Castle Wolfenstein

Comments

No one followed the opening request, so as I started the poll on this I've opened it. As GoodDay pointed out to me, it was pending for around 4 days now. The shortcut is WP:BIT. Using that to refer to here will hopefully free up a lot of article's talk pages (and the reduce the negative things that can come from that). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The shortcut is now WP:BISLES. Thanks again! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let the task at hand, begin. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What happens now, then? ðarkuncoll 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See my opening comments, it's a start (I hope). GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Shall we use the main page to begin with? We can discuss the layout and technical workings etc for the moment in here perhaps. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Geography?

Wishful contextualisation. Everything about the name British Isles declares politics, specifically political subjugation of the Irish people for centuries by-surprise, surprise- the British. Are the Irish people here to placate the ego of British nationalists? This name is going nowhere, other than in the same direction as the British Empire. Geography? ' “But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last....' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.102.151 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Another nice bit of trolling there. The notion that BI is anything other than geographical is silly - but I do agree with the conclusion that WP:GEOG is the wrong place for this, for different reasons. WP:GEOG deals with geography articles, and geography articles only. From what I can see of the proposals so far, the scope of the task force isn't limited to geographical articles, as one of the key proposals seems to be to not use the term British Isles in non physical geography articles. It is not within the scope of this wikiproject to decide such things. This kind of discussion should take place at WP:PUMP or somewhere equally universal in nature. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussions

Hi all. I've been away but have been reading a lot without having much time to contribute. I think the concept of the task force is a good idea. But I'm not convinced about the current practice, with all due respect to the main contributors. I don't think that there should be any discussions on the main page. They should all be here on the talk. Have a look at this task force, which is the most equivalent one I could find. In principle we should keep discussion on this page and when we have agreed something we should add it to the main project page. Whaddya think? Crispness (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the way we're doing it, was the correct way; I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We might have been for a single issue, I'm not sure. I'm not sure it makes any difference, does it? This won't be the final guideline page - that will be in MOS. We have a specific achievable goal, the Islam taskforce one is general and ongoing. We won't be archiving anything until a guideline is produced (at least that is the intention). As it started on the main page (it had to start one way), it's best to keep to the way it's gone, imo. When the guideline is made the discussion can be archived in some way, and the main page can point people to the MOS guidelines in its lead. Maybe then this taskforce/workgroup can be a 'utility' page for any BI-relative stuff.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, Med Cabals use the main page. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think they do. What they keep on the main page are the statements from the protagonists and witnesses. But others are required not to add indented comments to the statements of others. Ooops, that's RFA. Sorry. I see what ya mean. Haven't been involved with WP:MEDCAB before.

As I see it, this is supposed to be a task force though, and this is not how any of the other task forces I've looked at seem to work. Personally, I am finding the main page terribly inaccessible and I'm just not contributing because I don't understand what the substantive discussions are referring to. There seem to be proposals, which are then amended on an ad-hoc basis when some individuals believe that something would improve them. This ensures discontinuity. Unless someone is involved pretty much 24/7 it is very difficult to follow and track.

IMHO, the proposals should be on the project page, discussions and votes on talk and proposals should not be amended until a consensus is agreed for the change. I'll probably just wait for the substantive vote at the end before I get much involved. Sorry. Crispness (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crispness here - the main page is incredibly hard to navigate, especially for anyone new to the task force. It's full of discussion (which is what talk pages are for) and it's very difficult to tell what's been agreed, what's still being discussed, and how a first time visitor to the page can help out. Like Crispness, I've been reluctant to join in precisely for those reasons. The project page needs a major cleanup. Waggers (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

All the text discussions were interlaced in the original guideline (now archived here). Since then the discussion has not been actually been on the text. There is always a problem of discussion (and especially with this issue). We've archived as much of the older stuff as possible.

