User talk:Platinumpaintitblack

Hello, Platinumpaintitblack! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Axman (☏) 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi. Prior to rampaging through this article changing every reference to "Union Flag" to "Union Jack", can you firstly:

• Obtain concensus via the discussion page for such a radical change.
• Not alter the url links to the images contained in the article.

Not only is it highly likely that your changes will be undone, but your vandalism in breaking the links to the images could result in your being referred to an admin and blocked. Images will only appear if linked to by the name used by the original uploader, irrespective of whether or not you happen to agree with their choice of name. Wikipedia is not a place to enforce your own Point of View on articles. Please read all of the recommended reading linked to in the welcome post above this section.Endrick Shellycoat 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Platinumpaintitblack - How do I respond to contacts? I want to answer you but cannot see a respond button anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 August 2009

Hi. To respond you just type your response as you have done here, so just reply here. Also please, remember to sign a response with ~~~~ so it is clear who has said what, and indent each response with another level of colons as I have illustrated here (using that convention consistently helps people read the conversations). Details at WP:INDENT. --Mirokado (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for this. I am wondering why someone is constantly changing my edit to Union Jack? "The Union Flag, also called and commonly known as the Union Jack, is the flag of the United Kingdom." is changed to "The Union Flag, commonly known as the Union Jack, is the flag of the United Kingdom". My version is more accurate as the second version suggests that the flag is merely colloquially known as ‘Union Jack’ through usage. In fact, as the History shows later in the article, Union Jack has been confirmed in the House of Lords as the official name as well: 1908. House of Lords on 14 July in response to a question by Earl Howe, the Earl of Crewe replied "My Lords I think it may fairly be stated, in reply to the noble Earl, that the Union Jack should be regarded as the national flag, and it undoubtedly may be flown on land by all His Majesty’s subjects”. (Hansard 4th Series Volume CXCII (192) page 579). The vociferous minority determined to kill off the Union Jack are incorrect in their insistence that Union Jack is merely slang as the history clearly shows.Platinumpaintitblack (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a new, enthusiastic editor who has started off by contributing to an "interesting" discussion and making extensive edits to a somewhat contentious article. Nothing wrong with that as such, but please learn to walk before you try to run and don't get frustrated when other editors do not agree with you. That happens to us all from time to time. If you have not already started doing so, look at edit summaries for recent changes (see the page histories) so you know why changes are being made. Read WP:BRD which is the very common way in which many changes can be accepted without discussion and for anything else consensus can be reached on the talk page. Please also read WP:3RR and WP:EW which will help you to avoid problems...

As far as the big history section is concerned (just removed by another editor) there were so many problems with it that it was quite right to remove it. I suggest you work the contents up in your sandbox and ask for comments on the talk page if you wish to restore anything similar. Problems included:

• Few inline sources, those present not as completed inline references, most of the entries unsourced, every statement (particularly for a contentious issue) needs a inline supporting reference
• Incorrect wiki format in several ways: bold text instead of section heading, no clear indication of what was quoted and what was reported text, inline reference required for each quote
• Some use of curly quotes, was any of that text a copyright violation from wherever you read it?
• Almost certainly the question about WP:UNDUE emphasis will be asked

From the article history you can edit (without saving) a previous version to obtain the text of that section for transfer to your sandbox. --Mirokado (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wiki avoid contentious articles simply being edited and re-edited by opposing views? The issue of the Union Jack/Flag debate is gaining speed and the very active, almost Evangelical group who have decided that Union Jack is the wrong name are expending huge efforts to eradicate any proof that they are wrong. The history that I posted I was sent directly from the Flag Institute and this surely should be added to the debate. There was no debate about this until recently - everybody simply called it Union Jack. The anti-Union Jack side deny even this obvious fact and reject any suggestion that this was the case. I don't want to spend the rest of my life fighting this battle: but equally am concerned that the Wiki site is not recruited unwittingly into the anti-Union Jack campaign. So far it has - for example the pages describing the flags of New Zealand and Australia use the Union Flag reference when the official bodies of these nations use the name Union Jack when describing the make up of their national flags. Check the websites I refererred to in the debate. This is insane and yet continues almost unchallenged.Platinumpaintitblack (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(generally no need for a bullet on talk pages, the conversations at the RM discussion was structured a bit differently with, ideally, a top-level bullet for each person's contribution)

We avoid the sort of ping-pong you are talking about by following (and if necessary enforcing) policies and guidelines, I have already given you links to the most relevant pages. If you add something "boldly" and it is reverted, either accept the reversion (provided it is itself clearly not disruptive) or start a discussion on the talk page (BRD, an essay supplementing WP:CON and WP:BB). Anyone reverting more than three times on a single page within 24 hours will be blocked (3RR). If people avoid that but are clearly edit warring they will be blocked (EW).

