Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bardcom

Pay attention to edits

It is worth noting that User:78.19.7.28 and User:iktae have edited only pages related to this specific controversy. Tb (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are people from?

Of the people objecting to this RfC, how many have a long-standing interest in Irish nationalist politics? I am willing to be corrected, but nearly all of the "Outside parties" seem to be members of the Irish Wikipedians or Irish Republican Wikipedians, or some similarly named group? User:Domer48 reasonably asked that people be clear about how they came here and where they come from on the issue; that would be very helpful. Tb (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A possible compromise

This RfC is not about the language, but about the conduct of one user, but I have drafted what might be the beginnings of a sketch of a start at a policy about this naming issue, at User:Tb/British Isles. I invite interested folks to give it a look, and register any particular concerns. It worked for Gdansk/Danzig, it might work here. If we can figure something out which User:Bardcom will agree to also, then that would end my concerns here as well. Tb (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just from a cursory look at the RfC, it seems that it's important to distinguish the conduct of User:Bardcom from the merits of using "British Isles" or other terms that the user has favored. The statements on the project page are to some degree talking past each other.--Atemperman (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

I'm not overly concerned about where the term British Isles is used or not used on Wikipedia - see Lough Neagh. I'm more anxious that the article British Isles's title isn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about it either. (I've been told I'm a British nationalist, which is funny, since I'm American.) But I am concerned that the edits are disruptive and careless, introducing wild errors (such as that Jersey is part of the UK). I'm concerned about single-issue editing. Tb (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Crispness

I would ask that you examine the more lengthy discussions about those examples in Talk:British Isles. The change to History of Jersey created an outright factual error. The problem is that there is nothing "more appropriate" about the terms that User:Bardcom chooses, which frequently alter the sense of the statement in significant ways. I would suggest that the solution to cases like this is to let it slide; just as with spelling or with "BC/BCE", attempts to push a singular POV ("nobody must use 'British Isles' unless I approve") is disastrous. The problem is that there is no good equivalent. "Great Britain and Ireland would be excellent, if only there weren't a half-dozen other islands in the archipelago. But there they are. Tb (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom 's edits have often shown serious misunderstanding of the subjects, in some cases by his own admission. That has not detered him from hunting down and altering uses of this term that is widely accepted through out the scholarship of the Anglophonic world. That said, I too, have little care where the term does or does not appear in Wikipedia. It should be avoided in modern political discussions, but it may used when discussing the Isles as a whole, geographic, location. It is this user's refusal to follow policy, which discourages contentious edits for their own sake, that has brought me to waste my time here at RfC in the first place. -- Secisek (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only discuss the evidence presented. History of Jersey is not amongst the evidence presented. If you want to base the RfC on other evidence then pls introduce it to the RfC. Crispness (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern is in part the large number of edits that he has done. It would be difficult and time-consuming to track them all down - Iceland (supermarket), Martello Tower, Wheel arrangement. Cockle (bivalve). Mormon Trail, etc. and it seems very likely that he is indeed just doing a search and then making changes, justifying them when he can do that easily but also leaving some havoc behind when he can't or is careless. I'm also disturbed that it has become an Irish versus those who disagree thing (see Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board but I guess that was inevitable. Although I dislike nationalism of any kind I can understand that some Irish don't like the term, but I don't agree that's a reason for this wholesale and at times destructive change.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

None of us need to get anyone's permission to make edits. We can just be bold and make the edits. If Bardcom wants to make a change to any article, s/he can do so. If no one objects to an individual edit, then its probably an acceptable edit. Thats how WP works. If it is not sufficiently important to people to trawl back thro his edit history checking each edit, then its probably not sufficiently important full stop. And saying that Bardcom is disruptive, whilst conducting a silly RfC like this brings to mind 3 words. Pot, kettle and black.Crispness (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that a pattern of edits of this sort is POV; is there not a policy about single-issue editing? Is this not a case of Righting Great Wrongs? WP:DBF? Tb (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't tend to take much notice of essays. There are lots of them around, all purporting to be some kind of officialdom. They're not. If there is a breach of policy, can you please reference it? This RfC seems to be more about trying to establish a POV around the use of the term BI in all articles, rather than Bardcom's actions. Crispness (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that I haven't been going around changing the language. I'd be happy if things were left alone. Tb (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds awfully like you have serious ownership issues. Now that IS a policy. Crispness (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Crispness points at Act of Settlement 1701 as an example where User:Bardcom's edits were vindicated. Anything but true, however. User:Bardcom altered the text to say that the monarch couldn't leave England, Scotland or Ireland, when the law actually specified "the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland". That's important, because under the terms of the law, the crown dependencies were considered part of the "dominion of England", even though not part of England itself. It is this kind of careful subtlety which is necessary to these kinds of changes, and is an excellent example of User:Bardcom's carelessness. Tb (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What a fine example of a good Wikipedian you are. Its good to see you improving on other editors contributions. Thats what Wikipedia is all about. Crispness (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The previous text was correct, User:Bardcom changed it to a false statement, and I changed it to a true one, which was better than the previous text. That doesn't make his changing it to a false statement a good thing; it makes it a careless thing. Tb (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:78.19.7.28

