User talk:86.17.246.29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1] --Guinnog 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U2

Goodness, you have to be joking. Looking over your contribs, it's fairly obvious you have somesort of a bias agaisnt Ireland, so don't play any games. Secondly, it's one word. One word, doesn't make or break an article. It mentions where the band was formed: Ireland. If you have a problem with that, take it up with U2, not on Wikipedia. Yanksox 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no bias against Ireland (my contributions prove nothing of the sort so poor try there), I have bias against inconsistency (my contributions show my attempts to apply one rule dictated by others across all U2 articles). Kindly explain why a member article must state where the band is from but the band article must not state where the members are from? Why do different rules apply to different pages, all with exactly the same effect? None of you have yet addressed this point properly (apparently now it's down to ther number of words). When one of you gives a reason why I cannot add information, I use the exact same reason to change something else - and you all complain! Start sticking to your own rules for christ's sake. On anecdotal evidence you are the ones showing some agenda here: do NOT state a fact. 86.17.246.29 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Because, the identity of 2 of the band member's is in dispute, thus the articles state neither that they are Irish or British. The identity of the band is not in dispute. These are two different questions. Band members refer to the band as Irish. --Merbabu 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't about identities, or feelings, or kinship, it's about nationality. Until we have solid, cited evidence to the contrary, this resource must base its statements on the facts currently at hand. Are you going to argue against this? Facts such as place of birth, heritage and official documentation are known. Some of you are trying to say "ignore those facts, I think they will feel this instead". You are placing your own subjective, speculative arguments and assumptions of another person's beliefs above known facts - and consensus doesn't make that any more legitimate. Does this really sound sensible to you? Are you actually saying "because I personally think something is true, I am going to disregard the facts that oppose my personal view and wait until I see one that matches my point of view before making a decision"? Can that lead to a consistent and unbiased process? 86.17.246.29 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not insisted that Edge be called Irish in the articles. And I accepted your "U2 is from Dublin" change. --Merbabu 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am just about ready to block you if you continue to try to add irrelevant information about where various members of U2 are "from". These articles are written by consensus, and by deliberately going against the consensus you may be causing disrution where none is needed. You are also disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Please stop now. --Guinnog 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You too are so inconsistent it's not funny. It's irrelevant to say in an article about a band where its members are from when it is a fact not well known, but nevertheless absolutely true? Yet it's completely relevant to an article on The Edge where his band is from? Isn't that the wrong way round? Why has Edge's life story got to say where his band is from? Go ahead and block me, and keep your little private club refusing facts from being added to an encyclopaedia (what a curious policy: keep your facts to yourself because I don't like them). It's like primary school. 86.17.246.29 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you feel is is like primary school, the question has to be why do you stick around? Consensus - not difficult (but hey, we are only primary school students). --Merbabu 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Consensus is the tool of fools, the intellectually lazy, and conmen. As the greatest (and my favourite) contemporary thinker says: "The truth is not a democratic process and must never be so. Truth by democracy leads to misinformation, ingorance and, ultimately, tyranny." (Richard Dawkins). 86.17.246.29 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So, if that is the way you feel, why do you bother with Wikipedia? Who is more foolish? THe fool or... --Merbabu 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this anon (surprise!) editor is being a little inconsistent. he wants to remove reference to the band being Irish yet insists on putting English in front of Edge and Adam's names - even when their nationality per passport and birth place is explicitly stated. Neither Adam or Edge are said to be Irish in article, so i don't know what his problem is. His reasoning being is that we can't assume their nationality. Well, U2 hass consistently been labelled Irish by the band member's themselves. He has accused us of "tirades" and having "political motives". WTF? --Merbabu 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Merbabu appears to be a disingenuous and deceitful person, for he/she knows full well that I initially tried simply to add to the personal pages that The Edge and Clayton were British. Nothing more, nothing less. It was only after I was prevented from doing so that I tried to use the same reason given to me to make changes to the articles as also suggested. Don't complain about the conduct of others when you make a false and deliberately misleading claim in order to shout them down: I am using your own reasoning - given to stop me making two small changes - to make all U2 pages consistent in rules, and you prevent it. You then accuse me of bias and inconsistency. As for nationality, as previously stated, it is interesting that facts such as place of birth; passport; lineage; heritage are less significant to people who start making specualtions and uninformed assumptions about what a complete and utter stranger "feels" (are you joking?). My step-father was born in Dublin to Irish parents. They moved to London when he was 11 and he has lived nowhere else since. He served in the Royal Navy, fought in the Falklands, then worked for Royal Mail fo 20 years. He is a member of the British Legion and has an MBE for his charitable work with disabled British servicemen. You starter for 10: does he call himself British or Irish? And who the hell are you to tell him which he is and what he should be? 86.17.246.29 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please be specific where I have been deceitful - ie, evidence. To claim someone is "deliberately misleading" is a big claim - show us your evidence. And you just don't get it - all reference to "being Irish" or "being British" have been removed from the member's articles. Rather it states "born in UK, UK Passport, grown up in Dublin" - can you dispute that? Let people make up their own minds. As for you comments on your step father, I have already replied to these the first time - you mentioned it. Is it perhaps "deceitful" not to also use my reply to it here? --Merbabu 02:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Specific? Er, try the exact same sentence in which I make my claim of deceit (didn't you read it all?). It was because I was not permitted to add that two band members are English, and using the reasons given by you and others, that I tried to remove Irish from where it is not relevant or was already stated (my edit to the U2 page in this regard has gone unchallenged because I corrected a tautologous statement - "Irish....from Ireland" - which even you cannot disagree with especially after there were complaints about "English....from England". You didn't seem bothered about correcting that one....). One followed the other after you dictated the rule: now you've made a false claim to justify your own claim of bias or inconsistency on my part (I not actually bothered, stuff happens, but I just cannot stand hypocrisy and double-standards). Whether or not you agree with my reasoning you are making a false and deliberately misleading claim to discredit: try practising what you preach - you've posted a few entries complaining about ethics. And you quote me as accusing you of "tirades" - please cite or withdraw (you'll have to do the latter as you conjured it from nowhere). 86.17.246.29 02:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You suggested I "Conjured [it] from nowhere", that is incorrect - you have said it here: [2] .
  • Could not find "tirade" at reference point. 86.17.246.29 11:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • i translate "tiret" => "tirade". Seemed to make more sense. --Merbabu 12:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? Tiret means bullet point or indent. Invest in a dictionary (or indeed stop making deliberately false and malicious claims).

