Talk:BOAC Flight 712/Archive 1

Archive 1

31.55.10.219 and warring

I think 31.55.10.219 (talk · contribs) has a point in trying to make their recent edit stick. The edit contains a lot of useful tweaks and reverting it wholesale and without comment is not constructive. This needs to be talked through. If you are reading this 31.55.10.219, please do not revert again or you will be bashed over the head with the three-revert rule WP:3RR. It really does not matter which version is left live while we talk it through, Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This guy has been blocked a zillion times and banned - Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. If you want to keep part or all of his edit, please do so and thus take responsibility for it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Who knows why you would make such a weird claim. If someone thinks the edit makes the article worse, they can explain why. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, it's obvious their intent is just to be disruptive. I see three editors so far who just want to be disruptive. 31.55.10.219 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

From my talk page -

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. Do you really expect me to explain why the edit was necessary when neither you nor the first reverter could be bothered to think of even a vague reason why you didn't like it? 31.55.10.219 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

So it would seem that the lack of an edit summary is one thing that is objected to. However, edit summary or no, WP:BRD applies. We are at the D part. @31.55.10.219:, you are invited to discuss your original edit on this talk page. It may well be that some or all of it can be kept, but it does need discussing. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why does it need discussing? Still no hint as to what exactly you object to. In the absence of a reason for you revert, how the hell are we supposed to discuss anything? 31.55.10.219 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: This guy has broken 3RR, he's a well known disruptive case - we've seen all this crap before, and he's banned. Let's not entertain him any further. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't, and I am not. What is it about the changes I made that you didn't like? Either explain that, or admit that you reverted for no reason. 31.55.10.219 (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted you because you're banned. Another editor in good standing can take on responsibility for your edit if they want. People really aren't as gullible and stupid as you persist in believing they are. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not interested in criminal records or ad hominem reminders except in so far as they illuminate a bad edit. This edit looks good to me not bad, and nobody has yet given an 'encyclopedic reason why not. Let's discuss the edit not assassinate each other's characters. I have asked the guy to stop warring while we discuss the edit, so let's do that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Banned editors are not allowed to edit. If you think it's a good edit, restore it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Haven't had the chance - the OP has beat me every time to date, everybody is manically heated about this. I#ll keep trying though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You've done that now, so no problem. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your reasonableness and understanding. Hope we don't fall out over the IP guy's ID issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for yours. No, he's never worth falling out over! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive reverting and strange claims

Three people have undone my edit without explaining why. There's no way that's anything other than purely disruptive. One of them weirdly claimed I was a "banned editor". I followed the link they gave, and I find that the person they think I am:

1. Edits anonymously from IPs (and has rebuffed any suggestion to create an account).

   True, and not true. Don't think anyone suggest that.

2. Has edit [sic] from IPs in South America and more recently (2015-2016) in London.

   I'm in Brighton. I haven't been to South America.

3. Regularly removes the phrase "best known for" claiming violation of WP:NPOV and edit wars over it with personal attacks

   Nope.

So they are claiming I am banned because I am editing anonymously. I think they should grow up and stop disrupting the encyclopaedia. 31.55.10.219 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Could easily be a case of mistaken identity. Hang in there, take it easy and I will see if I can get this mess cleared up - no promises what the underlying reality will be found though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Steelpillow, I understand if you have no experience of this guy, but there's no doubt about it. We've been dealing with him for literally years, and these elaborate "who me?" protests are very old news. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough if the IP investigation has been done, but until then we have only editing habits to go on and nobody has highlighted any commonality with the long-term abuser. Sorry if, as a noob to that abuser, I prefer to reserve judgement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That's your right, but the location is consistent with many, many other IPs (central London IP not Brighton as he claims), the persistent reverting and bleating about being "reverted for no reason", claims of being targetted simply because he edits anonymously, and the elaborate claims of innocence. His familiarity with wiki procedure clearly demonstrates he's been around for years, and he has. Nobody else behaves in this way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"central London IP not Brighton as he claims" - climate change must be worse than I thought, I can see the sea from where I am.

"bleating about being "reverted for no reason"" - is complaining about people reverting for no reason some kind of wiki-crime these days?

"claims of being targetted simply because he edits anonymously" - where did I claim that?

"His familiarity with wiki procedure clearly demonstrates he's been around for years" - probably have been, now I think of it. Is that another wiki-crime these days?

Your bleating that I am banned is weird and disruptive. Are you here to pester people or to build an encyclopaedia? 31.55.10.219 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, Thanks for the update. IP address locations can be a pretty blunt instrument, all it takes is a network provider with a NAT solution to a tricky pipe. I feel that stronger evidence would be needed. Still, maybe moving on is the best thing to do right now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Being under 50 years old, the citations are still covered by Crown Copyright, so we probably shouldn't include them in full. David Underdown (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a read, and having done so I've added refs and indicated the cititions are Crown Copyright. They are accurately reproduced (which is why they have to be in full) and not used in a misleading way, so we should be covered. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem we can't guarantee how they would be used in a derivative work, which is allowed under the gfdl used by Wikipedia, but could fall foul of those restrictions in Crown Copyright. David Underdown (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What about non-free images? Surely that's the same case. The website has to be responsible for complying with copyright rules for any non-free content, same as Wikipedia is for its own. That is not Wikipedia's concern. Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to simplify the process and reduce unnecessary administration and delay for re-users of Crown copyright material, extracts of up to 250 words from official sources may be re-used without the need to apply for a licence. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd missed that, so we should be OK then - I think we can justifiably claim that they are two separate extracts, despite being from the same Gazette. David Underdown (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)