User talk:Ghughesarch

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Ghughesarch, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing!-- Alf ^melmac 13:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revisions of "The Prisoner", specifically Rover history

Concerning the article on the TV series The Prisoner, I just read your rewrite of my expansion of the history of Rover and the doubts cast upon the standard account. I certainly should have mentioned that the footage said to be of the first version was included as a bonus on at least one DVD release, thanks for fixing that. Otherwise, no real complaints, other than the fact that this--and I freely admit that all of the original Rover visuals I've seen is the stills on the Six Of One website--shows a device too small to have an operator on the inside (not even a "midget"), as the script excerpt from "Arrival" in the White & Ali book indicates The Prisoner himself was to think. However, given my limited exposure to this material, I won't revise that phrase back. As it seems you are more familiar with the footage, I'll leave it up to you. Interesting to learn that the Lotus-traveling-through-London's-streets footage was shot before the big trip to Wales, BTW. Ted Watson 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Hi

Pleased someone's reading it at least! I wouldn't take the White and Ali book as absolute gospel though it's amazing the footage remained hidden for so long. The home movie shows a full-sized props man seated in the Rover machine. It may have been abandoned because the exhaust from the engine discharged inside the shell and would have gassed the driver, in additin to it working fine on a flat surface but not on the cobbled roads, steps and steep hills of Portmeirion (this is from a video on the production of the series produced by Steve Ricks in the 90s and including interviews with surviving cast and crew - ditto for the information on the opening sequence shooting). Ghughesarch 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WOWSERS!

I did indeed feel that the footage of the original Rover was home movie stuff rather than production outtakes or tests, but wasn't certain, so made my phrasing there as neutral as I could. Thanks for the clarification. On the other hand, I am not so certain that the place for exterior filming in "Chimes," "Schizoid," "Harmony" and "Girl" is the Borehamwood studio's back lot. First, it just doesn't look like a collection of false fronts. Indeed, there are a number of overhead shots (at least in "Girl") proving that it isn't. Secondly, Alain Carraze and Helene Oswald's book, THE PRISONER: A Televisionary Masterpiece expressly states that it is an outside location (Admittedly, this is a book that was written in French about an English [language and nationality, of course] TV programme [were the authors dealing with French-translated videos, documents, etc.? This is not clear at all], then translated into English itself; I suspect you've heard the same sort of stories that I have about putting material through multiple language translations). Thirdly, look at "Schizoid": We see The Prisoner and The Double outside the Recreation Hall, with the building clearly labelled as such. Later, during the helicopter-escape climax, the same sign can be seen in the background. That sign should have been taken down, and if they were working on the lot, it would have been easy to do; but if this was an outside location, the time available to them to get the scenes shot could easily have been quite limited, and consequently the sign left up until after filming, to be removed when all the other Village trappings were. Sorry, but I have to continue to lean toward the claim that this is not on the lot.

The statement about Guy Doleman is particularly informative, as it is obvious that the most of The Prisoner's first tour of The Village was done without the other actor, even though his #2 is blatantly supposed to be right there, but there was one shot, the two men walking from the overlook of the Stone Boat to the Old People's Home, that is clearly at Portmeirion and with Doleman. Thanks again.

Interestingly, White & Ali explicitly stated that it had been determined that there was never any place that could have launched weather balloons to be seen from Portmeirion, not just "no longer," but you already indicated that they shouldn't be taken as gospel (didn't mean to suggest that I hadn't caught that). Still, this--nearly twenty years on--is the first I've encountered any such comment about their book. Ted Watson 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

http://avengerland.theavengers.tv/studios/mgmblot.htm shows other shows filmed on the exterior sets at MGM Borehamwood (the first pictures are their generic "continental street" set, as used in "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling") Note that the building with the dormer windows in the background of the third picture (from "Girl") is the same as the one in the eighth picture (from a production I don't recognise), with the trees and wall removed.