It is User:Bardcom's stated position that it is perfectly appropriate to use British Isles to refer to the archipelago. That means that the discussion you refer to is not particularly relevant. Moreover, if it were true that it is inappropriate to proceed in the absence of agreement on Talk:British Isles, then this is all the more reason to object to User:Bardcom's edits. It certainly shows that he is aware that such edits are extremely controversial. Moreover, British Isles had a long consensus before User:Bardcom started to make controversial edits there, as Talk:British Isles makes clear. Certainly the term "British Isles" may well be often used wrong, but User:Bardcom's edits, as the examples show, are not careful case-by-case examinations, but rather careless modifications of existing text without consideration of the underlying facts of a particular case. Especially problematic is attempting to replace "British Isles" with "Great Britain and Ireland": if it bothers the Irish to say British Isles, imagine the effect of simply pretending that the Isles of Man and Wight don't exist. Tb (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the claim that the term "British Isles" was invented in 1620 is not substantiated. See [1]. Tb (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tb, I think you are shadow boxing with me. I didn't say that the term British Isles does not exist, but it certainly means different things to different people. You say that there is a consensus on the page. You don't say what the consensus is, and I would like to know too. There are many issues on the talk:British Isles page that were just left hanging, and never resolved. You use the words "bothers the Irish to say British Isles", well they are very charged words, and it appears that you are "bothered" to see another editor make some very good edits to those articles. You make a comparison about isles Man and Wight, well they are included in the term British Isles because they are British, but many people believe that Ireland is not included since 1921, because Ireland is certainly no more British, than America is Chinese. Every different usage and context of the term BI is important, especially when many British editors insist that the term is purely geographical, and not political or cultural. Irish editors must have an input into these articles too. -78.19.7.28 (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of what you say here has no relation to the comment I made.

• Never did I say or imply that you said the term British Isles does not exist.
• What I said was that Man and Wight are not included in the term "Great Britain", but when User:Bardcom changes "British Isles" into "Great Britain and Ireland", he excludes Man and Wight (and others) from consideration.
• I never said the usage of "British Isles" was not important. My objection is to the specific behavior of User:Bardcom. Tb (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also you have quoted my friend Tharkumcol as an authority, and have linked to his edit for citation purposes. Although he must be terribly flattered by your link, nevertheless I'll quote from the British Isles article page. "The Oxford English Dictionary states that the first published use in English of "British Isles" was in 1621 (before the civil wars) by Peter Heylin (or Heylyn) in his Microcosmus: a little description of the great world[2]." If you lived in Ireland as I do, you would fully understand that the term "Britain and Ireland" includes all the islands of Britain and Ireland, just as Wight is part of Britain, and Aran is part of Ireland. -78.19.7.28 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the OED. The first citation it gives is from 1621, but it does not assert that this is the first usage. The Isle of Man is not part of Great Britain. It's not even part of the UK. I did not cite Tharkmucol as authority for what you think: simply as evidence that your claim is not established. Tharkcumcol's point is that the term was used by the Romans long before. Tb (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A question for User:78.19.7.28. Have you edited Wikipedia under any other names? You have a lot of Wikipedia experience, but it doesn't show in your edit log. Tb (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It intrigues me why you question my participation in all of this, I will not question yours. I edit only under my IP address, that is within stated Wikipedia guidelines and policy. User:78.19.7.28 11:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.46.43 (talk)

To echo Bardcom, ironically, I don't think that 78.19.7.28 can be seen as an outside user either as before this comment he/she started a new section at Talk:British Isles objecting to the term (following on from a discussion initiated by Bardcom.

