User talk:Wangi

Archived comments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Scotland map... <sigh> again

User:Mais oui! has now decided to ignore your edit summery when you unprotected Scotland [1] on 14:51, 4 April 2008 saying Unprotected Scotland: Trying with no protection; however no map nor country/region/nation changes please until consensus has been reach on the talk page. He has now decided that consensus is pointless and editors believing otherwise are creating highly disruptive, and totally counter-productive "straw polls" and since The Scotland article was just unlucky enough to be targetted by a co-ordinated crew of ignorant yobs at the same time the discussion should be avoided and put back to the old version that ironically no one seams to want any longer. Can you please ask the user to hold off the attack that is sure to create an edit war and actually talk? I really don't want the page protected again but if the user is advised by yourself then I believe things will calm down again as it has for the past 5 days. Thanks. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note. The best way to move this issue forward is to try and widen out the users participating in the discussion - get an agreed unbiased summary of the situation written up and then canvass other relevant WikiProjects and such like. Would you be able to take that on, perhaps working with Mais oui? Thanks/wangi (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I would love to do that, but Mais oui refuses to communicate with me outside of article talk pages and when he does talk to me (or about me) they are always hostile :-( even saying that you were specifically calling myself and my edits disruptive. I don't know why he has a dislike of me when before last month I had nothing but high regard for him. I will try to ask more people to comment on this and see if we can get a greater consensus to continue. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help feeling that there has been a little bit of injustice done here concerning the Scotland map. Surely if an article is locked due to an edit war then the version that was there beforehand(and I understand it was there for quite some time) should remain until the discussions have finished and a consensus reached!--Jack forbes (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UKPhoenix79, thanks for getting the ball rolling on Talk:Scotland. Jack, it really just boils down to Wikipedia:The Wrong Version - the map that is currently displayed is immaterial, it's avoiding the disruption that's the most important thing. Thanks/wangi (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are regarding collapsing the straw poll on the talk page - I only done that because it was now redundant , was taking up a lot of space and adds confusion to the other poll later on. I was going to do similar to some of those infoboxes and images that some IP editor delights in adding! Thanks/wangi (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearly stating that. I'm sure most people knew what you meant by your actions and edit summaries and it should show that your edits were not due to highly disruptive, and totally counter-productive "straw polls" that became Talk page graffitti/vandalism. Maybe now the editor in question will talk? I hope...

I believe that the talk page needs to be pruned a bit for when we call for more comments. Any suggestions on what should stay? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wangi, a slightly related issue here, I wondered what you thought about Mais oui's contribution here? I'm personally concerned this may simply serve to polarise the editting community rather than bring it together, but don't know if it's tackle-able or warrents some kind of formal response and would welcome some feedback. --Jza84 | Talk 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that it was daft having a map of Edinburgh in the Edinburgh article. Regarding templates, the less we have the better - standardisation is good. And regarding the rant - sometimes people need to let steam out. I've always found Mais oui to be honest, although sometimes shooting from the hip! ;) Lets stick to one thing at a time - I'm sure everyone involved will be able to work together.

Oh, re the "one thing at a time" - can we get rid of that "dubious" bit above "nation" on the Scotland article. I don't see the discussion going anywhere much and see little harm in leaving it untagged. Thanks/wangi (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nation thing is very important to me, and has been an objection of others. I find it a really silly term to use, and one that takes value away from the article. As it stands there is a greater wealth of evidence to remove it than keep it. The fact that those who prefer to keep it have been silent implies to me that either they do not want discussion or cannot bring evidence to support its inclusion.

On Mais oui, I do find him brutally incivil, dare I say even unhelpful to the project. I'm reluctant to step in or reply (no matter how much I want to let off steam!) as my experience with him in the past shows that this doesn't help the project. I find this "them and us" and "British nationalist" mentality as means to undermine, divide and polarise the community, and that message at WP:SCOTLAND is typical of what many have been up against.