The bottom set of pictures show the opposite side of the "square" from the Recreation Hall in "Schizoid Man", which also appears as the exhibition hall in "Chimes of Big Ben", and in "A, B and C" as the entrance to the Paris street where Six encounters "C" (which is the location for the middle set of photos on the Avengerland page, and appears in "The Girl Who Was Death" band "Forsake", filmed from different angles).

The "Square" area (which was an entirely separate set about 100 yards from the "continental street" one) was re-dressed as the western town in "Living in Harmony". The building on top of two arches in those bottom photos is visible in "A, B & C" as Madame Engadine's car drives through it, and is the sherrif's office in "Harmony".

Part of "A, B and C" (the fight with "A") was also filmed on the remains of the French chateau set from "The Dirty Dozen", which stood about 250 yards away from this location. Steve Ricks produced a replica "Map of Your Village" in the 1980s with, on the reverse, an aerial photo from 1966 showing all these sets standing on the MGM backlot - despite film or TV appearances they were all false fronts held up by scaffolding. I'm not sure what production they were originally constructed for. I suspect Carraze and Oswald may have had "exterior" translated to "outside", which mean slightly different things.

I recommend Max Hora's three booklets, The Prisoner of Portmeirion; Portmeirion Prisoner Production; and Village World (all now out of print but often on ebay) as good sources of Prisoner trivia of this type. Also http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/ which has excellent Prisoner location spotting pages of its own ( such as http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/locationsguide.htm and http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/mgmbore.htm , and it's worth checking the link from the latter to the page about the precise location of the "Harmony" lynching tree - http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/harmonytree.htm - to see just how seriously some people take this sort of thing), and good links. But then, I have a feeling all this should be on the Wikipedia Prisoner page, not just here.

Ghughesarch 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tbrittreid"

Just found your new note, and while I haven't checked those links yet, I would be shocked if they don't show what you've described. Thanks for the info. Always want to have as many of the facts about this fascinating series as straight as possible. Ted Watson 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Bold Street, Liverpool

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ghughesarch! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Newport Tower (Rhode Island):

Your recent edit to Newport Tower (Rhode Island) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits (like "TEST" or example.jpg), vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mills

Gareth, as you've seen, I'm giving the post mill article a rework. The date of 1612 for Gransden comes from an inspection of the deeds of the property by Phillip Unwin as quoted by Arthur C Smith. Do you have a reliable reference for Drinkstone's date that could be quoted. I believe Rolvenden mill is of a similar date (1570s), although the earliest date in that mill is 1773 on one of the crosstrees.

You might want to check out the River Medway article and all the pages for the tributaries that have separate pages too! BTW, would you be interested in a Mills Portal on Wikipedia? Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lancashire windmills

List of windmills in Lancashire has been created. Unfortunately I don't have any of Allen Clarke's books, and there are several windmills in Liverpool which need reliable references as far as Wikipedia is concerned before they can be entered. See article talk page. Your input would be welcome in expanding the list. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have better images that are out of copyright, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used by all language Wikiprojects. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put the wheels in motion to get that image deleted, feel free to explain further at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 June 27. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Prisoner

This would seem to be a valid title for at least one MPI video release in the US: [1]. Be seeing you! Rodhullandemu 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Father Christmas

