I see those Irish nationalist gits are at it again:
Mo Ainm
Snowded
HighKing
Domer48

They and others, including a disgusting Irish ip, are being bravely rebuffed by those defenders of the empire, LemonMonday (ace user page) and LevenBoy as they fight against the despicable removal of all things British, especially our beloved British Isles, from the pedia.

I wonder how many Irish buggers there really are - 1 or 2 at most. Socking is the order of the day here. Snowded stands on his own but the others are one and the same like as not. Makes you puke doesn't it. How about this one: Eliaspalmer. It reeks of socking!

I see Jimbo takes "no position" on the so-called (total bullshit non-existent) British_Isles_naming_dispute. He should take a position. His pedia is being used to promote POV OR bollocks of the highest order.

WP simply does not have enough vapid nationalist disputes. This needs to be rectified. Suggestions:
-Texas and Hawaii: sovereign nations illegally annexed into the U.S.? Are they still nations that are also states?!
-U.S. Guano Islands: sovereign territory or anti-avian imperialism?
-Alsatian Liberation Front: Various pro-French/German groups can just fight on all aspects of this.
-Jerusalem: Still technically the capital and property of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem?
- El-Aaiún: In Morocco, Western Sahara or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic?
- Jefferson Davis: The real US president during the Civil War?

Not to say there aren't nationalist flavored disputes with real merit, just that these need to be ignored in favor of more ludicrous issues.

What did Mister Flash do to get smacked down?

I'm guessing you've not been to Texas lately? "Y'all know Texas is only in the USA voluntarily?" is right up there with "Y'all Yankees talk funny" and "That Brokeback Mountain were all lies". (48% of Republicans supporting secession as of 2010.)

I'm from Texas. I keep telling the neo-traitors that the Civil War is over.

You have omitted the crucial Spratly Islands (T-H-L-K-D) dispute! You dishonor my homeland! Die! Die! Die!

Oh, wait. Nobody cares about them either. Just kidding.

He was falsely accused of socking by another sock (HighKing).

I wonder about this relationship - HighKing, Iridescent and Bjmullan.

Do go on…

I think you mean "The War of Northern Aggression"

I invite you to go on. I guess we can - possibly - dismiss Bjmullan, though stranger things have happened and he does follow HK around a bit - but yes, what are your thoughts on the other possibility?

That I find it hard to think of two people on Wikipedia who have less in common, and can't see what on earth your line of thinking is, since one is Irish and writes about Irish history and cheese, and the other is American living in England and writes about 19th century civil engineering and the early history of eating disorders?

Bah! Another pawn for the Merman Liberation Front looking to deny Brunei's rightful claim to Spratly's precious reefs!

But surely they both sparkle in their own way!

Get on! bet you know him though.

Never heard of him before now. No idea at all where this idea has come from—I don't think I've ever once expressed an opinion on the British Isles, nor ever had anything to do with Ireland.

But Ireland is part of the British Isles, or are you saying it aint ya Fenian scum?

I believe the technical term is "could not give two fucks". Nor, I imagine, could anyone else outside Ireland.

Ah, such little imagination will no doubt serve you well on Arbcom.

British Isles/Ireland.

Do you know how happy I am to say I will gladly recuse on anything in that area should it reach ArbCom?

Get away with ye!

WikiStalker - hope it links OK

Heigh! Things are really hotting up!!

have you seen this

Edit war report against Levenboy

Yeah, linked fine.

He capitalized the word Irish and fixed some typos, reverted a vandal.

I can't bear the scandal!

I'd say that's a perfect match. You could eat too much cheese, causing an eating disorder, or conversely have a disorder that manifests as a craving for cheese. As for Irish and American, maybe you're an Irish-American if there is such a thing. Hold on, isn't Alison an Irish-American? Now we're getting somewhere ...

We need more like this fellow.

[Modnote: Split the off-topic silly name-calling to the Tar Pit.]

Looks like you didn't follow HK's link just above. Or maybe you did. It's all silly name calling, and just another thing that WP fails to be able to deal with intrinsically, at least in some small part because WP is American and won't piss off the Oirish, and also because it has only the smallest-possible interest in resolving anything at all. It's all a big-money mud wrestling game. Big money to those who make it that is.

No

Is there a one- or two-sentence description of what this dispute is about?

Did this topic just get split or have posts removed? There was a member of this forum here being involved, wasn't there?

Yah, one individual having the power to slap indefinite "it is not a ban" blocks around in a complex situation such as this one is another example of the misuse/failure of the Wikipedia system and should not be done/allowed.

I looked at this one briefly. It is pretty obvious that no more than a couple of insanely obsessed Irishmen have locked their Borderline Personality Disorder onto the words "British Isles" and are seeking to eradicate it from the Wikipedia. But what can one do about it?