This talk page is clearly needed as a separate place, so I'll make a proposal-only subpage. At the moment a reference of the current proposal is linked to from my sandbox here (the idea being that you read the sandbox, but edit BITASK). Even the subpage will remove the proposal from its discussion - but there is no perfect solution now (although in the fist draft it went well with people commenting after each point). I tell you what - I'll make two subpages - BITERM guideline proposal draft 1 (sandbox working version) and BITERM guideline proposal draft 2 (NON-sandbox working version). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans. Waggers (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now done. The changes are on main page. I used green 'COMMENT' headings in BIDRAFT1 (the sandbox version) - wasn't sure how best to approach it, but it's worked OK before. BIDRAFT2 is the reference version. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIT shortcut

About a week ago I had started editing (offline) an essay titled "But it's true!" for which I had intended to use WP:BIT as a redirect shortcut. The essay is intended as a place to direct users who may be confused as to why information they added to articles (or articles they created) may have been deleted. In the interim, it appears someone created WP:BIT and redirected it here. Are you guys strongly attached to that shortcut, and if not, would you be willing to give it up and use something else, like perhaps WP:ISLES? If so, I will of course include a disambiguation link on the essay that redirects people here. Thanks for considering, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it will have to be after we finalised some kind of guideline. I originally created the main page as BIT, which now redirects to the full title page (I simply copied another taskforce when I started it, but they did theirs in an incorrect way). I then put out a number links to WP:BIT, and it's been referred to by others too. I suspect that this page will remain after the guideline is made as a 'workgroup' page, but there is no reason to keep calling it 'BIT' at that point. It couldn't be called 'ISLES', as stabilising the word 'Btitish' in the right context is an key 'factor' in the taskforce! It could end up as BIW or something, though. I'll try and bag that one now, just in case! You would probably have to keep a page-top disambiguation link for the old BIT links that will end up archived.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy top keep a page-top disambiguation link, and also to update the dozen or two already existing links to the new shortcut. Just let me know when I can pull the trigger. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created WP:BIW for later, as I suspect it will be needed. I have to warn you there is never any guarantees with this subject! Having said that, I'm sure we'll come to some form of conclusion after all this work. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created WP:BRIT which would be more meaningful for me. I would have no objection to losing WP:BIT.Crispness (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful you don't borderline troll, crispness. 'WP:Brit' is meaningless. Don't try and be too politically clever with WP space. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - I removed "WP:BRIT" from the shortcut box, and it's been reverted. I've taking it to Talk, as was asked. I have two questions about it:

1) In what way does this benefit the taskforce?

2) How does it not mislead people? It ignores the word "Isles" and makes it look like the taskforce is just a British issue.

Please respond. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing a valid shortcut? I'm not trolling. I happen to think that WP:BRIT is a more accurate, more memorable and more useful shortcut than WP:BIT, which someone else would like to use. It doesn't ignore the word 'Isles'. It just doesn't use it. It doesn't need to. It's just a shortcut. It doesn't make the task force look like a British issue, at least not in my eyes. Perhaps it does in yours. You seem to have real ownership issues with the project. It seems like you are unable to accept that others may have valid opinions and ideas. I've created a valid and useful shortcut for the project. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. But others can if they do. I'd really like to hear someone elses opinion on the trollishness of WP:BRIT. If there is consensus to remove it, or if editors in general find it in some way objectionable then I will remove it. Otherwise it stays. Crispness (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with it. I don't see how it helps in any way, and it looks like someone is either pushing a pro-British POV, or distancing Ireland from the subject. I don't see how is possibly helpful in any way - we already have BIT until the taskforce is over. I won't 'edit war' now, but I could never accept BRIT for any final workgroup. WP:BRITISHISLES, WP:BRITISLES, WP:BISLES, WP:BI etc are fine (and you could have chosen those!) - but never just 'BRIT'!! Those at other UK-related projects would not like it either, as it's so ambiguous. Nor would the Irish, ultimately, surely? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We might check about WP:BI clearly! (its talk page redirects to British Isles).--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>@Matt - I think you forgot to mention that you had nominated WP:BRIT for discussion. I'm sorry Matt, but that nom displays astonishingly bad faith on your part. I will have to seriously consider my participation in the future of this project, although I feel that was probably the point of your action! Crispness (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be uncomfortable with it. I accept that. You may feel that it pushes a pro-British POV. But you don't speak for all the other UK-related projects, nor the Irish. Why don't you just let them make their own objections if they have them and we can deal with them as and when they arise. Don't lets fantasise problems that don't exist. Crispness (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"But it's true" seems to me to be a [draft] global wikipedia policy and thus more deserving of a TLA than is a minor regional squabble about an archaic phrase. I support Clubjuggle's request that this project give way and choose something longer. But not BRIT, which is unambiguously provocative. --Red King (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable - if clubjuggle is willing to change the links already going here, he may as well have the shortcut now, rahter than wait until the guideline is made (as I originally asked him to do). I'll contact him over this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done this - he'll remove it from here when he's sorted out all the links etc. I'm going to create WP:BISLES too. We can use that one later with any resulting Workgroup, along with BIW and BRITISHISLES.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect squabble?

