User talk:Stuart.Jamieson

Re: Butlins related articles

"who do you think you are" - I'm a user and contributor towards wikipedia. I hold as much right to edit those pages as you do. "Resort instead of Camp" - On the talk page which you reference, user wearebutlins, the username used by Butlins itself for social networking (see footer of butlins.com) puts across a very valid argument for why the term 'Resort' is actually more accurate and is the preferred term. There is no justification for the use of the term camp - wikipedia isn't a place where we can all be nostalgic and call it camp because that's what they used to be called or because it would be promoting their corporation. The terminology these days IS resorts. Now, considering that Butlins is on my side with this, it's a bit silly to be insisting on "Camps". In your argument against Butlins, you also state that "the British have always in the past used the term "Camp" to refer to such sites within the UK" but yet you cite no sources to back up your claim. As Butlins' preferred terminology is Resort, an they've preferred this for the past fourteen-ish years, it's hardly "recentism". Before that there were holiday worlds, and do you have anything to prove that the resorts were ever referred to as "camps"?

With regards to the inappropriate tone, take, for example "For some time Billy Butlin had nurtured the idea of a holiday camp." Taken from Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles: "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopaedic content, should be written in a formal tone." The point in that tag was to signify that this isn't a "History of Butlins" book, it's part of an encyclopaedia.

The name of the article "Ingoldmells (holiday camp)" makes no reference to the resort's actual name or any of its previous names. It's not ever been known as that, nor is it Colloquially known as that. Such an article title gives the impression that the resort is named "Ingoldmells" and is a "Holiday Camp" - both are wrong. The Resort is known as Butlins Resort Skegness, that is what people would search for and that is where the article should be. This is an active resort and its corresponding wiki article should carry it's current name.

For the category box template, the past and current resorts are not distinguished - these resorts have closed or been sold off and should not be mixed amongst the resorts currently being operated by Butlins. There would be no point in discussing anything on the talk page because the "overlord" of the Butlins section would just reject any changes because they don't agree with the changes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and as such, I don't have to think I'm anyone if I want to change the page. It's not for you to decide, and by using the term "Camp" you are using incorrect terminology without the grounds to do so.

Feel free to continue this discussion. --Timtastik (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Butlins

Unfortunately, I'm going to let this lie here, not because you're right, if anything, it's quite the opposite. If you believe you're right and believe that you're somehow in control of this section, that's fine. If you'd like to reject any changes or improvements made to this section of pages in terms of its content or naming, then go ahead. I'm not in any position to be wasting time bickering with someone who sees themselves as the unelected dictator of a section who feels that whatever they feel is right, or who feels that a GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH is an accurate way of determining anything. I fear you harbour some serious misconceptions on how Wikipedia works and I think you need to understand how it exists as a purely collaborative project, and I think that your comments and attitude toward other editors and toward actual Butlins staff are a bit ridiculous. From reading the talk pages, this "consensus" you so frequently refer to is nothing but a figment of your imagination, in fact said consensus is actually just you making an executive decision when you're in no position to do so. Anybody who argues against you is apparently doing something evil and if you want to believe that, that's fine, as I've said, just go ahead. Continue cherry picking bits of Wikipedia guidance and rules and disregarding those bits which don't quite fit to what you're doing, and continue maintaining this awful section of pages in whatever awful way you see fit.

I'd like to request no further correspondence. Timtastik (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited. You've expressed interest in the past. Already 4 days into the certification poll.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)