What is it all about? There is a small minority of Irish who are attempting to make politically uncorrect the word British Isles because they have confused in their minds an age old geographical term with the suggestion that the loathsome British Crown therefore owns their bit of Ireland (Eire) if it is used. It is an example of how the Wikipedia is being used not to document reality as it is but as a tool of changing popular conception of it.

Of course, you cannot use the term "Ireland" without falling into a centuries deep pit, another ARBCOM war which the Irish lost, and tripping up over many of the same players. Do you mean Eire, Ireland, Republic of Ireland (which 'DOES NOT EXIST' except the rest of the world thinks it is), Ulster, Northern Ireland (... give us back our name), United Ireland, or 'the bit the Bastard Brits stole from Us and we are going to get back'? A more wonderful Wiki-dilemma real life could not have brewed up which is, of course, all the Brits fault. Of course, the Scots, who originally comes from Ireland anyway, blame the English for it except for the Scots who went back to Ulster and now think they are Brits instead and, like you say, even most of the real world Irish DNGAF either.

Confused? Exhausted already? Exactly ... do you really want to invest your life fighting them for Wiki-territory?

There is on-wiki support from Canadian Republican/s who have a similar Anti-Queen Elizabeth stance but the similarly blighted Australians really could not give two fucks ... even the Monarchy of Australia is accused of "being written from a Canadian point of view" which I suspect really means from the point of one of the players in this area, GoodDay (T-C-L-K-R-D) ... and the alliance of a Welsh Nationalist Snowded who, laughingly, was born in Essex. "Essex" is in England and is the butt of many a joke for being dumb/inbred/racist whatever ... kind of like what the Appalachian Hillbillies are to New Yorkers. (Google or even Wiki: Essex girls jokes).

As the Irish generally are tarred with the brush of being thick in politically uncorrect jokes, the idea of Englishman from Essex obsessed with being Welsh is wonderfully absurd. What do you call a Welshman who was born in Essex? Dave Snowden. What is strange is that this guy has a real life and yet still plays on the Wikipedia.

It is one of those situations where the Wikipedia wastes huge amounts of time, energy of it volunteers for the lack of any proper editorial structure. Mob Rule, and therefore the most dedicated idiots, rules.

Eventually there will be no one else but them inhabiting the place zombie, never seeing the light of day, living in basements and only coming up to protect "their" territory.

First speaker for the negative: The British Isles don't exist. And even if they did they wouldn't include Ireland. Wikipedia's pages must never be polluted by any mention of them. Ever.

First speaker for the affirmative: The British Isles are one of God's finest creations. They comprise several countries—and especially Ireland. Whenever Ireland is mentioned on Wikipedia it must be pointed out that it's part of the British Isles.

Or something like that.

That is a magnificient summary. Now I understand. And I understand why it will never be resolved in Wiki-land.

Years ago I had a friend who I always knew a Paddy he never divulged any other name. Since died as he became diabetic but much preferred injecting amphetamine then insulin, he was frequently carted of to hospital in a coma. Later he took to trying to balance it out by take several days worth of insulin in one go. One day he misjudged the amounts. and he's no longer with us. Anyway he had this wonderful southern Iris accent, and everyone knew him simply as Paddy, I recall one day someone asking him "What part of Ireland do you come from Paddy?" his response "Devizes!"

Having looked at this one, and knowing a little about the facts and history of it, I have to disagree that it is so simple and that those defending the fair use of the term are motivated in such a manner. It is also another example of how tiny group of individuals can skew the Wikipedia.

It is a typical problem of the Wiki-mindset, there can only ever be two binary options; any third or fourth voice must be pushed into "the other camp" (... by which ever camp their statements do not favor). Unlike the other nationalist disputes, there is no such thing as "British Islianist or Islianism". It is not UK, or England, versus Ireland. I cannot think of any party proposing the re-unity of the UK and Ireland.

If there was any simplistic dichotomy, it would be 'Geographers versus whatever-the-Irish-Nationalist-equivalent-of-Zionism-is-called'. I mean, some of the tripe they have come up with is stunning, like arguing that an alternative name for the British Isles is "These Isles" simply because some one found such a reference half way through an article. I think the reason the British Islianists are losing is that it lacks any nationalist appeal.

The spanner in the works, Peter, is that legally the Isle of Man is neither in the UK nor Ireland and Channel Islands are basically in France ... yet both are in the British Isles.

I have to say that in this case, the problem lies entirely with the obsessive Paddies attempting to use the Wikipedia change consensus instead of building the Wikipedia base on the documentation of life as it is. I suspect it is only Royalist and Colonial England's widespread unpopularity, that allows them to do so ... and, just to confuse matters further, generations of Americans who think England is Britain and don't know what or where the hell the microscopic Isle of Man and Channel Islands are before they get writ out of existence.

Nationalism sucks. There is no one more Irish than ...

