User talk:Narrow Feint

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Amanda Pays, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Dismas|^(talk) 00:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK[edit]

Hi. You seem to spend a lot of time removing UK from the infoboxes of English bands and people. Just curious: why? Cheers, Yintan 10:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can't find your response to the above question, so I hope you don't mind me asking again. There is no guideline on the inclusion or exclusion of "UK" in place names, but there is an essay at WP:UKNATIONALS, with this part about not enforcing uniformity being relevant. I don't have a problem with people occasionally adding or removing "UK" but it's the systematic nature of your editing that concerns me slightly. You don't seem to do anything else on Wikipedia. I notice you also only remove "UK" from English place names, ignoring Scottish / Welsh ones etc. Can you clarify? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 October 2013 (UTC) Hi. System is under load so if this comes out garbage, sorry. I replied to the above at his talk page. I have found a discussion, it is linked at one of my userpages. Narrow Feint (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not on his talk page. The discussion you linked to does not constitute a consensus, nor does it explain why you are only concerned with English place names. I'd be grateful for a fuller explanation, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Yintan/Archives/2013/August#UK or User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 19#Question about an editor, possibly. The discussions linked at User:Narrow Feint/sandbox apparently didn't result in consensus for this, although there may be consensus now; however these relate specifically to UK geography articles. The issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#UK in BLP articles and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#"UK" in articles about British subjects. Peter James (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that those discussions were to try to find out if there was a consensus or guideline on it and to find out if this style of editing was OK or not. I specifically didn't mention Narrow Feint's name anywhere else because it's only a suspicion on my part, not an official complaint about him, and I wanted to get the opinions of others before accusing him of something. I have now asked here for some idea of his motives before making any judgement. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the UK geography WikiProject's guideline on this: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Guide; it supports changes similar to these in opening paragraphs of that project's articles. The documentation for Template:Infobox person is different: it currently says to use "city, administrative region, sovereign state", but I don't know if that's a guideline. Peter James (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a lot of talk of 'motives' 'explanation' 'suspicion' and 'official complaint'. I will read those pages when I have time, which may not be for a few hours (tonight looks like being a long night). There is a guideline somewhere. Are you (Bretonbanquet) the chap who wanted to talk about me a few weeks ago but didn't want me to be involved? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me. It wasn't that I didn't want you involved at all, more that I didn't want to involve you if it wasn't necessary. User:RonHJones didn't have a big problem with what you were doing, so I didn't go any further with it then because I wanted to see how your editing progressed. It's looking like my attempts to avoid finger-pointing might have been a little ill-conceived, so apologies for that, but I do find your pattern of editing a bit of a concern. If nobody agrees with me, then that's fine. No hurry to reply, take your time. If you can dig out the guideline, that would be great. Can't find it myself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I havent gone off and ignored you. Things are busy (good). A short answer; I dont ignore Scotland/Wales, I'm not looking for them. I can, though. Narrow Feint (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've been away for a day or so anyway. Meanwhile, Peter James (who posted above) has found the instructions for use of BLP templates, which stipulates the inclusion of the sovereign state in infobox fields (Template:Infobox person#Parameters). Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Hi, an ANI report that concerns you has been posted here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Mass changes to UK addresses. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here from ANI, I would have to say you need to stop with your mass changes until and unless you have consensus to do so. It's good that you're willing to partake in discussion when it arises and that you're civil in such discussions, but such mass changes done without consensus are disruptive. Ultimately if you can't reach consensus for a universal style in all articles, or at least consensus for a universal style in a specific set of articles, then you will need to just leave each article be. If you continue to make such mass changes, don't be surprised if you are blocked or topic banned in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to post at that page? Narrow Feint (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have got consensus for those changes, at the UK notice board. Narrow Feint (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not. There may have been a preference there for your favoured format, but there was no discussion, let alone consensus, on mass changes to articles. Repeat, you do not have a consensus to make mass changes to articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can post at that page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right. You are telling me that I need consensus (which already existed, but has been reconfirmed) for the change, and then a separate consensus to make the changes? Narrow Feint (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What already existed were discussions regarding the merits of the various formats. A (fairly small) majority of people in those discussions favoured the version you favour. In the last discussion you just asked if "UK" was needed – you didn't ask if you could enforce its removal everywhere. Not the same thing at all, and you'd need a much wider consensus than on the UK Wikipedian's notice board to do that. For example, foreign editors were not consulted. If you want to be able to make mass changes you're going to need more, particularly because you have no guideline to follow. A rough preference for one format does not constitute carte blanche to change every article on Wikipedia to suit that preference. You need a specific consensus to take a course of action, not just find out what some people might like and act on it. That's not how it works. I've been on here for eight years, and in my opinion, you will need to develop an actual policy or guideline before you can make mass changes like these, particularly as you don't seem to want to do anything else on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI report has been written off as a content dispute. I have no idea why everyone seems to think this is a content dispute, but there you go. It's quite clearly a dispute over what constitutes a consensus. I really think admins only have the stomach to make a decision if editors are being abusive towards each other. They have no idea otherwise. I suggest one of us goes to WP:DRN and we can see what happens there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is the way ahead then fine. I'm going to have limited connectivity Monday to Thursday, but if you want to start thing off, that's OK. Do we need to say anything at the UK noticeboard? Narrow Feint (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll start it off when I get the chance. I won't be able to do it tomorrow (Sunday) but maybe Monday. I don't think the DRN process moves very fast anyway. I don't think we need to say anything at the UK noticeboard – I'm not sure if it would constitute forum shopping or something. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Narrow Feint (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the report, and there should be a link to it in the paragraph below. There's a field there for you to fill in your side of the debate. I hope I haven't misrepresented you in the report – apologies if I have. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Angus Deayton". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please join the discussion at WP:DRN when you have time. If discussion doesn't begin soon we may need to close the dispute resolution request. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Request for Closure has been dealt with, and the result is on the UK Wikipedian's talk page discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes[edit]

Hi, I noticed your post at User talk:Gigs and you say there's another editor making mass changes. If you tell me who it is, I'll keep an eye on him and back you up at ANI when you make your report. Whichever way he's changing things, it's clear now that it's not allowed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some examples to my sandbox. These are from the last month or so. Narrow Feint (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are these examples of someone adding "UK" to articles where it did not previously exist? Is it always the same editor? I can't tell from your sandbox who is doing it. If so, we will need to warn them to stop before starting an ANI about them. The first thing an admin will say is "Did you tell them to stop?" Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all those cases in your sandbox are BLPs from the north of England. Two or three of the IP addresses are from Salford and are probably the same person. Another IP is from Somerton and could be someone different. Another one is a registered editor. When I get the chance I'll make a list of them and warn the ones who are doing it a lot. Then we'll see if they stop or ignore us. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The common link is that an Orange IP has edited in the last month. I have not been through these in detail, but usually that IP will have done the edit. Narrow Feint (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]