Likewise I am a bit bothered by the fact that 78.19.7.28 has so far only posted on this topic, starting with the post I've just mentioned.(Or maybe this almost identical one with the same time stamp that is no longer on the Talk Page in that form or at that place [3] -- looks like a SPA and could easily be a sockpuppet - note I am not accusing anyone specific about this (apologies if this is unfair but these things happen).Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem is usually not the best way forward on Wikipedia. Instead of swinging with innuendo, I would suggest that if you are concerned, as you do suggest you are, then the procedure of WP:Checkuser is there at your disposal, as it is for everyone on Wikipedia. By using checkuser, you will dispense with the need for continuing on-page doubts. I welcome any examination. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't 'ad hom', it is puzzlement and confusion and I submit it is a natural reaction to the circumstances. It doesn't help that you seem to be posting under at lesat 2 IP addresses, or am I still confused? I'm still relatively new and am not familiar with WP:Checkuser, but would it offer anything you can't explain yourself? Can't you say if you are a new user or an old one using different IP addresses for some reason?

I disagree, WP:Checkuser is there for everyone at Wikipedia to use. If an editor has doubts about another editor, then he/she is free to use checkuser. I believe it is imperative we stick to the substantive issues here, and not to get sidetracked by innuendo and peripheral distractions. I believe it is much more productive to argue the case, and not the other editors. Thank you. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." And the results are not necessarily clear. Arguing the case is fine, but if procedure isn't being followed.... It would be easier if you were to make your status clear.Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) WP:Checkuser is very efficient nowadays. No problem getting a result back within a couple of hours or so. Actually they are not busy at the moment, and are up to speed. I am quite sure that they would welcome your request as perm norm. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you've read the page then you'll know a RFCU would be turned down for something like this. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:iktae

Some folk on Wiki need to get their heads out of their rear-ends and stop playing language police.

I could not agree more. This is exactly what this RfC is requesting. I would like User:Bardcom to step down from his self-appointed role as the language policeman. It is not me who is editing a very large number of articles to express a single language point of view, it is he. Tb (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tb, you have used editor iktae's words out of context, thereby endeavoring to put a spin on his input. User:iktae does not share your thesis. 78.19.7.28 (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I think that User:iktae is being inconsistent. To say that language policing is bad, and then decide that this is what I'm doing, and not User:Bardcom, is wildly inaccurate, even offensively so. Tb (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A question for User:iktae. Have you edited Wikipedia under any other usernames? I find it curious that your only edits are to this discussion. Tb (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - User:iktae seems to need to state his Britishness; "my fellow 'Brit"; "We British" – terms that we wouldn't drop into a response unless he or she wants to perhaps give an erronious impression that the term British Isles is "contentious" in Britain. To my knowledge, the BI has never been "contentious" (a word that 78.19.7.28 also uses, btw)in the UK. He then says "even the British Met office eschews it" well it uses it quite a lot [4] and that 'British Isles' has not been used in UK geography books since 1980' l that's funny because this [5] is the syllabus for gcse examinations. Something fishy? Bill Reid | Talk 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a response about cartography and the phrase British Isles. I'm not sure why anyone would suggest it isn't used for cartography any more. Sea Charts of the British Isles: A Voyage of Discovery around Britain and Ireland's Coastline - By JOHN BLAKE Conway 2005 (as an example of the use of the phrase about maps still) also [6] [7] and a lot more if you search. Doug Weller (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:TharkunColl

Given that there is not one, but 2 articles around the subject, I think you are mistaken in your belief that it is somehow a 'normal term'. Crispness (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that TharkunColl has reverted my edit here, without discussion, I don't think it is appropriate to comment in the "Outside View" section. Tharky is definitely "involved" with the dispute. Bardcom (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged met office non-use of the term