86.17.246.29 12:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I checked 3 dictionarys hours ago, plus MS Word, and www.dictionary.com, oh, and I google it. You shouldn't assume people don't have dictionarys.--Merbabu 12:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I missed you once again accused me of "deliberate" and "malicious" acts and demanding admin admonish me too. is it not clear that it was an error despite my reasonable efforts listed above to find your "odd" word. Let's add WP:AGF to the list of wiki ideas you seem to have trouble with.
  • And, I have no problems with "U2 from Ireland" being on the page - i think it is a good FACTUAL way around the problem (ie, instead of Irish band which they actually refer to it as: "We are an Irish Band, We come from Dublin City Ireland, Like all cities..."). Facts only are in place - no interpretations/feelings/identity of what that means is in the articles. If you don't like it, well, what can I say? I know you won't retract your allegations of deliberate deceit but i can live with that and have better things to do with my time.--Merbabu 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

"Deceitful" and "disingenuous" are not acceptable ways to talk about people here. If you must have this argument, argue about the facts without making accusations against the people you are arguing with please. --Guinnog 12:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Then editors should not make deliberately false claims in order to support their own criticisms? I was accused of something which was contradicted by analysis of the facts. I din't see you rush to censure Merbabu. What's good for the goose.... or start practising what you all preach. 86.17.246.29
  • For what reason should I be censured? You have now accused me several times of making false claims (including at least once before the tiret/tirade misunderstanding). You cannot provide clear and specific evidence of "malice", "deceit". The tiret example is clearly a misunderstanding, to continue to cite this as "malicious" "deceit" could itself been seen as malicious - certainly continued failure to assume good faith WP:AGF. have you Googled "tiret"?, typed it into word (spell check and help)? Wikiepedia? What dictionary do you own that has the word "tiret"? When i take up your reccomendation to purchase (a 4th) dictionary I will buy that one. lol. I checked all of these BEFORE my comment about tirade (which would fit perfectly into your post, by the way). Admittedly, i missed your intent but not before considerable efforts to work it out. Just use plain English, we are afterall "primary" school kids, "politically motivated" against the "british". ;-)
  • Disagreement is not the same as deceit. deliberately false claims - i did no such thing and you know it (well, if you were mistaken, you have now been . i can, believe it all not, walk way from a disgreement on content, but i won't let accusations (mistaken or not) on my integrity as an editor go unchallenged. --Merbabu 02:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Look, there are two separate issues here, and you are all treating them as one - deliberately I feel:

  • 1) I say that The Edge and Clayton should be referred to as British. Thousands upon thousands of bio articles on Wikipedia specifically mention the nationality of the subject, as well as their birth place. So there is precedent and common style. My assertion of "British" is based on known and undisputed facts, not contradicted by statements from the subjects. The assertion of "Irish" made by others is based on their uninformed assumptions of what a person they've never met thinks they feel they are, using a highly generalised point (an idea shot down in flames by the position of my "I'm 100% Irish" retired proud British-medal-wearing step-father who worked and fought for the British crown for over 30 years and hasn't been to Ireland since he was 11 as an example). The way you have got round this is to provide a specific statement about where they were born but where they grew up in order to avoid saying "British" anywhere (again, because the claim is that they do not call themselves British even though there is no evidence to support that assertion - only your conjecture and speculation). We have, again, a situation where some people think something is true, will ignore the contrary facts until they see something which supports their view, and then make a decision: for example, if The Edge said today "I am British" you would have to change the article. But why do you have to wait for someone born in Britain to British parents with a British passport who has not given up the citizenship of the country of his birth and forefathers and has not adopted the citizenship or passport of the country of his upbringing to say "I am British"? Why? Simple: because you have decided to tell us what you think he feels. How very worrying for an encyclopeadia editor.....;

and second, separate issue,

  • 2) I say that if a band member article must state where the band is from, why can't the band article say where the band members are from? Why different rules on the same question for two articles? This is where some of you are proved to be inconsistent. None have you have justified that. Why is it relevant to Clayton's life story that his band is Irish - that information is in the band page where it belongs. Not many people know that although U2 is called an Irish band, two of its members are British, so it is an interesting fact which merits inclusion. Isn't this whole article full of interesting facts? It's not a point about the individual, it's a point about the make-up of a band. Now we have a ridiculous claim that in relation to the band member pages "something about where the band is from is not about the band". Eh? I thought we were all using the English language here? Okay then, in the band page I can therefore say that "something about where the band members are from is not about the band members". You see that: applying the same rule across the board. Consistency. And you'll all dispute it in minutes like petulant children.

So to recap, the only "dispute" here comes not from contradictory facts or lack of evidence, but from your assumptions about what a person whom you have never met thinks they feel they are. You have admiitted witholding judgement until you see something that supports your view. This is not a valid argument and therefore not a valid dispute - if it was I could dispute plenty more here based on what I think without any supporting evidence (but plenty of evidence contradictory to my view). And that is why people lke you run pages like private clubs, dictating what should and should not be added sometimes with extremely weak or non-existent arguments and based on your opinions. 86.17.246.29 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Yes, I know I keep repeating myself. That's because you keep ignoring my specific points about your opinions coming before facts.