Question: How many potatoes does it take to kill an Irish person?

Answer: None.

That would seem to be simply the Empire versus Ireland.

Just out of curiosity, is there no English nationalist movement, which is to say, a republican movement? I have seen editorials from time to time in the English press espousing such a view. There have got to be more than a few who are appalled at the vast expense and media adoration around the Royal Weddingâ„¢, coming at a time when vital social services are being slashed.

There is an English National Party, but I don't think it is in any way republican; it is strongly in favour of keeping the monarch. There is a British republican movement, but it isn't English; it is strongest in Scotland and Wales.

Do you mean British or English? I find the English people's addiction to the monarchy and empire absurd ... foreigners out, bring back slavery, serfhood for all! ... Especially now as its future Queen's only job was as an accessory buyer for a cheap high street clothing chain. But it gives their lives some kind of meaning.

It seems the big irk with this 'British Isles' versus 'United Kingdom and Ireland' is that British Isles includes the Isle of Man (who have their own 1,000 year heritage of self governance) and the Channel Islands while 'United Kingdom and Ireland' forgets their existence.

I doubt none of the ban hammering admins bother to consider the accuracy element, the only alternative for British Isles would be to replace it with 'United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands', or argue eternally over which bits exactly the data refers to, which is what they seemed to do for a while but have now gone back to their territorial stealth campaigns ... "did he ever player snooker in Jersey?".

I would give anyone arguing with Irishmen being thick little hope ... needling the English is one of their few (racist) pleasures in life. (I fall in neither camp and think the Brits ought to have kept out of Ireland).

Well, I suppose it is better than them doing mortar attacks in County Armagh

Perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on this as well, because I have the impression that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands function very much as colonial possessions due to their "offshore banking" status. Of course, it could be argue that the City itself is an "offshore banking haven."


Perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on this as well, because I have the impression that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands function very much as colonial possessions due to their "offshore banking" status. Of course, it could be argue that the City itself is an "offshore banking haven."

I should go back to the Eire/Ireland/Republic of Ireland kerfuffle and suggest a compromise:
'Land of Ire.'

The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands aren't (and never have been) part of the UK; they're independent with a shared monarchy. (Think Canada, Jamaica, Australia…) The UK has responsibility for defense, and in the IoM's case a theoretical ability to overrule their laws, but I'm not sure either provision has ever been used. (The only time it's been tested in living memory, in WW2, the UK steadfastly ignored the Channel Islands and they remained occupied by the Germans for even longer than Berlin.) Describing Guernsey as part of the UK is akin to describing Pennsylvania as part of New York.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=273636

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=273642

OK, Mr Herschelkrustofsky, we got it the first few times.


There was a case where an international court ruled that public birching of criminals on IoM violated some treaty, and the UK had to defend the IoM in court then (when they lost) persuade the IoM Government to change the law, but I don't think they forced them to make the change.

So where does Sealand fit in? Is that part of the British Isles, too?

By which you mean the UK and Ireland. That's the spirit. Glad to know that no votes were wasted on you, lard arse.

Falsely. Oh you are a tickly tease. Yawn - boring - etc, look at me, look at me. There is so much socking and meat puppetry on each side that is has completely defeated Wikipedia, as I've said on here before and tediously will no doubt say again.

Semi-involved dancing tarts like Sir Fozzie (you really are a twat, do you know that?) won't allow WP to simply respect sovereignty via some obvious guidelines, and recommend editing per WP policy/guidelines from there on, because 1) that means pissing off the plastic paddies and maladjusted twenty somethings who think they fighting the old fight, and 2) It fits in with Wikimedia wanting WP to forever be on the verge of success but always needing more 'help'.

And for 3) - people can't currently 'edit on' from any point on WP because A) guidelines like 'weight' etc mean jack shit to most admin and admin bitches, B) hardly anyone still on Wikipedia has the skill to write per policy, and C) guidelines are deliberately ambiguous or deliberately non-existent in these kind areas when they have been problematic on WP.

WP has simply ring-fenced 'the troubles' (which can pretty much cover everything Birtish/Irish in the minds of people like Sir Fozzie), and come up with comments like that abysmal tosser just has. If you get involved and complain about something they genuinely call you a fool for even dipping your toes in.

Quite. Believe it or not, that really is how some people see it as being seen. In reality it's a genuinely simple Ttroubles' issue. If Wikipedia can't deal with basic nationalism then theoretically it can't deal with anything, and shouldn't exist.

Gee, I wonder how you would have reacted should I have not recused in the area, considering my long history in the area, especially as I've worked against both sides here?

Sorry. I kept getting a database error message.




Sorry. I kept getting a database error message.

You keep saying this, but it's actually only The Truth on Wikipedia.