It was used on the BBC weather report last night after the news about three times in the space of a few minutes. TharkunColl (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It was "not" used on the RTE [8] weather report last night, I have never heard them use the term in their weather report. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now this? is entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC clearly uses the term on its web pages, whether or not the RTE does. [9] [10] And continuing the weather theme,from Reading University, More weather pointers for the British Isles. As for the Met Office, see British Isles: Infrared satellite animation.Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you Google just about anything, you're sure to find something. I think that someone once referred to it as "The Google Game". And just for good measure, I'll throw this one in [11]. There are loads more where that came from, get the gist? 78.19.46.43 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is, the claim has been made (by User:iktae, who says he's a teacher) that the met office no longer use it. But this claim has now been shown to be false. TharkunColl (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, our IP user has pointed not to an official BBC-authored web page, but to an h2g2 page, which is written by "by visitors to the website", which could have been written by anyone, even a Wikipedia editor. There's a big difference between my cites of webpages and his/hers.Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller, it could even have been written by you ;). Your point about "by visitors to the website" editing the site makes it much more interesting, as "Britain and Ireland" seems to be the more colloquial term in use. My link was my first and only hit, a bit more of the "Google Game" here, and a BBC one, [12]. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But the wording on your hit is not a BBC wording but the name of an organisation. I don't see how you can say what is more colloquial from one h2g2 page by the way. It's the old British Council of Churches but with the major change that this organisation includes the Roman Catholic Church and deals with churches in "the four nations of Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England." Even more confusing as they do include the Irish Republic as well as Northern Ireland.Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the Isle of Man part of "Britain and Ireland"? If so, which part? Britain or Ireland? TharkunColl (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's part of Britain, because it's now British. The British Pound is used the there, and British law too. BTW, it used to be part of Ireland, and Gaeilge Middle Irish was the spoken vernacular. So, a 1,000 years ago, The "Isle of Man" too, was Irish. But this is 2,008 and not 1000 AD, or 500 BC. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to just be making this up as you go along. IoM is not part of Britain because Britain is an island. Incidentally, they speak English in Ireland now - does that make Ireland part of England? TharkunColl (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment,Great Britain is large island. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Man is not in the UK but is a British Isle and Crown Dependency. The British pound is not used, only the Manx pound. Bill Reid | Talk 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it'd be illegal for the police to birch me for anti-social behaviour in Hackney, too, whereas it appears to be what goes on in Douglas... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time I was on the IOM, I used British Pounds, which I got from a local bank there. Also, I was alluding to the fact that the IOM once was an Irish dependency, but that has now changed. The world has moved on since. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Man was never an Irish dependency. However it was part of Scotland for a while after the Norwegians gave it up before being taken over by England. Its language was not pure Irish but a mixture of Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Bill Reid | Talk 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic is descended from Old Irish, through Middle Irish. The land of Caledonia was Pictish until the Irish invaded in about 500 AD, to form the Dal Riata. Isle of Man spoke Old Irish, and not Scottish, although the new Scots,took control of the Island some 800 years ago. Those new Scots would be of Irish heritage. 78.19.46.43 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Bardcom

A reply to a few of the points that User:Bardcom raises in his reply.

I did not "canvass", and I'm not interested in a decision "based on numbers." Just as User:Bardcom posted a brief note on the Irish Wikipedians page (can't remember the exact link), I posted a brief note addressing those who I knew had complained in one way or another.

I have not said that User:Bardcom's edits are always incorrect; what I have said is that they are careless and pervasive. I am happy to agree that he has made some alterations which are not problematic.

WP:NPOV prohibits editing to promulgate a particular point of view. It is well-known that there is a political opposition among many Irish people to the term "British Isles", and I am inclined to think that the opposition is well-founded. I agree that the term is problematic and has a problematic history. But my understanding of User:Bardcom's actions is that he is attempting to reduce, as much as possible, the use of the term. Moreover, his technique seems to be to search widely for the term: it seems to me not that he happens across a usage and objects to it, but that he searches them out.

WP:POINT may be less on-target, but here is what I was thinking in listing it. It seems to me that User:Bardcom is adopting the opinion that the reduction of uses of the term "British Isles" is independently a good thing. This seems to me very much like altering BC to BCE and vice versa, systematically changing British to American spellings, or vice versa, and a number of other related things which are all, in my opinion, misbehavior.

WP:CONFLICT. The edits are being done to advance a particular political point of view in a tense political situation, where there are important reasons which many Irish people have for objecting to a term they find offensive or imperialistic, and which they believe (perhaps with good reason) to be part of a systematic pattern of oppression. But Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs, and to make edits in order to advance a different cause, such as one's political hopes or linguistic aspirations, is inappropriate.

