User talk:HighKing

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 9 days may be automatically archived by .

Anglo-Celtic Canadian statistics

Hi Bardcom,

You made a change just now, here. The statistics seem likely, but did you forget to supply your source? One was removed, but no substitute was made. --Jza84 | Talk 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah, still editting. Actually, that edit is incorrect in one or two places still. Trying to put in tables and not double count. I'll add the reference in too - thank you. Bardcom (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks like a good change to the article. Thanks, :) --Jza84 | Talk 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the statistics though, is that it's impossible to assign a percentage to the number of people that have British ancestry. You *could* just add up the respondents that gave a single ancestry, but this is only 2,547,995 people or 8% of the population. Adding up the respondents that gave multiple ancestry doesn't make sense because you are double counting - for example someone could have answered English/Scottish. I think the table is slightly better for this. Bardcom (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rounders

Your citations are not scholarly. 78.19.204.21 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One is, one isn't. Not very many 'scholarly' citations available I'm afraid. Feel free to edit/delete any that offend, especially if you manage to replace with better.... Bardcom (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some American sport history books deny any connection between Baseball and Rounders. It's an all-American game, so they say. Rules for Baseball were codified about 1845 or so. 78.19.204.21 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that while it's difficult to point to a direct link between baseball and rounders, they all stemmed from the same source - games like Stoolball and further back, brought to the USA when it was settled. There's lots of references to "baseball" in english contexts from early times. I don't have a copy of the reference you make for Rounders originating in Ireland, but I don't have any issues with a verified/referenced claim. Thanks. Bardcom (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just something else here, etched in my memory. A book I was reading, 12 years ago or so, claimed that Cricket descends from an old Irish game called "Bails", and was brought back to Britain by English soldiers returning from Ireland in or about the 15th century. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the title or author of the book. apparently "Bails" was played with an ash hurley type bat. Must check that one out again, if I get the time. 78.19.204.21 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to download a copy of the book you cited, and there's no evidence that it attributes Ireland to the origination of Rounders. It doesn't mention Bails either (Vol. 1). Can you confirm that a reference exists - page number would help. I'm afraid the reference can't stay otherwise... Bardcom (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the ref over the phone, from a scholar no less, I'll have to recontact tomorrow, as there is more than one volume, and second edition too. I never said I read about "Bails" in that book. I thought you might know something. 78.19.8.44 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can download a copy of the book online - I've downloaded the 2 PDF's, and there's no attribution of Rounders (or Stoolball) to Ireland. In light of this, I'll change the article to remove the reference. As to "Bails" - you know, it rings a bell.... Bardcom (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Them is what they make hay into while the sun shines. Sarah777 (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back then it would've been cocks though....no machines, see... Bardcom (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't originally called rounders, I'm too busy to be looking for old refs, but maybe later in the year. Were the rules not codified in Ireland. Also re "bails", the little stumps on the wicket are called bails too, so connection, zing.....zing!!!! I'm certain rounders, (in an older form), is independently an Irish game too. The English had there version too. -78.19.232.240 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Sounds good. But until you can get the time later in the year, the article will need to stay as is WP:NOR. If there is a verifiable connection, I'd love to learn about it. Bardcom (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom replacement

I noticed you replacing the Great Britain link with a United Kingdom link on Uniform Penny Post but that is inaccurate, because the United Kingdom link is for the current UK as opposed to the correct link which is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the correct legal entity at the time. I have corrected it but please check that you use the appropriate link if you have to do any similar future changes. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

It is my hope that we will pass one another under better circumstances in the future. Best, -- Secisek (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We'll leave it. Thank you. And I hope for the same. Bardcom (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cnut the Great

I respect your point of view here. It is always good to get a bit of a push to better things you are part of. I put in the reference to support the British Isles thing, and as I see this was not good enough for you, I am now doing an addition in the Other Dominions section to support it. Basically a breakdown of the evidence in the reference. I did think there was something missing from this bit. Now I think it it complete (saying this as I write it). I hope this imforms well of the political circumstance for this period, in the British Isles.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for discussing this. I see the edits you've made, but look at it another way. The British Isles comprise mainly of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, and the Orkney Islands (plus other islands, etc). Your edit states that his kingdom spread over the British Isles .... except for Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the Orkney Island. His kingdom didn't even stretch to all of England either. In List of monarchs in the British Isles he is listed as an English monarch. (Side by side table, easier to use and see, is available on older page - try here. Using the term "British Isles" isn't accurate. It's not even close to being accurate. It would be better to just say England, or even the island of Great Britain... Bardcom (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was not aware of this.

It was not really a stright revert though. There was an addition.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just reitterate though. I do not actually say his kingdom spead across the British Isles. This is meant to refer to his dominance. I stress the difference between hegemony and sovereignty. Still, these are both forms of dominion.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great editing

I don't do barnstars, but if I did, [1] would merit one. Crispness (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - very nice of you to say so. Bardcom (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop

Bardcom, will you please stop removing the term British Isles from this encyclopedia. I have now reviewed a significant portion of your edit history and also the RfC and related documents. You have been asked on a number of occasions to desist from this activity but you continue to ignore all requests. You are acting like a single issue editor and when anyone challenges you about this you simply accuse them of ad hominem attacks. Many of the removals have absolutely no justification and it is abundantly clear that your primary motive in editing is the removal of the term. In a small number of cases your edits lead to an improvement, but generally your overriding desire to eliminate the usage is driving your editing activity. I ask you not to remove any more instances unless you have reached a consensus on the talk page of the article in question. Alternatively, you could in some cases ask for a citation. I am particularly concerned about edits such as the one you made here [2]. The references in no way back up your assertion (that the storm was not the most severe in the British Isles - was there a more severe one in Ireland?) and you went on to eliminate further instances of BI from related articles on the grounds of standardisation - and your edit summary of "Added references to most severe storm in Great Britain" did not adequately describe the change you made. Your actions are akin to those of editors who carry out wholesale modifications of AmE to BrE (or vice versa), or AD to CE. Such actions are disruptive, Please Stop! 86.27.186.36 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]