Here's the citation, now will you stop reverting it, please? http://www.funfacts.com.au/santa-claus-father-christmas-st-nicholas-a-man-of-many-names/ Believe it or not, Australians don't do EVERY single thing Britain does 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No it is NOT a 50/50 split. Like I said, you do NOT live here. The only possible people who call it Father Christmas are some people who were children in the 50's. I have been to school here and never NEVER heard any child refer to it as Santa Claus. Like the citation said SANTA CLAUS is the usual term (Which does NOT mean its 50/50). Yes it was once called Father Christmas, but the tradition has faded away. I live here and I know what it is or is not called. You don't, so knowing a few Australians is not knowing what the majority calls him. Now please stop your vandalising. Here is another, look at the comment by the guest below teachertipstraining.suite101.com/article.cfm/christmas_santa_claus Those aren't reliabele. Mostly site from international who think we still follow British traditions or made by people who grew up in the former time of calling it Father Christmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/christmas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You live in a country where everyone mostly uses the word Father Christmas. That is probably why your Australian friends use it there. It would be like them using the word football over there to describe Aussie rules football. They would use football for what we call soccer over there, but over here it's mainly called soccer. You arguements is saying because you know a few Australians in a forien country, the majority calls it what they do. This is arguing against a person who has lived here all his life and has never heard or even saw another child call Santa Claus Father Christmas. It doesn't exist here anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't edit on the basis of "I live here, therefore I'm the only person who can be right". What you see is not everything that happens. And your claim goes beyond what any source can support - "It doesn't exist here anymore" - well it does. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Father Christmas. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Unfortunately you clearly went over the limit on the number of reverts you made today in comparison to the three revert rule (six, in fact). These reverts: [2] and [3] don't look like vandalism to me. Minimac (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Minimac - I would ask you to look at the edits I reverted - unsourced, or not reliably sourced, assertions by the same editor.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling help.

Your recent revert

Hello. I would like to inquire about your recent revert to my edit here, as the previous version (before my edit) was much more inaccurate than the new version, due to strong evidence against these alleged phenomena, let alone the fact that the previous version was not backed by reliable sources. May I kindly ask for you to reconsider your revert? Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Disputed" is far more accurate and succinct than the lengthy variation you have added, which goes out of its way to push a particular (skeptical) view. If you can come up with "strong evidence" against these phenomena (i.e., stronger than "science says it can't happen, therefore it doesn't"), then I suggest you provide it. A link to one loosely US government science site which expresses scientists' concerns about belief in the paranormal (however justified they may be, but without referring to Time Slips in particular), is not enough to justify the edit you made. I suggest (and I'm not deliberately being offensive here, merely trying to point out the extent to which one world view may collide with another in matters such as this) making the same edit to ghosts or god first, as both are, after all, alleged paranormal phenomena with a rather larger following than time slips. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Take no offense, but what you appear not to be acknowledging though, is the material which was already written on the paranormal article (in fact, that particular reference is cited there). That article explains that science essentially disproves this concept, primarily due to the fact that it is probably physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur. Regarding God, you also apparently misunderstood the concept. We did not say that science disproves God. For the most part, that is a separate discipline (some scientists may argue for or against his existence, however, there is no significant [dis]proof), as that is indeed debated. However, paranormal phenomena "in this world", if you will, is categorized as pseudoscience. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC), modified 01:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article you cited relating to time slips in particular. So it may be relevant to the paranormal article, but not to this one, "alleged", "disputed", plus the link to paranormal is quite sufficient. But I note you say "We did not say that science disproves God" - who are "We" in this context - who do you claim to represent? And note that I also asked for some consistency here (and also used god, not God, there is a difference) - what have you to say about the ghosts article, or, for that matter, reincarnation, or the Loch Ness Monster? And why are you not editing those articles too? Ghughesarch (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - '"probably" physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur' is not remotely the same as 'science essentially disproves this concept'.Ghughesarch (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article references back to the other article, paranormal, by stating "As with all paranormal phenomena"... This means that the same idea applies to all paranormal subjects. In regards to your other comment, "we" includes myself, and anybody else whom researches the respective subject. I was emphasizing that none of us have said that science disproves God. Back to what I was saying. Serious study refutes these beliefs. The only actual "debate" is occurring in the lower levels of research (pseudoscience). Again, serious, properly-done study indicates these beliefs to be essentially impossible. There is no good reason to "debate", as the conclusion has virtually been reached. No intention for derogatory language, however, the individuals debating this are arguing out of ignorance – simply making arguments out of a lack of information. Skeptics will simply remain in the non-belief state until these claims are proven at least beyond reasonable doubt. This is for good reason, as the evidence is at best weak, and highly prone to error.

