User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/May

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Block clarification

Can you clarify your block of User:81.5.133.89? He doesn't seem to have been warned at all, and disagreeing with you regarding the use of the phrase 'British Islands' doesn't appear to be simple vandalism. Is there something else going on that would clarify the situation? At a quick look, it might appear to someone not familiar with your edits that you have blocked an editor with no warning or notice because he was involved in an editing dispute with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I reported the anon IP editor because the editor simply reverted all of my edits for that day. No discussion or attempt at discussion. I saw my choices as either reverting all that editors reverts (and thereby pretty much starting an edit war), or to let an admin make the decision. In light of the fact that the anon IP editor didn't make any attempt to discuss any of the reverts, I can only guess that the admin was satisfied that the anon IP editor was acting improperly as a vandal. I am always happy to discuss the reasons for my edits. It's no secret that there are a lot of objectors to my edits, and there is a merry (and I have to say, we're nearly friendly at this stage) band of regular editors that keep me on my toes and make sure that my editting is justified (or at least, there's an argument or a basis for the edits). There was an RfC process initiated last month, but on inspection, all but two of my edits were held up (and the two that were not had been settled as inaccurate even before the RfC process, so it was very mischevious to include them...still....).
Since then, many of my edits have been examined/scrutunised - and nearly all have been upheld as good edits. Many of the more vociferous detractors (around the time of the RfC) have since acknowledged that I am acting in good faith, am always happy to discuss the edits, and never ever get personal - comment on the edits, not the editor.
But there's a recent trend of anon IP editors who revert my edits with comments like "Reverting edit of editor who is trying to systematically remove British Isles from Wikipedia", or comments very similar. They have not engaged in any discussion, and simply stick to an argument like "You just hate the British Isles". There's been a number of edit wars, and I was advised to not edit war, and to simply report the IP address. Even looking at this anon IP users Talk page, the reason for the unblock is pretty much that reason. I was asked recently to take a break from editting wikipedia on this topic for a week, while a discussion could take place. I willingly agreed - but it seems that it wasn't discussed, or the admin forgot or whatever.
I also see from the anon IP Talk page that the editor probably has a "real" username. Why is the user not willing to discuss the edits, not willing to assume good faith? Why is the user not reading the RfC? It's difficult to assume good faith for an editor that wants to hide behind an anon IP address.
I've rattled on a good bit. In summary, I don't believe we've seen the end of anon IP addresses (this is the 3rd or 4th I believe) reverting my edits. But to capitulate would be to accept the bullying. I'd rather be constructive, and to edit articles to be more accurate.
I'm interested in your feedback. You can send in privately if you prefer. I'm also interested in any advice you may have. And thank you for upholding the block on the editor. --Bardcom (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm not about to contest the decision; it may have been a bit out of process, but it seems clear that whoever it is, they were targeting your edits, and not editing in good faith. Several other admins have reviewed its unblock requests and declined, too. I wonder who it is really? But I don't wonder very much. Not nearly as much as I wonder things like "Is my President drinking again?" and "Will the Democrats win the next election, or am I really going to have to emigrate to Canada, where it's cold and I'll have to learn French?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Copied from Ben Bell Talk. Please don't make ad hominem attacks on editors like you have done here. Please comment on the edit, not on the editor. You will note I've given a reason for my edits and in some cases I suggest that they are taken to Talk. Please can I ask you to take these issues to the relevant Talk page in each case. As you know, British Isles and its use is controversial in Wikipedia (though not in many oother places), so again I ask you to discuss changes that might result in its removal, before going ahead. Thanks. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please point out my alleged ad hominen attack. You have merely blindly reverted my most recent edits, without offering reasons or discussions. While anon IP's are allowed, I do not find discussions with editors using anon IP addresses to be productive. Please do not post here again on this topic. --Bardcom (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The ad hominem attack was at Ben Bell's talk page. You must discuss these issues. As Wikipedia policy currently stands, IPs have as much right as named users to interact with the community. Please play your part in that interaction. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No attack took place on Ben's talk page. Changes will be discussed on the relevant article Talk page. Please do not post on my talk page on this issue again. --Bardcom (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