I'll take your advice on board however. Many thanks, :) --Jza84 | Talk 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< yawn > Right, so you think that calling fellow Wikipedians the "Scottish mafia", and expressly supporting the ip-sock/meatpuppet campaign against the Scotland article, is meant to "help the project"? (I consider that labelling other editors as a "mafia" is highly likely "to undermine, divide and polarise the community", something which you profess to oppose.)You have also been trolling round User talk pages for about a year trying to drum up support for your Ban Mais oui! campaign. Do you realise that campaigning to have another User blocked is acually in itself a blockable offence? I could go on with other examples of your disgraceful and highly hypocritical behaviour, but life is way too short. You really, really do need to take a Wikipedia:Wikibreak. I did, under the whole of January 2008, and I have got to say it is one of the best things I have done in ages. It really recharged my batteries and gave me a new perspective on the whole Wikipedia project. I am much, much happier and more relaxed now, both in my personal life, and here at Wikipedia. You seriously need to chill out a bit too, and take a very good long hard look at your own behaviour before pointing the finger at other people. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I feel another edit war is on the horizon. It might be best, to Lock the article with no map. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wangi. It gets frustrating sometimes, seeing 'edit squabbles' over a map, which hasn't been decided on 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps GooDay could revert his!--Jack forbes (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Administrator Wangi's request, I've reverted to Jza84's version. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, GoodDay's edit got in the way. He's now reverted back to the version I was asking you to revert to. Please let that be the end of it. I do not want to protect the article and prevent the edits it really needs to improve it, or resort to blocking normally constructive editors. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe I have been given a warning for one revert! I think over the last few days I have been more than constructive in my discussions! --Jack forbes (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you have been productive - stick with it and eveyone will get there in the end. Problem is that lots of these "single reverts" all add up to chaos and an edit war. Ta/wangi (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an anon causing trouble. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nation

Only yesterday you asked user Jza84 to remove the "dubious" bit above "nation" which he refused to do, within 24 hours he has replaced it with country. If I continue to revert I will be blocked so I am asking you to resolve this.--Jack forbes (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think country is an improvement on nation with a big ugly dubious tag applied. Regardless I only asked Jza84 to consider it - in a content disagreement an administrator doesn't have any power to force an editor to change their view or to force my view on them. To be honest I don't care either way if it says country or nation in the lead, however this isn't the place to have such tags - the lead paragraph is only a summary of the rest of the article. I noticed somebody else has blocked the disruptive IP editor and the reverts have calmed down. Thanks/wangi (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for an honest answer anyway. I'm going to take a week or two off from wiki, come back and see if I can recognise the Scotland article, if it's still called that.--Jack forbes (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I took nine months off and the map was still getting disagreed on ;) /wangi (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... no really I did just laugh out loud :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Scotland

Hi there, there have been 45 edits of Scotland today, 14 of which have been reverts or undo's and looking back on the past 10 days, there is a lot of anonymous vandalism, so I believe that a 2 week break will help to deter the vandalism. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied/wangi (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I lowered the protection down from 14 days to 3 days, this should be a good compromise. After three days the protection will go away. If the article needs full protection because of a dispute, feel free to request it at WP:RFPP if need be. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Don't worry, if it needs full protection I'll protect it myself. Thanks/wangi (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, didnt even notice you were an admin, in the future feel free to lower/undo any of my protections. I dont mind at all. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotland article

Well, I was asked some time ago to comment, but seeing as I've now been effectively told to "f off" by notuncurious, along with a rather uncivil general comment from Mais Oui!, I will leave that article in the hands of the ones who seem to have taken WP:OWNership of it by virtue of having edited it in the past. All I can do is shake my head and wonder what they think of the various wikipedia policies they are ignoring by their actions. DDStretch (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Image:Fidog.gif

Thank you. Alex Spade (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London City Airport

You have just deleted the section of LCACC - This is London City Airport's Consultative Commitee. This was set as on recommendation of government. This is mentioned on the in the airport's own web site:-

http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutUs/ConsultationAndCommunication.aspx

BEFORE YOU GO ON DELETING STUFF --- PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT --- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE EXCERSIVED YOU OWN POV

You also deleted the Link to the Planning Officer's report on the airport, this contact significant information on the airport.

I AM GOING TO REVERT YOUR EDITS.

You win!!! - London City Airrport!

Look I let you delete all references to the Fight the Flights form main airticle. Just clean up the discussion page.

While I suffer in misery with airport noise and get woken up at 4.30am. I can't even tell other residents there is a pressure group!!

I am trying to remove the discussion it is all messy. There is no point in leaving a trace of this discussion!!!

YOU WIN!!!

I hope when *you* have to deal with a big (corrupt) business - that you suffer the same fate as the residents here!

If you look at Standstead there is a Opposition section - so why don't you go delete that! So you have shown bias!