Helloe Crisp & Matt. What's going on with the redirect? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry GD. Missed this until now. My take (and I'm sure others will have their own take on it) is that the original RfD was closed with a 'keep', but with the recommendation that discussions could be undertaken to find a new home for it. Matt decided, unilaterally, to 'give' it to WP:UK without asking or discussing. I reverted and replaced it on the project page. I have said time and again that if another project wants it, or the community finds it offensive, then so be it, but it is not up to Matt to be arbiter of what does or does not 'fit' on the project. It's a whole community decision. Waggers submitted a new RfD yesterday. I'm not sure if s/he was aware that another identical RfD had closed the previous day.

Matt has consistently thrown bad faith allegations at me in this matter and frankly I'm sick of his behaviour. There is no evidence of bad faith by anyone other than Matt. He is the one that removed the shortcut from the project page without mentioning it in the edit summary. He is one who created the first Rfd, and then 'forgot' to mention it here. He is one who blanked the shortcut 9 minutes after the RfD had been closed with a keep. I don't think I'm the problem here, do you?

We have processes and procedures on WP for a purpose, to exert a modicum of control over the anarchy. We really don't need a "Lewis Method" of doing everything differently. Crispness (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A prompt from the wings : Ireland

The protagonists might usefully read Names of the Irish state#Name dispute with the UK, which explains how our political masters approached this issue. (I recommend Names of the Irish state generally, because some editors appear not to understand that the designation "Republic of" has no constitutional status [cf French Republic (République française), which does] - it merely notes that the state is a republic, not a monarchy. I suppose it is analogous to "United Kingdom of". I also recommend Éire). --Red King (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What does constitutional status have to do with anything? Are you saying that people do not know what ROI is? I'll cetainly follow the links. I'm not sure how we can use Eire - it seems too out of the blue - archaic even (in its English use, I mean). It is possible I suppose, but we would most often need to contrast ROI with the UK in some way. Only ROI can do that without muddiness. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The link above is a concise read that clearly explains why "Ireland", and not "Republic of Ireland" is the name of our state, and is now officially used by both the Irish and British governments. Perhaps now we can ringfence the Ireland/RoI political discussions, and acknowledge that they need to be dealt with seperately, while this task force concerns itself with the majority of articles that aren't going to be affected by the Ireland/RoI debate. --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would narrow the framework of the guideline to a degree that will favour those who are 'anti' the use of the term British Isles on a wider nationalist level. We have to be non-censorious and fair. It is outrageously anti-Wikipedia to 'ringfence' anything in this manner! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Logically, but especially during dispute resolution and/or negotiation, a good methodology is to agree on what we can all agree on first, and put it to one side. Then we can look at what we can't agree on and piece by piece, continue to shave it down. If you think back to your initial guidelines, a lot of people agreed with the general principals, and I believe we need to return to this approach. --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When I said "I also recommend Éire", I meant of course the article of that name. Since it translates identically as "Ireland" and this is en:wiki, it would make no sense to use it. As for "Eire" [sic], that is merely illiterate. --Red King (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to the "names" article. It's kind of hard for us Brits to be aware of these name issues particularly when even the history book I was reading got it wrong. My reference to UK&ROI on the main page would clearly better be UK&I. But I think I should keep out of this debate. Chris55 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

A request was made on 11 August for mediation. The case has now been listed for 7 days without a mediator taking up the case. Is mediation still needed, or is progress being made with discussion within the project? SilkTork *^YES! 13:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll close it as it's clearly died off as a discussion page. If the issue actually stopped the guideline in some way, it would have to go to Arbcom anyway - I see it now as essentially a technical policy/guideline issue over what Wikipedia's rules are regarding ROI-use and "geography" or "geography-related" articles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. It's normal for mediators to close cases rather than individuals within the case - including those who requested the mediation - but that's OK, everything is rather informal here, and no harm has been done. However, I have had one comment from a person who feels that mediation may still be needed. I'd be quite willing to listen to views from all sides if people felt a moderated discussed would be helpful. However, such a discussion can only work if all parties are willing to take part. I have removed the MedCab tag from this page, but will keep it on watch for a few days if people want to have a discussion. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The case has been reopened. SilkTork *^YES! 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Related Poll

