User talk:90.206.36.167

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edits on Torchwood Institute

You may want to look at British Isles (terminology). Will (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Because Yvonne specifically says "for the good of the British Empire". Britian =/= UK. Will (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Britain is an island. The United Kingdom is a country. The nationality of the United Kingdom is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.36.167 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 August 2007
I reckon there's a bunch of people in NI who don't think they're British. And there is no evidence in the narrative to support that Torchwood has expanded beyond the mainland. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a bunch of people throughout England, Scotland and Wales also who don't think they're British. However, they all live in the United Kingdom, the nationality of which is, for good or for bad, "British". You said it yourself. So what exactly are you arguing about? Have you got a point?
Torchwood not "expanding beyond the mainland" is no reason to confine its location to one geographical region or island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.36.167 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 31 August 2007
The point is that the Torchwood Institute is, based on current sources, located within that island. A further point is that three editors currently disagree with your edit, which indicates there is no consensus in favour of the change you're trying to push. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy to have things decided just because some people don't like certain things.
If an institution, real or fictional, was based in Washington, Ohio and Wyoming, one wouldn't say it's location was "All of the states of the USA, except Texas". One would simply say "the USA".
Indeed, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, it's also true that a single voice, crying in the wilderness, is unlikely to reflect consensus on a given issue. In this case, the lack of evidence to suggest that a fictional organisation is based in a fictional Northern Ireland — for which, in case you haven't noticed, there is no evidence of its being a constituent of a fictional United Kingdom — leads consensus away from describing it as you would desire. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You keep mentioning Northern Ireland as if that place had somehow been mentioned in an inclusive, exclusive, positive or negative way. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is no good reason to specify a specific part of the country, when that wouldn't be done with other countries (for example, the USA as I demonstrated above).
The United States of America is the United States of America, and includes the off-shore (non-mainland) states of Hawaii and Alaska. Fictional versions of the USA are assumed to include these two states unless specified.
Likewise, the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom, and includes the off-shore (non-mainland) regions of Shetland and Orkney and Northern Ireland. Fictional versions of the UK are assumed to include these regions unless specified.
Once again - there is no reason to shave off or reduce the country in a fictional version of it, just because you, and a couple of other voices, decide that there is no evidence that Northern Ireland is included in the fictional UK. There is no evidence that the Isle of Wight exists in the fictional UK either (so far as I know), but you haven't made a case for that to be specifically excluded from the country in the Torchwood article.
The onus is up to you to prove that Northern Ireland, or what ever other regions you deem fit, are omitted from the fictional UK in the 'Whoniverse'.
Actually, we don't have to prove any such thing. We merely note that neither NI or the UK was explicitly referenced in the primary source. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't remember if the United Kingdom was specifically mentioned in Torchwood. The United Kingdom was mentioned several times in the Whoniverse, in which Torchwood is set, though. The mention of Northern Ireland is not relevant.
I'm not sure that Sutherland or Rutland were mentioned in the Whoniverse. Yet you do not deem to exclude those counties from the region.

[edit] Tags on George Carlin

Are you disputing that he is Irish-American, or an atheist, or what? Most of that's right off his repeated statements on albums, in interviews, etc. --Orange Mike 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything. I suggest sources are found and noted in the article.

[edit] August/September 2007: 3RR notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Torchwood Institute. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

(This is by way of a note to let you know of policy on the number of reverts one can reasonably make; you're now at three reverts.) --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to do!
How many reverts are you at by now?
And with regard to claims you have made here:
An edit war is something you appear to be engaged in. Have you issued yourself with a similar warning, or did you get someone else to do that for you?
I didn't revert - I made correct changes, which I believe you reverted.
So I warn you back - please do not repeatedly revert edits - you may be blocked for edit warring. It is of course only fair that you be blocked from editing here also, as one side of this thing you decided to call an "edit war", yes?
(Edit conflict) As I was about to respond before you expanded your comment, I'm also at three reverts. So I won't be performing any more reverts on that page either, unless there's simple and obvious vandalism, say. And I don't think it's ridiculous to inform you how things are supposed to work. It's more a case of playing fair, making sure you know what's standards editors are supposed to uphold.
That said, you've just peformed another revert, albeit a partial one, technically putting you over three. Just be careful about that sort of thing, ok? I'm not in any rush to fill out a 3RR report for someone whom I'm sure is capable of keeping a count of their own edits if they put their mind to it. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You may not think that it's ridiculous, but you are entitled to your wrong opinion. I find your tone here condescending and offensive: who do you think you are? You are not the boss of me, yet you appear to be acting in the manner of a schoolyard bully.
Why do YOU get to decide who has the last edit on any given article? You talk about playing fair on the one hand, and tell me that I should be aware of "standards"... then you tell me that I have, in your opinion, made a "partial revert" and (presumbly out of the goodness of your heart) you won't be filling out a "3RR report"? Am I supposed to be grateful for your curmudgeonly attitude to this whole affair? For your information, yes - I can count thank you very much!
The simple fact is that you have not explained to me adequately, nor has anyone else, why "Great Britain" is preferable to United Kingdom. Nor did you address most of the other points I had made. When I edited the article originally, I seem to remember leaving one instance of "Great Britain" intact because that was what the particular character in question had said, verbatim in that particular instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.36.167 (talk • contribs)
Why do YOU get to decide who has the last edit on any given article? I don't. The three revert rule does.
The simple fact is that you have not explained to me adequately, nor has anyone else, why "Great Britain" is preferable to United Kingdom. Well, I'm sorry you feel there hasn't been sufficient work done to explain things to you. However, looking at the efforts Will and I have made to discuss the article with you, it hasn't been for want of trying. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 05:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the three revert rule - it seems to me to be rather unfair when a team gangs up on one editor like that - obviously you didn't understand my point: it is in this way that YOU decide who has the last edit on this particular article.
Obviously you haven't been able to comprehend the explanations I've given to you. Of course, looking at the efforts I have made to discuss this with you, both here and in the edit summary comments, it certainly hasn't been through lack of trying.
The point to the 3RR rule is that it works to limit how much edit warring can or should go on. Additionaly, it precludes an individual trying to force their preferred version of an article by performing endless reverts. That's a good thing; it forces discussion to take place of clicking the "undo" button.
As for your assertion that we don't understand your position... Well, it's possible, I suppose. It's also possible we simply don't think you have a point. What's definite is that consensus isn't in your favour for the time being; and it's likely that rubbishing people's comprehensive faculties isn't going to win them over. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't preclude you from trying to force your preferred version of this particular article, so obviously it is a failure. Also, it may well encourage favouring of popular versions as opposed to correct versions. That's a bad thing.
As for your suggestion that I don't have a point, obviously I do, and you have failed to address it even now. I don't care about your view of 'consensus' - I care more about what is appropriate. Your condescending and holier-than-thou attitude and flawed logic aren't the best way to win people over either, by the way. --90.206.36.167 20:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
... feel free to come up with a reasonable explanation for the points I have made any time this century. --90.206.36.167 20:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)