Regarding your second comment, yes, they are very close if not the same. Essentially, meaning, for the most part and probably, meaning most likely. Hope this is clear. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But nothing you have said justifies singling out that particular article for the edit you made. For the moment, the article (with its caveats and links) is quite clear about the extent to which credence should be attached to the anecdotal evidence (I note that paranormal, while pointing out that much evidence is anecdotal and thus irreconcilable with scientific method, does not go on to dismiss out of hand all such claims, a more balanced view of "probably" and "essentially" than the one you seem to be espousing). It is, I believe, not Wikipedia's purpose to go further than that, and require that every article on matters not accepted as possible by science should be tagged in the lead paragraph with some sort of disquisition on its scientific impossibility - that is pushing one particular view - that of the scientific community as it stands at present - at the expense of all others. The qualifiers "probably" and "essentially" make such a tag invalid, anyway Ghughesarch (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What type of evidence do you have for the existence of these phenomena? Do you have anything to tip the scale against the refutation? If not, then it is virtually completely on the negative side. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that if you research the concepts of science, you will notice that it is designed to be irrefutable, which is why it is the best way to approach these extraordinary claims. -- IRP ☎ 02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the original statement as unreferenced. I politely ask for discussion prior to any further changes. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of discussion that really belongs on the talk page of the particular article.Ghughesarch (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Please see the respective talk page where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Windmills

Hi, thanks or finding the references for other uses - the article seemed to have become a repository for every type of mill - wind powered or not, so I removed most of them until someone came up with some references. I was just looking for some in google books but you got there first. I did find one for snuff grinding though :) Richerman (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

pretty much every industrial use that was water-powered has, at some time, been wind-powered too (even metal working). I could add a whole host (rope-making?) from Roy Gregory's book but so many are one-offs and might lead to excessive list-making that it might be better not to. Snuff-grinding was fairly common in Holland though. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's probably best to say that its been used for many industrial processes and just mention the main ones. Richerman (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pantigo Mill

Hello, noticed you reverted my re-addition of the Pantigo Mill gearing. I'm no expert in windmills, but that mill is among the best-known in America.[4][5][6], which is probably why it was deemed worthy of inclusion in the Historic American Buildings Survey photographs. I think it worthy of inclusion, simply for the quality of that photograph. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The photo would be worthy of inclusion, but it's upside down. If it can be edited to put it the right way up, then include it. I don't dispute its notability, but left as it is, the picture is just confusing.Ghughesarch (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Point well-taken. Appreciate your getting back to me. I'll fix the photo and restore. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo reverted edit

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit of the lead section of Sutton Hoo. As my edit only involved contracting the information in the original lead to remove details given in the main article, and rearranging the text so that the section read better, I do not agree entirely with you decision to revert the edit. You commented on a lack of sources, but the article contains citations - I don't really see the need to include citations in the lead section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) helps to explain what I mean.

I will check again to ensure that the information within my edit reflects the main article - and if necessary change the text to make it so. That should be enough to enable my version of the lead section to be replaced. --Hel-hama (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentmore Towers

Hi Ghughesarch and GiacomoReturned, Can I suggest you both take your spat to the talk page rather than slug it out in the edit summary. You are both guilty of edit warring and have also gone too far as regards WP:3RR, (Posted on both you Talk Pages)Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How odd, that you only edit to stalk me - I edited this evening to see how quickly you would come out of the woodwork, and you fell for it hook, lone and sinker. What a pity! Giacomo Returned 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Axis of windmills