don't patronise editors like here, and try to avoid all too blatant WP:WL in an attempt to dodge complaints. It doesn't make you look good. Remember that everyone's editing history is completely in the open. It is a bad idea to take other editors for morons. If you find yourself in a conflict, you will do well to recognize the other party in good faith and try finding a compromise solution rather than trying to smear the other side. It usually doesn't work and just reflects badly on yourself. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I'm puzzled as to why you labelled this entry as "friendly advice", and then proceeded to accuse me of patronising editors, blatent wiki-lawyering, taking other editors for morons, and smearing the other side. You appear to be reacting to the warning I left on user talk:Dougweller. As background, Doug left this comment on an anon IP's talk page, where he suggested that I was "removing every mention of "British Isles". He than left a comment on the Ring of Brodgar page where he again stated "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia". Immediately afterwards, the anon IP editor proceeded to revert most of my evening's work without presenting a discussion, alternative research, etc, and was eventually blocked for 3RR. I can't help but see a connection between the anon IP's actions and Doug's comment/encouragement.
This behaviour is a sneaky and underhanded way for editors to smear my reputation and behaviour, while avoiding the need to examine and comment on my edits. It is not wiki-lawyering to defend against ad hominen attacks, and I'm very surprised that you chose to wag your finger at me and make your accusations rather than at the anon IP editor or at Doug.
The warning was posted to Doug's page for twice referring to my editing as attempting to remove the term "British Isles" from wikipedia. The paradoxical standards shown where he blackens my name with one comment "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia", followed in the next breath by a half-hearted acknowledgement that "In some circumstances remvoval of the term is justified, but not in all circumstances. It seems appropriate here", is the reason I warned him about ad hominen attacks on his Talk page. In this case, on reflection, I now believe that Doug feels he was acting in good faith and doesn't realise that I object strongly to any insinuation that I am systematically removing the term "British Isles" from wikipedia, and I've withdrawn the warning and apologised.
But here's a question for you. What advice would you give me to deal with this type of situation?
And another. Do you still stand by your original comment? --Bardcom (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bluegrass

Hi Bardcom. In the light of your reversion to the British article I've just been looking at your work (sorry for the nosiness!). I can't help noticing that you've removed references to British Isles. This is also shown on your Talk page. The bluegrass one is surely not appropriate. The immigrants mentioned would undoubtedly have come from all areas of the British Isles, even though the music in question did not originate until the 1940s. Therefore in mentioning the immigrants it makes sense to use British Isles. I can't think of a better term because it is the geography of the situation that is of interest in this case. I think your edit should be reverted. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Silas, thanks for coming here to discuss, and I don't regard looking at my work as nosiness :-). The context of this section of the article in question refers to immigrants. The US does not categorize immigrants according to a geographical location (but by country - check out the US census website), and also the paragraph in question lists Irish, Scottish and English. In this context, mixing a geographical term like British Isles in a geo-political context is not appropriate, and for this reason I changed the text. --Bardcom (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Bardcom. Sorry, but I can't agree with what you say. There are no political issues at all in regard to this. Of (marginal) interest is where the people came from, not how the US categorises immigrants. In fact, if you look at some census documents (say the 1880 census as a good example), you'll note that immigrants are categorised according to geographic locations. In 1880 Ireland was not a State and use of the word would be wholly geographic at that time. This is perhaps the period we are talking about and this is how the immigrants were described on the census returns. So really it is down to geography, and as such the wholly geographic terminology of British Isles is appropriate. If you want to continue this discussion maybe we could move this whole section to the article talk page? Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem is you wish to move it to the article Talk page. But I disagree with your assertion that this is a geographical issue - it is actually an ethnic origin issue. The article talks about the ethnic origins of immigrants, and the term "British Isles" is inappropriate in this context, but rather their country of birth. Also, have you a link for what you mean regarding the 1880 census - the reference on the official database states: "name of state, territory, or country of birth". Finally, in 1880, Ireland may not have been an "independant" state, but it *was* a country and was identified as such. --Bardcom (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglosphere

Hi. I was wondering what your objection was to my edit. I don't really understand your edit summary:

for ancestral origins, use geo-political terminology, not geographical

I wrote

Countries with substantial populations having their ancestral origins in the British Isles

What is your objection specifically? Joeldl (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for opening a discussion here. There are a number of reasons for changing your edit, primarily associated with your usage of the term "British Isles". First off, referencable information (e.g. census info from countries such as UK, USA, Australia, Canada) lists ancestral origins according to country (a geo-political area such as United Kingdom, or Scotland), whereas the term British Isles is a purely geographical term (e.g. highest mountain in the British Isles) and not appropriate for articles dealing with culture, ethnicity, etc. --Bardcom (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If that is your only objection, it would have been enough to change "British Isles" to Britain and Ireland instead of reverting me.
Perhaps, but I felt that your edits substantially changed the point being made, and I wasn't sure how to restate your point in a satisfactory manner. In the circumstances, since the term British Isles is incorrect in this context, I simple reverted. It's not a big deal is it? You only changed a couple of sentences... --Bardcom (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I felt that the previous characterization was 1. incorrect, as it pertained to South Africa; 2. using a very roundabout way of stating what it was really getting at. Joeldl (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
However, I also disagree with the objection. "British Isles" is used as a normal designation in official settings outside Ireland/Britain, for example by the government department that oversees the census in Canada. They write The "British Isles only" multiple category includes respondents who reported more than one of the following origins: English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and British, n.i.e. [1]
Canada no longer uses this grouping as it is considered controversial and objectionable, and were incorrectly referring to a geographical location (British Isles) as a political grouping (geo-political term). Your reference to the 1996 census is out of date - check the later 2001 census for example [2]. --Bardcom (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting your information, either about a change in terminology or the reasons for one. For the 2001 Census, they write [3]:
Ethnic origin data are divided in approximately 206 ethnic groups and 25 ethnic categories and subcategories for the 2001 Census. An ethnic category is a subtotal or aggregation of selected ethnic groups. For example, the Aboriginal origins ethnic category is the sum of the North American Indian, Métis and Inuit ethnic groups.
In some cases, ethnic categories include ethnic subcategories as well as ethnic groups. An ethnic subcategory is also a subtotal or aggregation of selected ethnic groups, but one that fits into a broader ethnic category. An example of an ethnic subcategory in the Eastern European ethnic category is Baltic origins, which includes the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian ethnic groups.
In 2001, the 25 ethnic categories and subcategories used to classify individual ethnic origins are:
1. British Isles origins
2. French origins
3. Aboriginal origins
4. North American origins
5. Caribbean origins
etc.
Very interesting - I had read that the term was no longer used as a reporting grouping - I'll try to dig up the reference. Thanks for this. But it also goes on to state Only one table (Canadian Overview Table) from the 2001 Census includes these ethnic categories. For all other standard tables, only the individual ethnic origins are shown. That would appear to indicate that it is not the primary method of reporting ethnicity. --Bardcom (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is considered a convenient grouping because there are many cultural reasons in the Canadian, U.S., Australian contexts, etc., to view them as similar. Most important perhaps was the use of English (for the majority of them, and knowledge of it for most of the rest) prior to immigration. Joeldl (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Your assertion that Australia uses the term is also incorrect - please provide a reference. USA and Austrlia report according to country (i.e. Use Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, etc). --Bardcom (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Autralian authorities use the term. I have no information about that one way or the other. But nonetheless, in all of these countries, there are natural reasons to consider people of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish origin together. I don't see a better way to say that than with "British Isles".
The main reason is that there is an "agreement" between anti- and pro- "British Isles" editors that the term is a geographical term, and should only be used in this context. If you are referring to nationalities, you need to use a geo-political term instead. --Bardcom (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, I thought I was doing the right thing by not forgetting Ireland, which is what many people probably would have done! Joeldl (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a very contentious term when used to include the Irish - check out the Talk:British Isles pages for the raging discussion currently taking place. If anything, it is better to not use the term if you intend to also refer to the Irish.... --Bardcom (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would add that the immigration took place over a long period of time during whih political boundaries changed. Only the geography was constant over the entire period. Joeldl (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, there's another page British Isles (terminology) that lists how to deal with the areas for different periods of time, etc. Also other related articles. I don't know how aware you were of the controversy, but it's a term that people avoid putting into articles, unless for a geographic purpose (my example of highest mountain, etc). --Bardcom (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not know that this was controversial. I do not believe many people outside the UK and Ireland are aware that they are offending anyone when they say "British Isles". I feel that in this case "geographical" terms are more appropriate than "geo-political" ones, because boundaries have changed over time. Certainly what you are advocating goes against usage in North America. Joeldl (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion in Talk:British Isles, read the article, and add your views and arguments. This row has been going on for a long time, and while you might say that it goes against usage in North America, you'll find a ton of people from North America taking part in the discussions with a different view. Regardless, the term British Isles is a geographical term, and since the article is discussing ethnicity and ethnic origins, it is more appropriate to use geo-political terms. You'll find that articles dealing with immigration into USA, Australia, etc, all tend to use geo-political terms correctly. --Bardcom (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I am doubtful of the argument you make about geographical terms. Surely the Irish people, seen as an ethnic group, are related to their (physical) territory of origin - a geographical notion - more than to the "Republic of Ireland" or to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (as it then was), the corresponding (and changing) geopolitical notions.
In the U.S., one speaks of "African Americans", despite the fact that Africa is a landmass and has never been a geopolitical entity. "Asian American" is also quite common. What geopolitical terms would you suggest in these cases? Joeldl (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Be aware that I'm representing the general consensus formed regarding the use of the term "British Isles" - it's not *my* argument - and if you have any doubts, you can read the discussion on the Talk:British Isles pages where it's very clearly stated and agreed that the term is solely geographical.
Using the term "British Isles" in a geo-political context is confusing to most people. A lot of the time, the term British Isles is used when the intention is only to refer to British people (like this article). For example, in this article the lead uses the term "United Kingdom", but your edits used the term "British Isles" - implying that the terms are interchangeable, and have the same meaning. Your edit would be correct if the term Anglosphere also derives from Irish politics, culture and history, but my understanding is that the definition of Anglosphere has never previously been expressed in relation to Irish politics, culture and history - so even as a geographical term in this article, it's incorrect. And the current edit using the term "Great Britain and Ireland" is probably incorrect, and should only state "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain".
I agree that ethnic groups are often related to their physical territory of origin, but they identify with (and are organized according to) a national region. These are the same thing in most cases, but not all, and Irish people are a case in point. All Irish people identify with Ireland (the island), and some identify with Ireland (the state). People from Northern Ireland can chose, so some even identify with being British and Irish simultaneously. But many Irish people object to the term "British Isles" in all contexts, and the consensus reached on Wikipedia is that the term "British Isles" is recognized as a geographical term, and is therefore valid when used in a geographical context.
So in summary, perhaps the question that you are asking, is "What is meant by a geographical context?". A geographical context is one that deals with large regions and features of the region. Largest desert, highest mountain, oceanic streams, climate, etc. While a geo-political context deals with people in some shape or form, and it is to be avoided in these articles.
Finally, I don't think it's a valid analogy to compare with the terms "African American" and "Asian American". These terms compare better with "European American", as groupings on a continental basis are rarely contentious. (Although funnily perhaps some British people might object) In fact, the term Europe is also now being used as both a geo-political term (as a shortcut for "The Euro Zone", or "The European Union", etc) and as a geographic term, so one has got to be careful using this term too, as some countries in the Eurozone are not in Europe, and not all countries in Europe use the Euro, etc. But the term isn't contentious, whereas the term "British Isles" is. Please excuse the long reply - I didn't have time to write a short one. --Bardcom (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The analogy is permissible. "British Isles" is simply a geographical term designating a smaller area than a continent. Grouping English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish together as ethnic origins, from the point of view of the U.S., Canada, etc. is eminently reasonable. Also, you will note that Ireland is coloured on the map, as it should be, because it is thought of as being an important part of the cultural sphere shared with the U.S., English-speaking Canada and the U.K.. Don't you think Irish people would object to it being said many of them are of "British ancestral origin"? Joeldl (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We're in danger of agreeing at this stage. At no point should you think that the term is "wrong" as such - there is a term called "British Isles" that covers that geographical area. But the term "British Isles" is objected to by many Irish people (read the lead paragraph on the British Isles. Actually, read it every week cos it changes depending on the "current" argument :-) and that is why it *should* *not* be used for geo-political articles (as I've explained above, etc)
And grouping English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish together as a cultural unit is very definitely not acceptable and is guaranteed to lead to objections. As to my thoughts on whether Irish people would object to "British ancestral origin" .. surely you jest? They would be very annoyed if this was suggested. For example, a unified rugby team from all these nations used be called the "British Lions" - they're now called the "British and Irish Lions". --Bardcom (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see why the caption for the map, which had Ireland coloured, needed to be changed to "British ancestral origin". I still disagree with you about the appropriateness of the use of a geographical term in this context. I've started a new section on the page Talk:Anglosphere, where you're welcome to defend your point of view. Joeldl (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arabidopsis distribution citation?

