User talk:Doctor Boogaloo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ~ UBeR 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the honest impression that the 3RR rule applied to the same words, rather than the article as a whole. Two separate incidents occurred on the British Empire page today, which had come up before and the proposed changes that I was reverting were against the consensus. So in retrospect having had this explained to me, I acknowledge breaking the 3RR rule in this case, but for what it's worth, my reverts were in good faith. Gsd2000 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Fine with me. WP:3RR blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, so your acknowledgement of the rule should keep you in the clear. --Stephan Schulz 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] United Kingdom
I have warned the user in question about his 3RR and asked him to revert his latest one. Be cautious as you are at 3RR as well. If he refuses, I will report him. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
I think your knowledge of Wikipedia is inadequate, this is an article of "United Kingdom", not the British Empire, which forms a part of it's history, which is where this fact is mentioned. And beware that it is not my liking or yours that determines what goes in here, but facts in the right neutrality. That is the key to working in Wikipedia. Regards,AJ-India 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- An opinion you could have discussed on the talk page, instead of doing a 4RR and then disputing it here and with insults on my talk page AJ. MarkThomas 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Not an opinion, Mark, the Wikipedia works on rules. See some featured articles, like India, and you will understand how Wikipedia works. This is not a place to over state things to satisfy ones personal feelings. it is an encyclopedia. Hope you understand. Regards. AJ-India 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I am affraid it is you who has broken the 3RR rule. Seeing your page, it is clear this isnt the first time you've done this.AJ-India 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- For someone that lectures others on rules, it might be wise to understand them first. My three reverts do not break the 3RR rule. Your four do though. Gsd2000 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Obviously your lack of knowledge shows. And like I said, your page indicates your editing history. For a reference, see mine. Would help explain how Wikipedia works. Also see some featured articles (which reflect the best of Wikipedia), which United Kingdom isnt, and will understand why it isnt. Be a mature editor, and avoid adding pompousity and chest thumping material. There are other forums to express these, like blogs. Feel free to do so there. They a meant for that. But an encyclopedia is a place to mention facts in the right place, with the right weight. Once again stating that this is an article on the country United Kingdom, not the British Empire, where these things can be stated (what you repeatedly add)AJ-India 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Let's await the outcome of the 3RR request AJ and then see if you are still editing. If you do get blocked, I would advise being more cautious in throwing insults around like tour "lack of knowledge" one here - GSD2000 has frequently been shown to be a courteous and knowledgeable editor and deserves more respect. You may be right for all I know about your other points, but like I said, they would be better discussed first on the correct talk page rather than doing multiple edit reverts to try to force the matter. MarkThomas 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I eagerly await the result Mark. My editing history is there for all to see. The History of United Kingdom itself shows who began the multiple reverts. the "knowledgeable" editor GSD2000. I am mearly responding to the impolite comments on my page, some of which hinted at questioning my neutrity.AJ-India 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any challenges to your neutrality on your talk page, or indeed any remarks at all to do with United Kingdom before you did the 3RR. MarkThomas 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- "whether you like those relations or not, and I suspect you don't, which is the reason for your removal of it". by User Gsd2000. Also, be informed that my last edit was the 3rd revert. Not 4th. By definition my first revert was after user Gsd2000 reverted my edit. Honestly would have appreciated if you had first understood what was edited, before reverting yourself. I generally edit articles to improve them, not to push views. Again, refer my edit history.AJ-India 18:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] IRA killings
You might be interested to see what is happening here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9 Check my user logs and you will quickly see the agenda here...Gaimhreadhan
(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Corsica
Hello! I just read your article List of British personal unions and am wondering how the Kingdom of Great Britain was in personal union with Corsica from 1794 to 1796 - there don't seem to be any sources/references/etcetera? Regards.--MC (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trainspotting trivia
Thanks for removing the trainspotting trivia from all those schools! Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, but it would be a pity if all that info was lost altogether. Is there an article called something like "Engines called after schools" where this belongs? Not that I care really. DBTR regards Motmit (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The trainspotter can find this information here SR Class V Locomotive List. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The relevance of the Southern Railway School's class goes beyond that of the 'trainspotter'. This factual entry is one that adds historical context to the entries of the school by the very fact that they were chosen at all. The schools were also consulted on the naming and therefore it was of importance to them. A number of the school's maintain certain vestiges of this episode, such as nameplates of the engines etc which further indicates the importance to the school. Also, by removing the entry altogether, with no attempt to integrate it elsewhere, reduces the possibility that someone will come across this fact at all and thus diminishes to an extent one of the aims of wikipedia and indeed encyclopaedias, to spread knowledge. One of the pleasures of reading any entry is tripping over other facts that point the reader in the direction of topics they otherwise would not have thought to explore. This applies to an encyclopaedia whether paper based or not. But it is perhaps even more pertinent in a non-paper based encyclopaedia such as wikipedia because jumping from topic to topic is so much easier and accessible. Granted, some people would not care to explore the topic of the school's class any further, but some would. Also, whilst some readers would not consider the naming of locomotives after the school an indication of their standing in the public perception at the time, others would and I would prefer to leave that to the reader.Kwib (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me here, Kwib. You seem to be implying that if article A links to article B, then article B should also link to article A, which I would disagree with: that's why we have "What links here". See WP:HTRIV for an interesting essay about this, especially the section about "Connective trivia". That describes lots of cases where a piece of information linking A and B is important in the article about A, but is unimportant trivia in the article about B. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- (Doctor Boogaloo, please let me know if you don't want this discussion on your page, it just seems appropriate). Stephen Turner, I do accept your point with regard to connective trivia, but it would be a shame if that was the only part of my response that I was able to convey. The fact is that I disagree over how trivial the information is. First off, I did not add these entries from the perspective of a trainspotter, which I would be unqualified to do given I have little knowledge in thatarea, but from the perspective of adding historical context. A school being selected to carry the name was more than trivial at the time and as I mentioned previously, many of the school's proudly display the vestiges of this bygone period. At the very least, the text should be considered for integration into the article rather than summarily deleted, although I know that this is a quicker and easier operation.Kwib (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I said on your talk page, Kwib, at best this deserves something along these lines: Category:Educational institutions established in 1845. That would add a discrete entry in the "categories" at the foot of the page, and not take up a disproportionately large section of the article in terms of relevance. I personally wouldn't object if you did that. But I will continue to do so, and be very stubborn about it, if you insist on readding the full text. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Doctor Boogaloo, in response to your comment on my user page. I have noted that more than one editor is reverting these additions. Although I also note that this has happened in the last day only, and never before in the eight months or so since the information was added. Perhaps that is also indicative of something? Your comment regarding 'does not deserve a huge paragraph in the article itself' would perhaps better be addressed through integration of the information elsewhere rather than outright deletionKwib (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, we did have a discussion about it at Talk:Malvern College when it was first added. It's just that nobody got around to doing anything about it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just had a look at the discussion and although short, concede that it was mentioned. Notwithstanding that, do you not think that my comments regarding the historical context are worthy of a little discussion?Kwib (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- You haven't responded to my compromise suggestion, Kwib. Can you please do so? Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just had a look at the discussion and although short, concede that it was mentioned. Notwithstanding that, do you not think that my comments regarding the historical context are worthy of a little discussion?Kwib (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, we did have a discussion about it at Talk:Malvern College when it was first added. It's just that nobody got around to doing anything about it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Doctor Boogaloo, in response to your comment on my user page. I have noted that more than one editor is reverting these additions. Although I also note that this has happened in the last day only, and never before in the eight months or so since the information was added. Perhaps that is also indicative of something? Your comment regarding 'does not deserve a huge paragraph in the article itself' would perhaps better be addressed through integration of the information elsewhere rather than outright deletionKwib (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for pointing me here, Kwib. You seem to be implying that if article A links to article B, then article B should also link to article A, which I would disagree with: that's why we have "What links here". See WP:HTRIV for an interesting essay about this, especially the section about "Connective trivia". That describes lots of cases where a piece of information linking A and B is important in the article about A, but is unimportant trivia in the article about B. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The relevance of the Southern Railway School's class goes beyond that of the 'trainspotter'. This factual entry is one that adds historical context to the entries of the school by the very fact that they were chosen at all. The schools were also consulted on the naming and therefore it was of importance to them. A number of the school's maintain certain vestiges of this episode, such as nameplates of the engines etc which further indicates the importance to the school. Also, by removing the entry altogether, with no attempt to integrate it elsewhere, reduces the possibility that someone will come across this fact at all and thus diminishes to an extent one of the aims of wikipedia and indeed encyclopaedias, to spread knowledge. One of the pleasures of reading any entry is tripping over other facts that point the reader in the direction of topics they otherwise would not have thought to explore. This applies to an encyclopaedia whether paper based or not. But it is perhaps even more pertinent in a non-paper based encyclopaedia such as wikipedia because jumping from topic to topic is so much easier and accessible. Granted, some people would not care to explore the topic of the school's class any further, but some would. Also, whilst some readers would not consider the naming of locomotives after the school an indication of their standing in the public perception at the time, others would and I would prefer to leave that to the reader.Kwib (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I dont see why an editor cant add a line to the effect that "There was a Class V locomotive (list article) named after the school and the plate is in the school library" if they consider that significant, although I think a whole section is a bit overkill. In fact the deleters could do that instead of blanking the section as a gesture of goodwill in what looks like becoming a silly squabble. Motmit (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If every editor that had a pet fact that they considered significant added it to their pet article, the quality of Wikipedia would rapidly deteriorate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I apologise if it appears that I did not respond to the compromise suggested by Doctor Boogaloo. Let me be clear. I believe that if there is an issue with having the information in its own paragraph then it would be better to integrate in some way the information into the text of the article. This I have no problem with. However, I think the objections expressed by 'Doctor Boogaloo' and 'Stephen Turner' are a little more deep rooted, in that they believe the information to be totally trivial and therefore removed altogether (albeit with potentially a category tag which by itself would seem anachronistic). It is the trivialisation of the information that I would like to discuss, and I believe that such a discussion was merited before the information was summarily deleted (if I am not mistaken this would be inline with Wikipedia Editing Policy (Wikipedia:Editing policy)). I have stated and reiterated why I think that it has more than trivial status yet there has been no direct response to this except that it is trainspotting trivia. Once again, the schools themselves do not seem to think it is trivial, having in some cases bought the nameplates etc and in a number of cases displaying them prominently. Also, what of the historical context. And I would also point out that it is only in the last day that these entries have been deleted and they have been there in the articles of forty schools for eight or nine months, which is suggestive that many editors of these schools' pages do not deem them trivial either. It should be remembered that one person's perception of trivia is not necessarily the same as another's and thus it is not an absolute. And in this case rather than stating that it is not trivia I am providing reasons why it is not. I have also noted that I am not the only editor to have reverted the deletions which suggests even more room for compromise. My suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's editing policy that users should 'endeavour to preserve information' instead of just removing it altogether.Kwib (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hang on a second, the information is preserved still in the encyclopaedia - in the page where it is relevant (the article on the trains themselves). So you can't play that card. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I need to reduce the number of points I make to get the fundamental one addressed. You believe the item to be trivial in relation to the schools, I do not believe it to be trivial. Both points of view are shared by others. I have proffered reasons why it is not trivial in the context of the schools, and these reasons are not being discussed and do not appear to have been acknowledged as having been made and they need to be.Kwib (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I still consider it trivia. The historical lesson seems to be that one company considered the school among the most prominent forty public schools in the south of England in the 1930s. Which doesn't seem a very noteworthy statement to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. The fact is that these trains of yesteryear were named after schools, not the other way around. In WP:REL, "A fact that connects two subjects may be appropriate for mention in the article of one, but not the other". A lot of things or people that are not famous are named after people or things that are famous, that's the way the world is. As for your point, "the schools themselves do not seem to think it is trivial" - I attended one of said schools and in fifteen years of being a pupil at the pre-preparatory, preparatory and main schools didn't hear a single mention nor see a single plaque (though that is not my reason for removing this text). Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- A fact that supports the fact that a school was considered one of the most prominent in the 1930s is surely adding historical context to an article. Even if you do consider this particular fact trivia, as you obviously do, then from wikipedia's own guideline Wikipedia:Handling trivia - It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. In this case, it obviously is and the primary way forward, as proposed in that same policy statement, is integration. It does not have to be so prominent, granted, but it still has its place. You also mention that a lot of things that are not famous are named after things that are famous. Agreed. However, it is arguable that the Southern Railway's fame exceeds that of many of the schools after which it chose to name its engines. And although your old school may not have displayed any vestiges of this episode, the absolute fact is that some of the schools do.Kwib (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, note that page is a guideline, "editors are not obliged to follow it". But even so, we are not suggesting that the information has no place in the encyclopaedia. We are saying it has no place in the school articles themselves. Yes, this information has its place - IN THE ARTICLES ON THE TRAINS!!! Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is clear that I believe this piece of information has more than simple trivial significance to the school articles. I have elaborated why already. It is equally clear that you do not agree with this assertion. Yet your way forward is to delete it because you don’t agree with it with no room for compromise. I have read yours and Stephen Turner’s objections and have taken their sentiments on board. In light of that I have suggested a compromise that reduces the prominence of the information. But it appears that you believe your judgement in this instance to be absolute. I am afraid that is not and that from what I know of Wikipedia this is not in the spirit of the project. I would like to point out that the only neutral observer to this discussion has also suggested a compromise, which you dismissed out of hand.Kwib (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean "with no room for compromise"? I 0ffered you a more than reasonable compromise. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your suggestion was that rather than take up a disproportionately large section of the article, the only vestige would be a Catgeory tag. But a category tag by itself would have no context with regard to the article and still means all text has been deleted. In your same response you said that you would object if I insisted on re-adding the full text. I am addressing that objection and I am not insisting on re-adding the full text. I am suggesting reducing the prominence of the information rather than deleting altogether. Outright deletion is simply unreasonable.Kwib (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is clear that I believe this piece of information has more than simple trivial significance to the school articles. I have elaborated why already. It is equally clear that you do not agree with this assertion. Yet your way forward is to delete it because you don’t agree with it with no room for compromise. I have read yours and Stephen Turner’s objections and have taken their sentiments on board. In light of that I have suggested a compromise that reduces the prominence of the information. But it appears that you believe your judgement in this instance to be absolute. I am afraid that is not and that from what I know of Wikipedia this is not in the spirit of the project. I would like to point out that the only neutral observer to this discussion has also suggested a compromise, which you dismissed out of hand.Kwib (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, note that page is a guideline, "editors are not obliged to follow it". But even so, we are not suggesting that the information has no place in the encyclopaedia. We are saying it has no place in the school articles themselves. Yes, this information has its place - IN THE ARTICLES ON THE TRAINS!!! Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I need to reduce the number of points I make to get the fundamental one addressed. You believe the item to be trivial in relation to the schools, I do not believe it to be trivial. Both points of view are shared by others. I have proffered reasons why it is not trivial in the context of the schools, and these reasons are not being discussed and do not appear to have been acknowledged as having been made and they need to be.Kwib (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hang on a second, the information is preserved still in the encyclopaedia - in the page where it is relevant (the article on the trains themselves). So you can't play that card. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I apologise if it appears that I did not respond to the compromise suggested by Doctor Boogaloo. Let me be clear. I believe that if there is an issue with having the information in its own paragraph then it would be better to integrate in some way the information into the text of the article. This I have no problem with. However, I think the objections expressed by 'Doctor Boogaloo' and 'Stephen Turner' are a little more deep rooted, in that they believe the information to be totally trivial and therefore removed altogether (albeit with potentially a category tag which by itself would seem anachronistic). It is the trivialisation of the information that I would like to discuss, and I believe that such a discussion was merited before the information was summarily deleted (if I am not mistaken this would be inline with Wikipedia Editing Policy (Wikipedia:Editing policy)). I have stated and reiterated why I think that it has more than trivial status yet there has been no direct response to this except that it is trainspotting trivia. Once again, the schools themselves do not seem to think it is trivial, having in some cases bought the nameplates etc and in a number of cases displaying them prominently. Also, what of the historical context. And I would also point out that it is only in the last day that these entries have been deleted and they have been there in the articles of forty schools for eight or nine months, which is suggestive that many editors of these schools' pages do not deem them trivial either. It should be remembered that one person's perception of trivia is not necessarily the same as another's and thus it is not an absolute. And in this case rather than stating that it is not trivia I am providing reasons why it is not. I have also noted that I am not the only editor to have reverted the deletions which suggests even more room for compromise. My suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's editing policy that users should 'endeavour to preserve information' instead of just removing it altogether.Kwib (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If every editor that had a pet fact that they considered significant added it to their pet article, the quality of Wikipedia would rapidly deteriorate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The trainspotter can find this information here SR Class V Locomotive List. Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest moving this discussion to the talk page of one of the schools articles, and pointing to it from the talk pages of all the other schools? We're clearly not going to reach a consensus with the three or four people here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