Hi, some discussions that have taken place on this page are related to discussion taking place elsewhere. A poll is taking place regarding "Republic of Ireland" here. If you are interested in registering an opinion, please do so. --HighKing (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Project status

Can anyone clarify what the current status of this project is? As far as I was aware it was effectively put on hold pending mediation, but the mediation page is inactive since the mediation case has been reopened. The reason I ask is that this diff seems to suggest that Matt believes it has some sort of quasi-official status. I didn't think we'd gotten quite that far.Crispness (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The mediation was initiated by Matt in respect of his exchanges with me. They did not suspend this project. I was happy to go ahead with the mediation on the basis that it might get some objectivity into the exchange with an editor who I respect. However that was not to be. I think you are right to say that this task force does not have the status it needs, to do so a lot more editors would have to be involved. I also think we jumped far to quickly to a guideline without first settling on some principles. I also remain convinced that we should not be using political terms (especially contentious ones) on a geography page. In the meantime the name of Ireland as a political state (ROI etc) is under active discussion again and resolution there I think means that on practical grounds we should hold off for a bit here. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"As far as I was aware it was effectively put on hold pending mediation" - rubbish.

Nothing was "put on hold" due to the mediation - that is totally absurd, and you know it Crispness. So I linked to BITASK? - this place explains itself perfectly well, as did my comment provided in the diff. The line "Matt believes it has some sort of quasi officials status" is a weak dig indeed: I've made all the work ahead clear many times.

WE ALL US KNEW THAT THE mediation was always a side issue - and it clearly lead nowhere and was simply tortuous to me to I backed out (you must respect my decision on that and let it lie, Snowded). Clearly related discussion is elsewhere at the moment: we not bloody Octopi are we? Show some bloody respect to people who are putting in work, Crispness.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Respect, bloody or otherwise and adult behaviour sound like good ideas. Lets move forward on that basis. Good to see you moderate the language a bit between edits --Snowded TALK 11:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

/Between edits? How about being less of a wind-up merchant for once in your life? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You moderated your language here and I thought the edit sensible and worthy of note. Hardly a windup, and not intended as such. Content Matt, keep to the content. --Snowded TALK 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly shirking on the content, am I. You know what Crispness can be like - please don't respond to it. I just find it so distracting, I really do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Back to the original point, are we all agreed that nothing has as yet been agreed on this project? Crispness (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:British Isles surnamesCategory:British Isles surnames

To my mind this is a pants category. What do the task force members think? Lucian Sunday (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. CFD it! Crispness (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRIT

For those of you who aren't aware, WP:BRIT - the 'longest serving' of the 5 shortcuts that the project currently 'owns' - is up for discussion again. You may like to contribute. Crispness (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish - WP:BIT is the longest standing shortcut (B.I.T), as made by Waggers after I originally called the page BIT. WP:BIT was then used all over the place! You made "BRIT" to be a provacative chump, and have tried to push me to 3RR over it too. Why don't you get off my back? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read what I actually said was that it is "the 'longest serving' of the 5 shortcuts that the project currently 'owns' ". It doesn't currently 'own' WP:BIT. You seem to fantasise that I am on your back. I'm not. I'm trying to find all the offence that is apparently being caused by WP:BRIT. If you choose to exercise yourself over this then that is down to you, not me. And by the way, the 2nd RfD has closed with a kept, if anyone is interested. Crispness (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was keep becaue Waggers made it too close to the old one (so was closed as a formality) - will you stop trying to pretend you have consent for this. You are being nothing but a troll here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The shortcut itself does little harm but I don't think we need to publicise it at the top of the project page, as that could put non-British editors off (and having more than one or two shortcuts listed breaches the WP:SHORTCUT guideline). Waggers (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a wikipedia shortcut is one of the least likely things to put off non-British editors. In fact, it seems to me that only people bothered by this are British editors. Crispness (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll on not using WP:BRIT shortcut

I can't believe I'm having to do this (some people do actually value their time):

Reasons for not using it at BITASK:

• Only one person wants it at WP:BITASK (there is no consensus or desire for it), and there are plenty of other shortcuts here (too many if anything).