I've commented at talk:History of wind power. BTW, it takes an admin to block an editor, which Harryzilber is not. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Ghughesarch, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for improving the encyclopedia and protecting it from vandalism. Keep up the good work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Your recent editing history at Mentmore Towers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Please see the talk page for the article, where I have set out the case that the golf courses do impinge on areas that were parkland, I don't see how there is room to build a consensus between that fact and the opinion of some editors Ghughesarch (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that an IP has identified that the land in question was severed from the estate long before becoming the golf course, which would definitely impact on the information involved. I'm not in a position to adequately research that, what with being on the wrong side of the ocean and also having to log off for a few hours. However, this is the sort of thing that I was fairly certain would be an issue. Risker (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they've done so without citing any sources, and I have a reliable source (the National Heritage List for England) which states otherwise. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Macfadyen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

St Paul's

Gee whiz! It was so poetically contrived that it was a pity to have to revert it! Amandajm (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

British and Irish Isles

I notice that you removed my edit at the start of the Pevsner Architectural Guides article. I had changed the term 'British Isles' to the much more acceptable 'British and Irish Isles'. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the term 'British Isles' is not recognised internationally. It certainly is not officially recognised by the United Nations, the O.E.C.D., the E.U. or the U.S. Government. This is because the Irish Government does not officially recognise the term.

In addition to this, the vast, vast majority of people here in Ireland (North and South combined) do not recognise the term. Indeed, the vast majority of Irish people find the term downright offensive. Within the Republic of Ireland, almost no one uses the term, while within Northern Ireland almost half the population (the Irish Catholic community there) would not use the term.

The term 'British Isles' is not only inaccurate (as Ireland, especially the Republic of Ireland, is not British), it is also, as already stated, downright offensive to the vast, vast majority of the Irish people (North and South combined). Over here in Ireland, only the Unionist minority (who make up around 50% of Northern Ireland's population) use the term 'British Isles'.

Surely it would be much better, more accurate, and much less divisive to use the term 'British and Irish Isles' rather than the inaccurate, and very 'imperialist', term 'British Isles'? After all, the Pevsner Guides cover the entire British and Irish Isles and not just the United Kingdom. The term 'British Isles' only serves to needlessly drive us Irish and British apart. At least the term 'British and Irish Isles' is more accurate, more tolerant and much more inclusive. Laggan Boy (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, British and Irish Isles redirects to the British Isles page, so it seems pointless to get in a strop about it until you can build some sort of consensus that the two terms have different meanings and that the one that doesn't offend some Irish people is the one that should be used in preference to the one everyone else is familiar with. British Isles is a purely geographical term, not a political one, British and Irish Isles seems to me to drag politics in - is it recognised by the UN, OECD, EU, etc etc? probably not, because those organisations are concerned with political entities (hence also their non-use of British Isles in the same context - the recognised terms for the political entities would be United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland) Ghughesarch (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the point: the term 'British Isles' needlessly politicises what should be a geographical term! The term does this by claiming that all of Ireland is British!! This is completely inaccurate, as what is now the Republic of Ireland has not been under British rule since Dec. 1922, when it left the United Kingdom. In addition, the term 'British Isles' does'nt just upset 'some' Irish people: it is offensive to the vast majority of the six million or so people who live over here in this country, North and South combined! And, as I say, the term is not recognised by the U.N., E.U., etc., because it is such an inaccurate term, and it is not recognised by the Government of Ireland.