Sorry, I still don't agree - maybe elaborate ;-) --Merbabu 12:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh alright: you mention facts before opinion. UK passport, Welsh parents, reside in DUblin since 1962 are all mentioned - all "facts". What more do you want? So, in your opinion being British is fact, but that he is Irish is merely opinion. Is there anything else? If not, then I am done here - I suggest you too find something else. --Merbabu 13:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This really isn't complicated. I say he is British because he was born in Britain to British parents. Britain is the land of his family, it's the land of his heritage. He is a British citizen. He has a British passport. He has given up neither in favour of Irish citizenship. You say he would call himself Irish if asked because of long-term residency since a small child. I am presenting facts which are undisputed. You are speculating about the opinion of someone you don't know using flawed logic. Unless you know that is his opinion you have no place allowing that opinion to dictate the content of this article. Please address that specific point for once. I am not disputing where he lives. I am not saying that everyone is British by fact but everyone is Irish by opinion, I am saying that is the case with this specific subject - as shown by the evidence at hand. Until The Edge says "I am Irish, not British" this article must reflect the facts as we currently know them, and should not be edited to reflect your personal opinion about what he feels. 195.92.40.49 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are going to dispute the opinions of others please try to actually address them direct and point by point. In two dozen exchanges you seem to have missed the points being made and do not respond on the basis of the claims made - you just make general comments that the other person is wrong without explaining how and why you are right. How is this a debate when you do not attempt to understand what the other person is trying to say? You are claiming that evidence-based editing and opinion-based editing have the same weight (is that in line with your beloved Wiki rules?). You are refusing to call these men British because you think they feel they are Irish based on a highly generalised and highly flawed logic (see above), and have chosen a form of words that supports your point of view. As I have said elsewhere, it is not simply a matter of facts, it is how those facts are presented. You present facts in a way which supports your made-up opinion of what a complete stranger might say if asked. Give me proof that The Edge and Clayton have said "I am Irish. I am not British" and you can tell me to go away. Until then, you are the one making unsubstantiated claims and editing on that basis. The burden of proof falls on you, and you should cite before changing the form of words. Again, I am not syaing the current form of words is false, I am saying it is a component to stop a form of words, supported by evidence, which you find unacceptable. And if you are not able to address these specific points directly then why do you keep replying? 195.92.40.49 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have addressed your issues - you say it needs to be fact-based but the facts are here, you want more than facts. Your arguement is no less opinion-based than mine but at least I am not wanting to push my opinion into the article. I do understand you, the point is I don't agree with it - for the now-oft stated reason that anything but undisputed fact is interpretation and opinion.
  • This discussion is about what goes into the article, nothing more. I have never said that the article needs to state he is "Irish" - if I thought that was the case I would have just put it in the article, you can trust me on that one. The fact that you are still incorrectly saying I want to put "irish" in the article shows that you yourself are not understanding, much less, addressing people's arguments.
  • And, you yourself have not addressed my argument: ie, we have the facts stated and any further comment on his identity is disputed opinion. To rephrase yourself, give me proof that The Edge and Clayton have said "I am not Irish. I am British" and you can tell me to go away. Facts only are written (ie, "he has British passport"), and as you say yourself, anything else (ie, "British passport means he is British") is an interpreted "opinion" until confirmed otherwise. Now, that's my argument, please address it. You can't have it your way only if it suits your arguement.
  • Although I think your attempt to apply consistency (ie, band and band member identity) is an overly simple-minded and ham-fisted approach to an issue of subtlely (albeit minor subtlety) - I have made my own (simplistic clumsy ham-fisted) consistency measures and changed "Irish band" => "Dublin-based band". --Merbabu 00:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations Merbabu, I hereby give up. Not because I concede the points in discussion, but due to the fact that your last two or three posts (here and elsewhere) prove an important point: while you claim that my argument is invalid or unreasonable you have demonstrated that you do not actually understand what my argument is in the first place. And if someone who clearly does not understand or acknowledge what the argument is in the first place still insists that it is wrong then there is neither hope nor likelihood of a resolution here. Yes, you have an account, so you win.86.17.246.29

  • I have nothing against anonymous editors per se - on the contrary, they are to be encouraged. But in i would put money on your style being different if (a) you did have an account, (and ideally (b) you had a bit more of a track record, and not an apparent single-issue editor).--Merbabu 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every time you reply to my posts you make a point which I have already stated several times is not the point of my contention; what I am arguing for/against. Every time I say that the issue here is how the facts are presented and why they are presented in a certain way, and how that the justification for those things is not valid because it is not supported by any evidence worthy of the name (let alone strong evidence), you come back with "what is already there is factually correct", missing my point entirely. And before you say it, when I have implored use of the facts it has been in direct and specific relation to the claim of British nationality, and not the general accuracy nor use of accepted facts within the article as a whole (such as residency). I have made this very clear several times.

The conversation has gone something like this (not verbatim of course):

  • Me: "I say that how the facts are presented and why they are presented in that way is simply to prevent the inclusion of another statement (nationality) because you say that other statement is under dispute (sic), even though the sole basis for that "dispute" is flawed reasoning (assumption of the feelings of a stranger; claim that someone who has lived somewhere most of their life will definitely say they are the nationality of that "somewhere" and not from where they/their family comes from and where they choose to be a citizen) and subjective opinion (residency is the main indicator of nationality - despite the flaw about applying a general and subjective argument to a single stranger - and not lineage, heritage, place of birth, citizenship, or passport) - and therefore the justification for the current form of words [which, let us not forget here, actively and intentionally prevents the other statement] is not valid in the first place so cannot be used a reason for the retention of the current form."
  • You: "What is already there is factually correct."
  • Me: "Yes I know it is, and I have agreed that what is currently there is factually correct, but again, that is not my point. It is how the facts are presented and why they are presented in that way which is the issue, and how that form of words is designed solely to prevent another statement your oppostion to which is not of equal weight to the opposing evidence and therefore for which your justification is weak."
  • You: "What is already there is factually correct."
  • Me: "Yes I know it is, but.....how and why...justification...etc etc"
  • You: "What is already there is factually correct."
  • Me: "Can you address my specific point about how and why."
  • You: "What is already there is factually correct."

...etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum. It's like arguing with a tape recording.86.17.246.29

  • That's a false interpretation of what is already written solely to serve your needs. I will allow the thread to speak for itself. --Merbabu 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When you do not seem to understand (or decline to acknowledge) what the argument is then how can you claim to be able to disregard it or declare it invalid? And if you do not undertsand that how facts are presented and why they are presented in a certain way is almost - if not as - important as the accuracy of the said information in the first place then seriously, you should not be editing an encyclopeadia or ruling on the contributions of others - anonymous or not. 86.17.246.29 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I understand, I disagree - there is a difference. Would it be fair to say that the only way for you to accept I understand is for me to agree? What you don't understand (or chose not to acknowledge) is that to state more than the known hard facts is opinion - this is just as much the case for "he is British" as it would be for "he is Irish". As for presentation - you bet it is all about presentation, why else would their be a dispute? there is significant difference between the statments "he is a British citizen" and "he is a British citizen". These are not necessarily interchangeable statements (in Edge's case it is clear they may not be). Can you see the difference in how they can be interpreted?
  • If you believe I "should not be editing an encyclopeadia or ruling on the contributions of others", am "deceitful", "stupid", "malicious", then either report it or quit it. The article, not the editor, simple. --Merbabu 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

PS By the way, in a way which again demonstrates that you are not responding directly to the specific points I've raised, you constantly raise how you are not trying to put "Irish" in the member articles. I've never said you have.....what I have said is that your unsubstantiated and subjective belief that they would call themselves Irish if asked leads you to insist on a form of words which is solely intended to prevent the specific statement "X.....is the British......" with which you disagree. My opposition is to your personal opinion leading you to prevent the addition of something you do not agree with even though that "something" is logical and uncontradicted by any evidence whatsoever apart from your own residency point (and we all know how weak that is, given the "I'm 100% Irish" step-father case). When I say "you say he is Irish" I do not say "you are adding that he is Irish" I am saying "your opinion that he is Irish influences your editing".86.17.246.29

The residency argument is not weak. That is the fundamental point of disagreement is it not? lol - so because your step father's opinion suits your case, mine case is thus weak? That's priceless. Is that the basis for your case against my argument? Thus is your opinion getting in the way of editing integrity anymore than you think mine is? Everyone has opinions ffs. That's why we leave it to facts only. Your case for "edge is British" is not conclusive.

PPS Talking of ethics, it's not good form to tell someone not to use words you do not understand - especially when that complaint comes straight after you decided for yourself what that word meant and got it completely wrong, putting a negative slant on the issue. It ain't my fault you decided to give a false meaning to a word which resulted in a claim that I made a statement that I did not make. You did that all by yourself.86.17.246.29

  • It's not about subjective notions of "ethics" or "form" - it's sticking to wikipedia principles applicable to us all (in this case, civilty, good faith, no personal attacks. I've explained several times that was a misunderstanding on my behalf and you have not acknolweged that, instead continute to insist i acted "deceitfully" and "malice". Look in my contribs - no doubt errors in there, but i challenge you to find one example of "deceit" or "malice". Rather than repeat, i will just copy it here again: The tiret example is clearly a misunderstanding, to continue to cite this as "malicious" "deceit" could itself been seen as malicious - certainly continued failure to assume good faith WP:AGF. have you Googled "tiret"?, typed it into word (spell check and help)? Wikiepedia? What dictionary do you own that has the word "tiret"? When i take up your reccomendation to purchase (a 4th) dictionary I will buy that one. lol. I checked all of these BEFORE my comment about tirade (which would fit perfectly into your post, by the way). Admittedly, i missed your intent but not before considerable efforts to work it out. --Merbabu 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy!............ 86.17.246.29 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edge on his identity...

"The Edge (Q magazine, December 1998): "Because of the situation in our country non-violent struggle was such an inspiring concept. Even so when Bono told me he wanted to write about King. At first I said, 'Woah, that's not what we're about.' Then he came in and sang the song and it felt right, it was great. When that happens there's no argument. It just was." (thanks, bertrand - Paris, France, for above 3)"

"Coming from Ireland, we..." Australian TV 2006 --Merbabu 14:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)