 2006 and 2009, of which a notable aspect has been the significant support in RfC after RfC for ending date-linking in 2009. I think you'll find little support for turning back the clock to the less disciplined practices of the first five years of the wiki, when people hadn't really thought through the navigational aspects both as the big picture and in terms of the psychology of reading. Thank you. Tony   (talk)  14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony, ever since I first came across this issue several months ago now, I have repeatedly asked for evidence of this supposed consensus, and have NEVER seen or been shown any. Would you care to provide some now, finally? By contrast, as noted above, what I do see is a series of complaints/queries from a series of uninvolved and fairly random passing editors, at the talk pages of wp:link and the talk pages of the handful of "delinking" editors such as Colonies Chris, Ohconfucius etc. Suggesting that some people haven't thought this through as well as others, or talking about the psychology of reading as if one interpretation of such a thing would trump another, is an attempt to assert that one side is obectively "right" or somehow knows more about this than the other that won't wash I'm afraid.


 * As for the date-delinking issue, I am glad you brought that up - 1) dates have nothing to do with what we are discussing here (in fact, for the record, I generally support delinking of dates); 2) you and several of the other people enthusiastically reducing the ability of readers to easily navigate to some of the encyclopedia's most popular substantive topic pages from related articles were sanctioned in the arbitration case relating to date-delinking for your behaviour: which involved, then as now, a handful of editors ranging across thousands of articles imposing their preferred linking practices, when there was no mandate or consensus for that to be done. Whether you then got - or in this case, ever get - that consensus is neither here nor there. Thank you.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)