All the big encyclopedias make it clear that the term can include the Channel Islands, and they all give it as some form of secondary definition. Ie they have an effective guideline all their articles can adhere to. Which in practice is to keep it sensibly archipelago-only, and not include the Europe-connected Channel Islands.

The reason why the extreme Irish nationalists insist on the Channel Islands being included in the definition of British Isles on Wikipedia (per a few 'Verified Sources' of course) - no matter what other encyclopedias do - is that when the term does include the CI's, it proves for them that the term is plainly 'illogical' as a so-called 'geographically-only' term - because the Channel Islands are geographically part of mainland Europe.

The claimed 'absurdity' of the inclusion of the 'Channel Islands' helps their ultimate aim of creating a WP guideline that strictly demands the use of an alternate term, such as the 'Atlantic Archipelago'. Their rationale is: If BI is not an archipelago-based 'geographical only' term (and how can it be with the Channel Islands in it?) then it simply has to be a political term, and hence inherently anti-Irish. After all, so many Irish object to it. (there is actually surprising little evidence of this, on the internet anyway). So Wikipedia must not allow such an illogical and offensive term to be used at all. Unsurprisingly, the admin class is simply not interested in going this far.

The problem is that if try and deal with the Channel Islands 'enforced inclusion' issue, a small group of more ridiculous BI supporters spring up claiming that it IS a political term, based on old Empire boundries (even if originating from the ancient past) - and that because the term is in constant use every day (and it genuinely is on UK TV - it's used all the time), then the Irish nationalists should simply "grow up" and deal with it. When you listen to them go on about Empire, some of those people are so surreal that they almost appear like they are invented by the other side.

They make it impossible to get consensus.

As usual passing admin and arguments never connect - and all of them shy away from 'judgement', and they eventually run away from the sock madness, chastising those people who are mad enough to stick around.

And yet again we see Verified Source = Universal Fact on Wikipedia. Someone using 'British Isles' in a sense that includes the Channel Islands = "The British Isles includes the Channel Islands". Context and meaning drift in various sources are, as usual, totally ignored on Wikipedia - the encyclopedia of grossest stupidity.

Why should you be allowed to recuse? You who have actually had (though several years ago now) some experience. What if there is an issue about the USA - do all the Yanks 'recuse' if they have been involved in the area somehow? You are and ill-minded fool in a kindgdom of sheepwits. And you are probably afraid of Sarah777 as well. You are an ill-fitting, lilly-livered prick.

The ENP hasn't existed since the 70's as far as I know. There is a far-right BNP (British National Party) of course, who I imaging have agonisingly mixed feelings over royalty, like they do over Hitler.

Any kind of republican 'movement' is intellectual as far as I know. Always be careful about comparing Scotland and Wales - they have very different views on both devolution and republicanism. The monarchy (alas) is still very popular across the UK, but in terms of the cuts, it's seen as a price worth paying, simply because other countries genuinely look up to the UK because we have this often-bizarre family. Daft as that is, no one can deny it isn't a fact. The wedding is going to be the biggest media event in history - something like 5 billion potential watchers I think. And the whole thing makes people feel 'British', which various little voices keep telling us is a bad thing to do.

In my view, the passing of the (now 85 I think) Queen will see the end of the sovereign as head of state. Her kids and grandchildren just aren't as interested - the main reasons she has never past the crown on. And in terms of the Big Show, nothing will change. Why should it? I just don't want them to have constitutional powers, whether they ever get to use them or not. Apparently Will and Kate hate it all, but I doubt they'd hide away too much if we have those subtle constitutional changes that we actually seriously need to move on as a country. Sending a royal family to countries lacking a history of democracy was always incredibly bad taste. Cheap bananas though.

You know, you really have to be more up front and outgoing, holding in how you feel like this can't be good for your blood pressure...

Now that I've got the obligatory wisecrack out of the way:

Why should I recuse?

Personally, I worked in that area as an uninvolved administrator for years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles .. Four years ago.. sheesh). I'd possibly post evidence, or my thoughts on editors in that area, but it's safe to say I have significant history.

and well, if I didn't, the sides would be too busy pointing out why I'd (supposedly) be biased against (insert side here) to focus on a case. It'd be a sideshow, chaos. Good for those here who love a good old-fashioned Chaos Carnival here, but would it fix anything on WP? (yes, I set the over under at 32 minutes for the first "HAR HAR, nothing ever gets fixed on WP" post)

As for Sarah, I haven't interacted with her in any significant way (that I can remember off hand) in the last three years since I blocked her for undoing a series of merges on "Year X In Ireland" articles. I haven't "kept an eye" on her or her editing, but I do note that she hasn't been blocked in the last couple years. Whether that means she's moderated her behavior since then, or other administrators have not found her behavior to be problematic, I can't say. So I'm not scared of her, but again, with my history in the area, there's probably better people to take action as necessary.

BTW, mods, looks like the Email-A-User-there's-an-update function is b0rked up.