User talk:Galltywenallt

Welcome!

Hello, Galltywenallt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles

Hi Gallty. I see you have removed the section in the above article about the official UK government definition of a mountain (over 600m) on the basis it was UK Metric Association propaganda. However, following the original reference link, I came across the official definition in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and have now used this as the reference. Pity, as I always thought 2000 feet was a neater definition! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a much better reference. I've modified it slightly to clarify the context, as it seems the Act used the definition for convenience as the lower threshold for default freedom of access was set to 600m. I expect the traditional definition will eventually be overtaken by 600m (possibly soon within the Republic of Ireland), but maybe not in my lifetime. Galltywenallt (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also restored the Hardys section. As I've previously stated on the article's talk page, it is daft to remove mention of them from this article while leaving Hardy (hill) as it is. If the list is indeed ""non notable" by Wiki criteria" then the Hardys article needs to go to AfD. Assuming it gets deleted and is unlikely to return, then maybe the relevant info can be removed. However as there is a book in at least its 3rd edition and a website there is a very strong argument for including the Hardys in this article regardless. I wouldn't have any objection to explaining that they are little known if a suitable source for that claim could be found. Thanks for your contributions away --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree there's a "strong argument" when there's no evidence of bagging interest within the hillwalking community. The only person to complete them seems to be Hardy himself. See the talk page. Hardy has made a determined effort to drum up interest in his eponymous list, with close to zero effect that I can see. There are many more popular lists that don't feature in the article. In addition to all the Irish lists that don't get a mention, there are the Birketts, whose mention was removed by another editor for being "non notable". Yet the Birketts have become an establish bagging objective and completions are recognised by the LDWA. There's a wiki article on Bill Birkett that mentions the list, albeit brief, so your comment might be deemed to apply here too. Incidentally I don't think Burnley's a bad place, it's a lot nearer the hills than Oxford. Galltywenallt (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Ordnance Survey official site include the Hardys in their lists of peaks to bag - so if there isn't interest now, there soon will be I suspect. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Ian Hardy lobbied the OS. But who looks at the OS site to get information on hill lists? He also tried to get his list included in the Database of British Hills. Galltywenallt (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is simple. We have a number of articles about hill lists in the UK and this article is in effect a summary of those combined with an incubation area for relevant sentences that may one day be sufficiently expanded upon to warrant an article of their own. It is ludicrous to intentionally omit mention of any existing wp article about a hill list in the British Isles. That other content has previously been removed or has not yet been added, which you feel is more notable, is not justification to remove this.

You seem to have made a common error amongst new editors to this site. You seem to be assuming that notability is the primary concern when deciding on the inclusion of content. While of some importance it is blown out of the water by verifiability. Another common error is assuming that there are sufficient skilled editors around here to keep a 24-7 watch on every single article on this site.

If you want to add content on other lists and you have reliable sources for it, then knock yourself out. While it may be improved, it is unlikely to be removed, at least by anyone who knows what they are doing. However please stop removing this info unless you can get the Hardeys article removed. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what point you're making. Verifiability is a necessary condition for publishability, but it does not follow that because something is verifiable, it is worth publishing. Otherwise everything that's known to man, however trivial or unimportant, could be deemed publishable. The wiki guidelines are pretty clear that notability is a requirement for publishability. Incidentally I'm not a new editor, so please don't patronise me. Galltywenallt (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not being clear enough and sounding condescending, I hastily edited the text before posting to move it back from abusive. It is frustrating to have to spend what little wp time I have protecting an article I know nothing about. I meant in relation to removal of existing content. However if it is verifiable and adds to an article, then IMO there is no reason not to add it. Nobody should be unilaterally removing content from articles, but sometimes it can be hard not too, if nobody seems to care.

I can’t quite believe that the Bill Birkett article hasn’t been deleted already, it has the appearance of an advert, and the only link to any sort of source is his own website! Unless someone improves it, it would never survive a trip to AfD. In contrast Hardy (hill) appears well written and has plenty of references and already survived the censors. It also seems that we previously had a ‘List of Birketts’ article that did get removed. Now the Birketts list may well be in much wider use, how should I know or bother to spend my time finding out? The decision taken nearly 7 years ago to remove all mention of the Birketts doesn’t mean it can’t ever come back. If you want to add stuff just make sure that it is neutral, concise, referenced and if possible interesting and your contributions will be met with silent approval from myself and others.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now looked at the history of the Hardy article and see that he had some difficulty in getting it accepted on a "permanent" basis. Lack of external references was one objection. He overcame this by referencing a number of magazine articles, however none of those references are available online which hampers independent verification. His reference to the HR register on the LDWA site could be construed as misleading because the site just references his book as one of the many listings of County Tops, not the Hardy list. My objection to the Hardy article (which the history makes clear is by Hardy himself) is that it seems to be self-advertisement of a list that nobody's interested in. However in view of all the previous scrutiny I won't be removing it again. With Birketts you have the converse situation of a list that plenty of people are interested in (completions have long been recognised by the LDWA, and the list was added to the Database of British Hills after numerous requests) and a very unsatisfactory article. Probably the deleted List of Birketts could be worked up into something that meets wiki criteria, but not being a Birkett bagger myself, I lack the time and inclination to do so myself.

There are many other faults in the article, starting with being written from a totally British viewpoint. It ignores the lists developed in Ireland by the Irish, and the use of "British Isles" in the title is a highly sensitive issue in Ireland. The Murdos are given excessive attention given the lack of bagging interest; they're now largely forgotten, having failed to compete with Munro Tops. And why the paragraph about the Bob Graham round? There's a wiki article specifically about peak bagging (which IS relevant to hill lists) but there's no reference to that!

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Galltywenallt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Galltywenallt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Galltywenallt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]