• The Republic of Ireland is part of the archipelagos, but is not British: "Brit" (the colloquial name for a 'Briton') gives the incorrect impression that the taskforce, the term, and even the Republic of Ireland are British entities.

• Even though ‘British Isles’ is a geographical term, a number of people have taken offense to it on Wikipedia - hence the need for the actual taskforce in the first place. It is against the very principle of the taskforce to have a misleading name.

• IMO, if it's not actually deleted it could always be a problem - now and in at a 'British Isles workshop' planned for the future too - especially if it is used as a shortcut regardless of the taskforce or workgroup accepting it on their pages. These things must have consensus, but this has fallen through a kind of 'no deletion' loophole. It's like someome creating the shortcut 'NOB', and us all having to find the best article for it to point too, only to find someone keeps re-pointing it to your user page. Surely it should be deleted until someone actually wants the shortcut 'NOB'?

• If someone needs BRIT in the future they can always re-make it. IMO, this is very unlikely however, as the word British has always had ambiguities, and all the UK Wikiprojects etc have never previously chosen to create a 'BRIT' on its own - it was just created recently by Crispness for WP:BITASK.

(copied from the recently disbanded RfD)

• Also it is a distraction. Why edit war on a fifth shortcut? Honestly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• support non-use --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support non use GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support non use Waggers (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support non use - if this name is a problem let's dump it - hard to believe this is an issue! Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - I assume someone else will move Matt's comments above into this discussion section at some point in the future, so I won't touch them.

Reasons for continuing to us WP:BRIT (at least for the present)

• No one has suggested that they won't participate in the project if it is used.
• No one in their right mind would suggest that Irish editors are more likely to be offended by WP:BRIT than they are by WP:BRITISHISLES, are they?
• No one will die if it continues in use. This is a non-issue being turned into an imaginary crisis.
• It's a shortcut. If something like WP:DICK is acceptable, what can be possibly be the problem with WP:BRIT?
• If we are to reduce the number of shortcuts in use for the project then the poll should be about which is the most appropriate shortcut
• There is a venue for polls such as this. It has twice closed with a keep when asked to discuss this matter. This smacks of forum shopping

It's not worth keeping, if it's being fought over. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So we should fight about anything we want to get rid of? Crispness (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not worth the hassle, delete it. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Renom @ rfd

Lets do this properly. I've renominated WP:BRIT for deletion at RfD. If you want it deleted, then please go there and ask for it. Crispness (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the third time now its been to RfD? You have put it up for deletion AND put it back in the article! Have you ever done anything constructive on Wikipedia? If you have I've never seen it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about the exact sequence of events, shall we?

1. 1. I create the shortcut in order to facilitate another user having WP:BIT
   2. You object, create 4 more, and put it up for rfd, but conveniently forget to tell anyone.
   3. The community rejects your RfD.
   4. Waggers puts it up for RfD again 24 hours later. Speedy close.
   5. You WP:FORUMSHOP another poll here - a poll to not use it. The only 'not use' poll on WP. You cite offense by non-british users.
   6. No non-British users cite offense although 4 suggest non use.
   7. As retialiation for being stymied elsewhere, you again remove the valid shortcut.
   8. I replace it, and, true to my word, nominate it again for RfD. Sufficient time has elapsed so that it might be successful this time. I cite offense, a valid reason for deletion.
   9. You come along and stick a whole load of irrelevancies on the nom page, characterise opposition as disrespectful, and misrepresent my position. Like any of that is likely to help your cause.
   10. You launch a personal attack on me and wonder why you've never seen anything constructive I've done.
   11. I replace the valid shortcut and reply that there is no reason why you should see everything I've done on the project, so why would you know if I've ever done anything constructive. It's not logical. Unless of course you spend vast amounts of time trawling thro my contributions, the sort of behaviour that is usually classed as stalking. Are you a stalker?