User:Bardcom says I violated 3RR, and points to the three reverts I did. 3RR says one may not make more than three reverts. By contrast, that same day, he made four. One of them he defends, saying it was implementing a compromise, but the editor he reversed was not part of that compromise, and "implementing a compromise" is not an allowable reason for violating 3RR. The admin who reviewed the complaint chose not to block User:Bardcom, but not because 3RR hadn't been violated. Rather, by that point User:Bardcom had realized that he was incorrect about the crucial facts of the case, and so there was no reason to expect further reverts from him.

Tb (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A small response. I'm tired of your relentless POV edits and I'm drawing a line. I think I've taken enough of your bullying and sly innuendos and insinuations. I'm worn down, and since politeness doesn't seem to be working....

Time and time again, you have displayed a habit of selectively picking out contributions or edits to push your POV, whereas if you were genuinely trying to be fair, open minded, and assuming good faith, you would give the complete picture. It's getting tiring, and people easily see through this.

You did canvass. You selected individuals that you believed would be sympathetic to your POV for this RfC, and you posted a message on their talk pages. WP:CANVAS states "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive". Everyone you selected has either worked with you in this pack-hunting technique in the past, or has taken part in ad hominen attacks on me in the past. I did not canvass, and your insinuation I did is typical of your style. I posted messages about the discussion on the British Talk page in public talk pages where discussions pertaining to the term "British Isles" have taken place in the past. To me, there appears to be a pattern emerging on certain users talk pages involving exactly this type of gang bullying, and I notice you and your cronies always very quick to delete incriminating talk from your talk pages. Something to hide perhaps?

You now say my edits are merely "careless" and "pervasive". Where does this language you have used to refer to my edits fit in with your new view?

• This was pretty much your first comment. "It is not reasonable that we should be cowed by a single-issue editor who is unwilling to discuss." and "We do not need to let him dictate to us what our consensus must be.".[13] I've done nothing but try to discuss, but it's been impossible with you when all you do is attack me, and not address the edits. Your POV-pushing emotive language, using terms such as ("cowed", "unwilling to discuss", "dictate to us") is appalling, and again shows that you can't find it within you to assume good faith, or to think any "good" of me of my edits. You assume everything I have done is wrong, without checking, researching and fact finding.
• Your reference to my change of "BCE" to "BC" - did it ever occur to you that I'd never heard the term before? If you'd assumed good faith, you would have made allowances for this, and perhaps pointed me in a direction to learn about it - instead, you try to point out that this is more "evidence". Your exact quote on this RfC is "The individual is in question also edits articles for the sole purpose of changing BCE to BC, another discouraged and antagonistic practice.". One edit. One. But I suppose when you're out to just attack somebody, why stop and think.
• This is an example where you reverted, even when I had explained the edit, and *I* was trying to resolve the issue while you were only interested in returning the term to the article. I notice now that *you* have corrected the article ... but have you had the good grace to retract even one of your comments? Or remove the link from the RfC. Or mention anywhere that you have actually found evidence and provide links? Have you said in public (or even to yourself) that hey, maybe this bardcom chap *is* editing in good faith. Maybe I should give him the benfit of the doubt. Not a chance... [14]
• Or this name-calling, not assuming good faith example: "I believe your edits are destructive. You have explained them inaccurately, and you make them without sufficient care for whether they are correct, simply seeing whether you can figure out a way to get "Great Britain" out of an article, and then you use a bullying strategy as you did in Episcopal Church in the United States to try and get your way. And you've done the same thing before. So yes, I believe you've been a bully. I've requested that you stop. Will you?".[15] Time and again I requested that you examine the edits and not attack the person. Time and again you continued on your crusade of harassment, roping in cronies, demanding a repentance for behavior which you perceive, through your "damn eveything this editor has done" glasses, as being vandalistic.

Your point about WP:NPOV - I'm not clear on what exactly you are objecting to. The fact that I searched out usage of the term rather than randomly came across it? The fact that I changed some articles? What exactly is your point here?

Your point about WP:POINT is even more unclear. Are you objecting that an effect of my editing is that there are fewer instances of the term "British Isles" after I edit than before? Is there a secret quota that should exist that we should know about?