Anyhow, there you have it: I've made my point. I have a feeling we are not going to agree on this issue!! Laggan Boy (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And, by the way, the United Nations does regularly use geographic terms, not just 'political terms'. For example, one regularly hears U.N. officials talking about 'the Middle East' or 'the Balkans' or 'Scandinavia' or 'West Africa', etc., etc.. If all these regions can have fairly neutral, uncontentious geographical names, why not the British and Irish Isles? Laggan Boy (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the general Assembly of the United Nations welcoming the Queen to the UN in 2010. http://www.un.org/ga/president/64/statements/queen60710.shtml Note the use of "British Isles". So clearly the UN does use the term. While a search for the two terms on the UN's website is hardly an absolute indicator, "British Isles" returns 204 hits for the term, while "British and Irish Isles" returns none. And (to take the closest parallel case) if Scotland votes for independence in the next couple of years, it will still be the British Isles, and Scotland will still be part of the island of Great Britain. Ghughesarch (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, a search of the United States Government's website http://www.usa.gov/ shows "British Isles" in common use, "British and Irish Isles" not at all.Ghughesarch (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And the Irish Government's website http://www.gov.ie/ gives six uses of British Isles (one of which is "British Isles and Ireland", interestingly), and none of "British and Irish Isles" Ghughesarch (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And regarding EU recognition - http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370100.htm "The purely geographical term ‘British Isles’ includes Ireland" Ghughesarch (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that may be the case. However, none of those bodies are supposed to use the term 'British Isles' officially. 'Britain and Ireland' is the usual alternative, although that term leaves out the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. As regards Scotland, even as an independent country, it will remain part of the island of Great Britain. Thus, the Scottish are as entitled to the term 'British' as the English and Welsh are. Anyhow, as I said earlier, I don't think we are going to agree on this point. Laggan Boy (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

those organisations and governments may not be supposed to use the term "British Isles" (for the record, I can find no official statement of policy on the matter, one way or the other, from any of them except the one from the EU (linked above) that the term is purely geographical and a statement made in the Dail in about 2004 by the then foreign minister that the term was not officially encouraged by the Irish government). But the fact is that all of them do use the term, whether they are supposed to or not, in contexts that appear to be official. And none of them use your personal preference of "British and Irish Isles". And here on Wikipedia, Britain and Ireland also redirects to British Isles. So British Isles it remains until, as I said before, you can build a consensus that some alternative should be used. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, wondering around wiki as I do I came across this discussion, Laggan Boy has seen enough guidelines to know not to push his POV on here, whatever about overlinking and honorifics, editing to suit a point of view shouldnt happen. If it is used in the article for sometime WP:RETAIN, dont change it, as it falls under restrictions which removing across articles with-out (and even with on occassion) references has lead to blocks and bans. Its not the first time Laggan Boy has removed the phrase, but I sincerely hope its the last. Murry1975 (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering when my 'stalker' on Wikipedia, Murry1975, would show up!! Just to point out to Murry1975: I am not forcing my point of view on anyone here. I am simply highlighting this issue. An amicable discussion is going on here. Perhaps Murry1975 will note that the term 'British Isles' has not been changed by me in this article since this 'debate' here began. Laggan Boy (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I do note that Laggan Boy, but maybe you will understand, wondering around wikipedia changing it, as you have done, can have adverse conditions on your ability to edit. Murry1975 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I presume you mean 'wandering' instead of 'wondering'? Your grammar and punctuation are truely horrendous, Murry1975, especially for a 'self-appointed' editor of other editors. Laggan Boy (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Less of the personal comments. Laggan boy I have tried repeatedly to give you advice, please take it on board. Murry1975 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold Street

Have you checked those sources recently? Have you ever though, that putting everything you find online into the article might not be the best idea? That writing about time travel in XXI century disrespects any reader, that has more than 5 brain cells? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I see those two references, which are still checkable in the print versions, are no longer online. But the fact remains that the claims have been made, there are other references, and whether it's objectively true or not, those claims, however ludicrous you (or I) may think they are, are verifiable in Wikipedia terms, so it stays in. The tone of your comment, however, suggests that you would like to remove all reference to any paranormal claim from Wikipedia. That, I think, you will find an impossible task. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you take any further comments you may have to the talk page for the article, please?Ghughesarch (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist

WP:BLPN note was been posted on talk:Enfield Poltergeist Please discuss in BLPN before restoring. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What is going on with this wiki page? do you know why all of a sudden its gone all American? why all the stuff about the Warrens in this NEW version? --Judgejoker (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)