Matt, there are ways to get things done on WP and they are usually not the way you approach things. Try a different approach. You may have more success. Crispness (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Crispness - You are clearly only doing this to distract me from other things, and to wear me down, so my only response will now be to ask ask others to sign the above!! Crispness is denying that 4:1 equals a consensus, and is writing "wait and see" when replacing it (he has put it up for deletion himself now, having realised that actually deleting shortcuts iis not the current policy!). He has also pipe-linked BRIT behind BITASK, so it shows up as being used! (here - how sad is that?),

The edit/conflict I just had here shows me that you removed the two points I actually wrote replies to!

• No one in their right mind would suggest that Irish editors are more likely to be offended by WP:BRIT than they are by WP:BRITISHISLES, are they?

• That is your ONLY point. Now you have made it can you please stop this!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is a venue for polls such as this. It has twice closed with a keep when asked to discuss this matter. This smacks of forum shopping

• The keep was not to delete it - not to use it in this article. Stop lying about that all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying them here as it shows exactly what is on your mind. As for "stalking"!! Talk about projection! I could put up a hell of a stalking case about you, from Association football right down to your sandbox earlier today (which was a bizarre compilation of my edits and comments) - so don't get me started on that!--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the RfD failed. Again. The closing admin's comment was, IMHO, very telling "Intimidation and name-calling is NOT the way to obtain consensus." Sorry people, but this one is not down to me. It's very obviously someone else who has the problem. Crispness (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it failed - they had already made it clear they do delete these the actual shortcuts. As the consensus was not to use it in here, and you opened the Rfd (for obvious gaming reasons) who else could that comment be about? The last comments made to the RfD before closing were:

Closing commments:

"The outcome of this discussion cannot be remove or keep the shortcut on Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force since that is not what this redirect deletion discussion is set up to discuss. -- Suntag ☼ 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)"

"Redirects and shortcuts are two different entities. Redirects need only be useful whereas shortcuts need to be useful and reflective of the content of the page it is on (not the exact standard, but I think you get the idea). Removing a shortcut from a page should take place on that page's talk page. Using RfD merely to delete a shortcut from a page isn't the best way to handle things. As for its usefulness as a redirect, do you think that the average Wikipedia will type in WP:BRIT and expect to find "Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force"? I think the redirect would be more appropriate as directed towards Wikipedia:WikiProject UK or Wikipedia:WikiProject_England. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force or Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism in Great Britain articles by quality seem more appropriate than where it is headed now. In any event, there should be about three months between deletion nominations when the prior deletion discussion resulted in a keep. -- Suntag ☼ 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)"

"The result of the debate was Speedy Close as too soon. Intimidation and name-calling is NOT the way to obtain consensus. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC"

I am going to re-point it back to Wikipedia:UK (ie "Wikiproject United Kingdom"), per Suntag's suggestion. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts compromise

How about we all agree a single shortcut for use on the project? Crispness (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So is anyone interested in reducing the number of shortcuts used for the project? Can I propose that we cease to list all shortcuts other than WP:BITASK. Anyone in agreement? Any disagreements? Does anyone care one way or t'other? Crispness (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should a whole taskforce compromise with one disruptive user? The shortcut now leads back to Wikiproject UK. Can somebody else delete it from BITASK now? If I do it I will get into trouble (which was the only reason for this whole exercise in the first place, imo). --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on these debates

I read some of these discussions about the "British Isles"/"UK and Ireland" (and please don't get into a discussion about whether I'm using potentially offensive terms, since I'm not even European and have no plans in the near future to go to Europe), and it just amazes me how you people haven't gone and killed each other yet. If you have a problem with another user, here's a suggestion for mutual action: Both of you pretend that the user you're talking to is someone completely new. In other words, start over with each other. In extreme cases, ignore the username altogether (pretend it's a new person each time), and let someone else criticize the other person's behavior, etc.

When you're in an unfriendly debate, how likely are you to be accepting of personal criticisms from the other side? Now project that onto your opponent, and you'll have a good idea of how likely your criticisms are going to go through.

If you're in a heated discussion and you know it, what exactly do you think will happen if you force the discussion into the personal realm? Think about whether it's actually likely that the other person will admit whatever faults you see in him or her, or whether the other person will quit arguing with you if you make them feel bad enough for being a bad faith POV troll. Think about how likely you're going to convince your counterpart that something's inherently wrong with Wikipedia if something's not the way you want it. Before you make a possibly heated comment about other people that you're arguing with, pause and think about the potential outcomes of your words.