Your point about WP:CONFLICT drips with too many assumptions. You are still pushing that I'm "advancing a political point of view", and I find the term "offensive or imperialistic, and which they believe (perhaps with good reason) to be part of a systematic pattern of oppression". How persumtive of you. And can you point to something that I've said to back this wild theory up? I'm slightly amused - it's really very far from the truth and my beliefs. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of an good old "ad hominen" attack, eh? The very first point of this policy is Focus on content. Something which you have consistently refused to do, and something which I have asked you to do in nearly all my responses to you. Where in the policy does it mention anything about not being the place to "Right great Wrongs", etc, etc?? This is just another example of you hoping that by vaguely waving your verbal arms over your head and using the right rhetoric with selective quoting, you can whip up a mob to a frenzy. Puh-leeze.

Finally, your point about 3RR is also very selective. First let me say that you are correct in that you only made 3 reverts - you did not make more than three and did not breach this policy. The policy states very clearly in the beginning "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". I reverted two of your edits, you reverted three of mine. For the 2nd of 4 reverts you quote, you state that the editor I "reversed" was not involved in the "compromise". Two problems with that statement. First, I didn't revert - I editted the article to use the terms we had jointly agreed.[16] and it was a different term than was used previously. Second, it was the same editor involved in the compromise. The other bad faith action on your part is that you actually knew this[17] but still pushed ahead with your 3RR complaint, even following up on the admins talk page [18] to canvass more support and pushing ahead with your attack. Did you stop and even consider, or were you in just too much of a rush to continue with your condemnations? BTW, you state above and "implementing a compromise" is not an allowable reason for violating 3RR. - just where in the policy does it state that a compromise edit is still considered part of an edit war? Or is this another example of you just deciding to make stuff up to suit your own purposes? And if the admin who looked at the case had examined my edits in detail, and looked at the talk page, I doubt if I would have been banned for violating 3RR - but that was probably more do to with your dishonest reporting than a busy admin trying to do a good job.

Now enough. Lay off. You've stepped over a line. You are not acting in good faith and you have turned this into something personal. If anything, an RfC case against your conduct has more chance of success. --Bardcom (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I get it. You disagree. You think I'm evil and nasty. People who ask you to reconsider your behavior are making personal attacks. So far, though, you seem to have stopped the practice which I found disruptive. I'm happy to leave it at that, if it stays stopped. I will point out that WP:3RR gives a clear definition of revert: it includes any removal of text added by another editor, and the exceptions are extremely clear. If a compromise has been reached, and one editor has already had three reverts, then you must ask the other party to the compromise to make the revert now agreed. Tb (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Tb, despite your behaviour towards me, etc, etc, for some reason I actually believe that you are still acting in good faith *overall*. Just you find it hard/difficult/impossible to imagine that I might be too - for whatever reason - and you are not acting in good faith towards me. Your choice of terminology and language is not neutral, and whether you realise it at the time or do it unintentionally, it is not appropriate or fair. Go back and read your choice of language towards me on the original article talk page, or on Sicisek's talk page, or even your choice of language on this RfC's Statement of Dispute.

Just as a point on your 3RR comment, look again at the policy. It says "revert". I did not "revert" more than 3 times as the 2nd contribution was an edit that stated something different - and the spirit of 3RR was most definitely not breached. The policy states "Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule.". My first and second edits were not part of an edit war.

Finally, if you change your mind towards me, it'd be big of you to let me know. Big If. Bardcom (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me be really clear: I am certain that you have been editing in good faith; it is not merely a presumption. It's abundantly obvious to me. I do believe that even actions done in good faith can be disruptive, and it was for that reason that I began by asking you to reconsider your actions. My recollection is that you immediately took that as a personal attack. Let's move forward; I'm much more interested in the future than the past, and if we can work together to develop a guideline (my initial start is at WP:BI) I would be delighted. Tb (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Domer48

