Content deleted Content added
Wee Curry Monster (talk | contribs) |
→Removing a lot of links to this article: reply to Wee Curry Monster Tag: CD |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::As you mentioned the Pitcairn case, your addition was poorly researched and an example of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYN]] claiming a thing such as "British possession status" existed; which is not supported by sources. The Privy Council ruling was Pitcairn was a British possession under the terms of the British Settlements Act 1887. Its legal status is that of a [[British Overseas Territory]]. Just because a common phrase is used in legislation doesn't mean it has encyclopedic value. |
::As you mentioned the Pitcairn case, your addition was poorly researched and an example of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYN]] claiming a thing such as "British possession status" existed; which is not supported by sources. The Privy Council ruling was Pitcairn was a British possession under the terms of the British Settlements Act 1887. Its legal status is that of a [[British Overseas Territory]]. Just because a common phrase is used in legislation doesn't mean it has encyclopedic value. |
||
::I fully expected both of you will turn up when I get around to [[WP:AFD]] this article, I knew that would be the case the moment you started the ''ad hominem''. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
::I fully expected both of you will turn up when I get around to [[WP:AFD]] this article, I knew that would be the case the moment you started the ''ad hominem''. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::I understand you feel attacked because other editors are questioning your editing behavior, ''relevant to an article you previously tried and failed to get deleted''. But I don't think there was any ''ad hominem'' or bad faith on my part (if I said something you think is a personal attack or bad faith comment, let me know and I'll deal with it).{{pb}}You can choose to walk away, but if you decide you want another bite at the AfD apple then of course people who disagree with you will disagree. That's a good thing, maybe not for you in this particular moment, but for the project as a whole. [[User:Oblivy|Oblivy]] ([[User talk:Oblivy|talk]]) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:42, 22 February 2024
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Removing a lot of links to this article
To whom it may concern: User:Wee Curry Monster has been removing a number of links to this article. This is being discussed on User talk:Wee Curry Monster § British possessions, but it may be more appropriate to move the discussion here. — W.andrea (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- That is incorrect, I have simply been removing inappropriate links per MOS:OVERLINK. WCMemail 07:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- At your talk page, @Wee Curry Monster you say that you're going to get around to nominating the article for AfD. Is that inconsistent with your explanation that you were "simply...removing inappropriate links"?It does appear to be the case there was, putting it nicely, some overexuberant linking. However, that does not mean all the links are invalid, and what you've done has left it nearly an orphan. In one period on the 19th you you de-linked "1911 New Zealand census" which appears to have been a perfectly justifiable place to put it. In fact, I count 24 links removed in roughly 40 minutes. During that period you also published the response on your talk page saying you would be nominating the article for deletion and complaining about the article quality, and then went back to de-linking.No it's not perfect, but the application section is substantive. And it has significant coverage including of the Pitcairns decision which was not a primary source but an article describing the judgment. If you are determined to bring an AfD, then I guess you will do that and I'll be there to explain why the project is better off with a flawed article about the subject than without one. I agree with @W.andrea should be happening here and sorry for continuing at the talk page. I'm happy to keep it here. Oblivy (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- [1]
what you've done has left it nearly an orphan
clearly unnecessary hyperbole and the constant attacks and the lack of good faith are starting to become rather tiresome. I suggest you all stop it. My mother-in-law is currently terminally ill, she is in fact in end-of-life care. I would have liked to spend some constructive time editing to take my mind of things, instead I find myself dealing with this. - You recognise there was "over exuberant linking" but then attack me for trying to fix it. You pick one that you assert was inappropriate, please explain why you think that instead of asserting it to be the case. The wlink in question was inappropriate because the phrase was used as an abbreviation [2] for other parts of the British Empire rather than an actual entity recognised by WP:GEOLAND or a context relevant with legislation. Per MOS:OVERLINK
Everyday words understood by most readers in context
the term should not be routinely linked. - British possession is defined in legislation as a shorthand or dictionary definition. Legislators define the term separately and differently in different pieces of legislation, demonstrating it was never a well-defined term with specific meaning. It has never been an administrative division of the British Empire as claimed and which I challenged you to prove. Whilst many WP:PRIMARY sources may refer to British possessions it is not because it is a recognisable entity but simply a descriptive phrase used as an abbreviation.
- As you mentioned the Pitcairn case, your addition was poorly researched and an example of WP:OR and WP:SYN claiming a thing such as "British possession status" existed; which is not supported by sources. The Privy Council ruling was Pitcairn was a British possession under the terms of the British Settlements Act 1887. Its legal status is that of a British Overseas Territory. Just because a common phrase is used in legislation doesn't mean it has encyclopedic value.
- I fully expected both of you will turn up when I get around to WP:AFD this article, I knew that would be the case the moment you started the ad hominem. WCMemail 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you feel attacked because other editors are questioning your editing behavior, relevant to an article you previously tried and failed to get deleted. But I don't think there was any ad hominem or bad faith on my part (if I said something you think is a personal attack or bad faith comment, let me know and I'll deal with it).You can choose to walk away, but if you decide you want another bite at the AfD apple then of course people who disagree with you will disagree. That's a good thing, maybe not for you in this particular moment, but for the project as a whole. Oblivy (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- [1]