As far as the content is concerned, it is just not true that "everybody simply called it UJ" "until recently". I was taught the distinction at school "quite a long time" ago (that of course does not of itself make it correct, but clearly it is not a new fad) and lots of references maintaining it have been provided. --Mirokado (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I'm fighting a losing battle. You say "it is just not true that "everybody simply called it UJ" "until recently" and yet an item in the history that I supplied (as supplied to me by the Flag Institute) states "1939. In considering proposals for the reform of flags, the First Sea Lord stated that that 9,999 of 10,000 Britishers called it the Union Jack. (ADM 205/55)." Which supports catgorically my argument - 99.99% were then using UJ! I'd never heard the term before about 1985 or so when the BBC went over to UF and I wondered what they were talking about. You say you were taught the 'distinction' quite a long time ago but that is the very point - there is no distinction! Both are equal and both correct. But UJ has overwhelmingly been the most popular and is only under threat because of an incorrect 'distinction' about it only being called UJ at sea. As I have said in the debate elsewhere: if teachers are teaching UF as the 'correct' name and UJ is either slang or just at sea, then the UJ name is indeed doomed. I cannot spend time editing - it is just too time consuming. And I will drink a toast to the Union Jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I have just noticed the timestamp on the first entry in this section! UJ will certainly remain as what people frequently say, it is not going to disappear any time soon. I join you in the toast, celebrating our affection for the flag, our maritime heritage and the wonderful eccentricities of our language! But I will continue to refer to UF in writing!

Wikipedia is quite a lot of fun despite the odd frustration. It would be easier to appreciate that if you widen your attention to more than just this one issue, but that is of course up to you. --Mirokado (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the British Monarchy under a section entitled "Union Jack" states "The Union Flag, or Union Jack, is the national flag of the United Kingdom." http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/UnionJack.aspx. The Flag Institute pages mention "in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that "the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag". I have since discovered the detail which I posted (now removed by another) "House of Lords - on 14 July in response to a question by Earl Howe, the Earl of Crewe replied My Lords I think it may fairly be stated, in reply to the noble Earl, that the Union Jack should be regarded as the national flag, and it undoubtedly may be flown on land by all His Majesty’s subjects”. (Hansard 4th Series Volume CXCII (192) page 579)." Note 'on land'.

And yet Wiki allows the opening line in its newly re-titled Union Jack page to state "The Union Flag, commonly known as the Union Jack" which firmly relegates the Union Jack to colloquial use. And UF is used throughout the article including when describing other nations flags - even when if you visit those nations’ official websites they use UJ. I have supplied a tsunami of incontrovertible evidence to support my argument, the other side has produced zero apart from their assertion. When I quote Cdr Bruce Nicolls of the Flag Institute the other side say "..others in the field disagree with him. His comments certainly have very wide distribution, his view is about the only one that's really wheeled out to support the "Union Jack" argument." and yet they fail to produce one single comment of quote from these mysterious 'others' to support their view. And systematically remove any of my corrections.

You may say that this is just my 'opinion' that UJ is correct and more popular but I have shown that it is in fact the case. In the same way that it is not my opinion that the earth is spherical rather than flat! It happens to be true. If this were a court case I would have won with damages! But others have more time and inclination to circulate their view so there you have it.

Finally as a novice, may I ask your role? Are you independent or some sort of official Wiki editor? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about much of this... I am just an ordinary editor like you. There are administrators etc to deal with prodecural etc issues but Wikipedia tries hard to be a self-governing community of equals. --Mirokado (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material you recently added to Union Jack was not accompanied by a source of any kind, which is against Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, so I've reverted your change for now. You can re-add the material if you cite a source for the information. clpo13_(talk) 18:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Union Jack, you may be blocked from editing. You are in serious danger of being regarded as edit warring. Your account only seems to exist to push your view about the name of the flag. I attempted a compromise between your (and only your) opinion and those of at least three other editors but you have persistently ignored changes. Please cease your disruptive editing forthwith. I will copy this notice to your talk page as a warning, be aware that others may decide to add their comments or take this further. I will not be taking any further actions for a few days to avoid edit warring, I suggest you do likewise for the good of the encyclopaedia. Please also ensure you sign comments on a talk page by using four tildes(~~~~). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct your future energies to Talk:Union Jack#Churchill on the flag, and stop editing the article itself, until we have come to consensus on the content you wish to add. If you continue to edit the article without regard for the objections of other editors, this dispute will be elevated to the Administrators' noticeboard. Ibadibam (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Union Jack does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Ibadibam (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]