User:Domer48 says, I would just like to point out that TharkunColl was canvassed to come here, with a link. If one examines WP:CANVASS it is clear that what I did is a friendly notice: a limited posting, in neutral language. I think this is really quite parallel to the announcement made by User:Bardcom on the Irish Wikipedians page (again, can't remember the page), which seemed like an entirely appropriate neutral note. My notices were public, obvious, and sent to the small number of people who had already been concerned with the matter. Tb (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Domer48 asks a fair question: who came here, and why. I'm disappointed that User:Domer48 didn't start off by giving his own answer. But mine is simple. I encountered the disruption on Episcopal Church in the United States, one of the edits which User:Bardcom eventually realized was incorrect, and where he violated WP:3RR. In that discussion some others pointed out that this is a pattern with him, and that the disruption has occurred many times before. I checked it out, doing a spot check, and found this to be true: many casual changes of terminology, with unclear or very abbreviated edit summaries, often with apparent disregard for the changes of meaning implied. It was particularly distressing to me to realize that User:Bardcom thought that Man and Jersey were part of the UK, and to have made inaccurate edits on that basis, and I wondered how many more there were, cases in which he had introduced factual errors by a desire to simply alter the terminology. I found what I outlined: many careless edits. I asked User:Bardcom to please reconsider his actions, that I thought they were likely to be disruptive. He refused, and agreed that it was appropriate to open an RfC. Before this week, I believe I have never made an edit concerned with the issue, nor with Irish politics in any way. I am, as it happens, quite sympathetic to the cause that User:Bardcom seems to be trying to advance. Tb (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I will simply put forward the answer I gave on Talk:British Isles (section) and reproduced from here.

Wotapalaver you are well supported in your views, and by the Irish Government no less. Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."
"New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain". A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its usage.” Its use is also avoided in relations between the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, who generally employ the term these islands. Bertie Ahern's Address to The Joint Houses of Parliament, Westminster, 15th May, 2007, Tony Blair's Address to the Dáil and Seanad, November 1998.

Now contrast that with the view by TharkunColl

Outside view by User:TharkunColl

Contrary to what has been stated above, the term British Isles has been in use since Ancient Greek and Roman times in their respective languages. It is not a political term, though has been turned into one by those with a certain agenda. It is the normal term in the English language for the group of islands that it names, and has nothing to do with the British state which it predates by some 2000 years. Furthermore, the term is used in the Irish media, parliament, and by government ministers. Only a tiny but vocal clique of Wikipedia users appear to oppose it.

Now the first part of their statement is answered here, and I have answered the second part. Together, they illustrate what a big ball of wax their statement is. Not only that but what was it you said in your opening comments to me here, "I'm disappointed that User:Domer48 didn't start off by giving his own answer. Not disappointed in TharkunColl though, are you, having canvassed them to come here, and look at their statement. Now to top it of, you put your name to their statement, so I must assume you agree with this type of conduct. Spare me your disappointment. All I want is a bit of honesty in this discussion, your actions suggest otherwise, I don't think I need to add anymore, and a reply will only compound all the above, Bye bye. --Domer48 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS says neutrally worded invitations to look are perfectly acceptable and even encouraged. And TharkunColl is entitled to his opinion, when I have never heard any other expressed by anyone in the UK, nor even in Ireland, it's such an unobjectionable term that I personally have never seen the debate occur even on telly or radio in all my 31 years. special, random, Merkinsmum 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did I not get an invitation? Slective invitations only was it? Invite the ones who share your POV? The biggest joke about all this is the RfC is about an editor, yet TharkunColl can only comment on the subject matter. A bit like yourself. Since you have never heard any other opinion expressed by anyone in the UK, I'll simply suggest you get out more, please, no need to reply. --Domer48 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see you in Episcopal Church in the United States, that's why. Tb (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be criticising me for refusing to indulge in ad hominem argumentation. Perhaps you should ponder this yourself somewhat. TharkunColl (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tb you seem like a nice person, and have a real intrest in trying to address the issue. The RfC I don't think was a good idea. Inviting biased editors was not a good idea either. They have commented on the issue, and not the editor, and have the hard neck to suggest that theirs is an outside view. Now the comment from the above editor is a good example, I've showed them up for what they are, and they still keep trying, but how dose that saying go, children must play while fools look on:) Take care, regards, --Domer48 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments merely serve to weaken your case - already very shaky - still further. One only has to look at your user page to see your own profound bias on this issue. Incidentally, whilst I'm flattered that you think of me as deserving the plural pronoun usually reserved for royalty, I must tell you that I am just a humble "he", rather than a "they". TharkunColl (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Domer- please no personal attacks WP:NPA, they can eventually lead to those making them being blocked from wikipedia. This is a Request for Comment where the entire purpose is that people can express their opinion on a case. And yes I do go out sometimes:) Enough not to get worked up enough about wikipedia to have a go at people.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have never heard any other [opinion] expressed by anyone in the UK," and in reply to your comment, I suggested you get out more. Now am I not also entitled to my opinion. On wiki our opinions count for naught. All we deal with is information which we can WP:CITE, and is WP:RS. Now posting warning templates, were they are not warrented is also considered a personal attack, I suggest you don't do it again. Now another suggestion, since you personally have never seen a debate occur even on telly or radio in all your 31 years, might I suggest you read a book, possibly Daltún Ó Ceallaigh, Britain & Ireland: Sovereignty & Nationality the Peace Process in Context, New Perspectives on Ireland: Colonialism & Identity, Reconsiderations of Irish History and Culture - Selected Papers from the Desmond Greaves Summer School 1989-93, Sovereign People or Crown Subjects? and Why Britain Should Leave Ireland are just some. Or you could use the internet, why not wiki, plenty on discussion on it here? If you cite a source I will comment on it, if you just give your opinion, I may or may not respond. --Domer48 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I urge that the substantive issue here is that the term "British Isles" is being used in articles in a biased and political sense. While many British editors will swear that it is a purely geographical term, they will still insist that it should remain in articles that are both historic and cultural in nature. Notwithstanding that the term "British Isles" is losing favour with many, including National Geographic, British Government, Irish Government, and American Government, to name but a few, some editors still insist in using the term where it is not relevant, and make an issue out of an Irish editor trying to correct its usage in a small number of articles. The term is a relic from a dead empire, and has no meaning today. Of course it remains on old maps, but modern mapmakers refuse to use the term, as governments refuse to use it too. Wikipedia must reflect modern usage. -78.19.92.157 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article that brought me to the awareness of this issue on Wikipedia was the edits to Episcopal Church in the United States, and I'm pretty sure that none of the participants in the discussion was British; at least, I'm not. Tb (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - to 78.19.92.157 Surely any topic including historical or cultural ones can be discussed in a British Isles context. Ireland is a geographical term but nobody says that you must only be refer to its geography if you want to discuss the country. As far as the bodies that you mention, what you say is inaccurate:

• National Geograhic - uses the term British Isles a lot, please see [19]
• British Government - the official UK government web site gives this [20]
• Irish Government - the official Irish government web site gives these http://www.google.com/cse?cref=http://search.gov.ie/cse/en.xml&encoding=latin1&q=British+Isles&Submit=GO%21 (cut and paste, WP thinks this one is spam!)
• American Government - the official US government web site provides these [21] [22]

Clearly the Irish government doesn't have the same problems with the term that you and others seem to have and nor, it seems, does any of the other parties that you raise. Bill Reid | Talk 08:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Reid read the above contrabutions, your links are misleading to say the least. As to the position of the Irish Government:

Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005

Written Answers - Official Terms.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there is an official Government or Department of Foreign Affairs position on the use of the term British Isles when referring to Ireland and Britain; if the use of this term by Government agencies and the media in Britain is discouraged in any way by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. D. Ahern: The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term.

Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the [406] Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others.

Now is that answer not clear enough? --Domer48 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The government of the Republic of Ireland doesn't even represent the whole of Ireland, let alone anywhere else in the British Isles. But even if it did, it still wouldn't have the power to alter language. What is it about this that you're failing to understand? TharkunColl (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The notion that because a term is geographical in meaning, discussions of other subjects such as history and culture cannot use it is, of course, ridiculous. A geographical area has both a history and a culture - and quite often this history and culture is influenced by geography. And can we please lay to rest the canard that British Isles is somehow connected to British Empire. It simply isn't. The term has been in use since Classical times, and even predates the name of Britain for the island (which was originally called Albion). It is perfectly natural for an archipelago to bear a similar name to its largest island (e.g. Gran Canaria). There is a small vocal minority of editors that seeks politicise an issue that just isn't political. TharkunColl (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just found this page. Interesting that Tharkuncoll keeps repeating this line about "The British Isles" being a classical, traditional term. According to the article and the references it simply isn't. Suggesting otherwise is - to quote TharkunColl - Intellectual dishonesty. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - as is suggesting it is a "purely geographical" term. Sarah777 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't so far weighted on either side, but besides what has already been said, TharkunColl (as well as others) should read over WP:AGF and should check his facts more carefully as regard the Canaries Vpag (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of BI continuing

I've just come across this debate. Bardcom is still systematically removing the term British Isles from this encyclopedia. What is to be done with such editors. I despair! 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Provided the edits Bardcom is making are appropriate then nothing. Sarah777 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some are appropriate, most of them aren't. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)