And if your reason for calling the other person a logical moron, or some more reasonable name, is to make others realize how much of a moron he or she is, your opponent will probably be trying for the same, so it'll be a battle of whoever can make the more convincing personal attack, which doesn't actually prove (or even support the possibility) that you're correct at all. --Raijinili (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GD moving on

I've chosen to leave this Taskforce, folks. As long as IP.86.xxx.xxx is alowed to be involved with British/Irish articles (particularly British Isles) discussions? I won't be involved. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't just expect Wikipedia to block a range of IPs from editing a range of articles without showing that no one else will be affected. Are you sure you know how IPs work? Wikipedia can't tell one user from another if their Internet service provider changes their IP every time they connect.

Try a noticeboard? --Raijinili (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Stepping away, is the easiest route (for me). PS- IP accounts over 1-month old, should be forced to register in. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with full registration and no 3RR for reverting IPs by registered editors. Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay: Stop posting that everywhere. Not only is it impossible any way that you would like to have it, it goes against the core Wikipedia principle that everyone can edit because forcing an IP to register usually affects tens of thousands of people randomly without blocking the person you want to block. Besides, it doesn't help anything, as people can create accounts again and again with no way to track them IP-wise (go read up about how IPs work).

Sarah: That rule is unnecessary, unfair, and can be easily abused by registered users. Reverting obvious vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR, so the only thing the rule does is to give registered users power over unregistered users in disputes. --Raijinili (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Raijinili, if you have been around the WIkipedia for any time you will know that there is a large group of editors who feel that registration should be required. There are no technical reasons why its not possible, its a matter of policy. Registration would not affect tens of thousands of people - where do you get that from? About a third of my time on Wikipedia is spent clearing up vandalism and the vast majority of that is from IPs. So you may not agree, but its a reasonable position to hold and there is no reason why GoodDay should not post the comment as often as he wants - and he has my support, the sooner IPs are out of here the better. --Snowded TALK 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What GoodDay wants (selective forced registration) is impossible. It will affect tens of thousands of people that it's not supposed to.

Forced registration is an entirely different matter. However, while most vandalism is anonymous, most anonymous edits are not vandalism, and the problem with persistent anonymous vandals (which most aren't) might be solved if you people would only bring it up on WP:AN/I and get admin intervention. Wikipedia already has ways to prevent anon IPs from repeatedly vandalizing a page, such as semi-protection. Wikipedia should not prevent most people from making contributions just because you don't know the right course of action to take. --Raijinili (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that. Well, he was posting it in my talk page after I saw it once or twice from him before, so I was sick of reading the same thing everywhere, especially since he was just posting a statement without supporting it. --Raijinili (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning this Taskforce? I prefer certain IP accounts to stay away (particulary at British Isles & Republic of Ireland) as they refuse to register in. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put up a notice on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Since I don't know what the IP's done, it's all up to you people to make sure that something happens. --Raijinili (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination against IPs is breathtaking at Wikipedia! I was a registered user from 2003 to 2007 (good user, never ever blocked) but now I edit wholly as an IP; it's my choice, so you lot better learn to live with it. You make some good points Raijinili. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I call confirmation bias --Raijinili (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't apologies for my views on mandatory registration. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree G'Day. Leaving aside the "controversial" articles most of what I do on Wiki is mundane stuff about the towns and villages, roads and ruins, rivers and mountains of Ireland; I maintain a watchlist of over 2,000 of them. 99% (literally) of the vandalism is done by IP's. Very rarely does a registered user engage in vandalism. Sarah777 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that unregistered users would be as lazy to register if they had a greater incentive for doing so? --Raijinili (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intention behind allowing IP registration was to facilitate irregular contributers. It's difficult to understand why an editor choses to edit as an anon IP if they regularly contribute. --HighKing (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Conditional return

If the IP accounts stay away or register in? then I'll participate on this Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-Start

The latest reference is at BIDRAFT2. The sandbox for comments is at BIDRAFT1. Currently there are 5 guidelines on how to use the term British Isles in articles. The objective is to reach agreement on how to use the term in Wikipedia articles. --HighKing (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I invite interested editors to comment on the current guidelines and to make suggestions as to how to improve them. --HighKing (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)