Hi! I was wondering if you could add the reference for the Arabidopsis thaliana distributions you added. I think I'll make a distribution map to go with the article (like the one I made for Acacia drepanolobium), but I'd rather have the source cited before doing it... thanks! -- Madeleine 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure - Flora Europaea is a great place for the distribution of most botanic species and it lists each distribution region separately. But the reference I quoted was already cited from the USDA and I liked it a little better. --Bardcom (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aus dem

I have replied on my user page. Michael talk 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

AIV report

If the editor in question is Wikistalking you across multiple editors then try reporting it at WP:ANI. It still is not a case of simple vandalism, which is why the AIV board is not really the right place for it (I'm fairly certain you will not get any help there, sorry). The editor you are dealing with has a fairly long block log but also has been at Wikipedia for a long time, and that combined with the fact that the edits in question are not obvious vandalism means that you have a more complicated situation. As I see it ANI or some form of dispute resolution seems the way to go. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll revert his latest reverts and hope he starts discussing his reverts at least. I'll take a look at WP:ANI too, thanks for the advice. --Bardcom (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A question - is there some explanation, somewhere, why British Isles needs to be replaced by "Britain and Ireland"? Is there a policy somewhere that requires this? I don't see one. I think, Bardom, your best bet is WP:RFC, to gain a consensus on which term is the appropriate one to use. Neıl 10:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil, the consensus formed on Wikipedia over the use of the term British Isles is that it is a geographical term - of all the things not agreed and fought over on Talk:British Isles, this has been agreed. It is not a political term, or a geo-political term, or a substitute for other terminology, etc. And while some editors argue that it is no longer an acceptable term, even as a geographical term, a consensus has not formed for that, and I do not edit on that basis.
I have examined many articles (What Links Here) that use the term "British Isles", and where the usage is incorrect, I correct the article. For example, if you look at the article Ben Nevis, it states that this peak is the highest in the British Isles. Perfect use of the term. Or if it's a quotation, or if it's referenced, etc. But then if you look at any one of the edits that Tharky reverted - there were 13 - you'll understand why the term was changed. Some examples from Tharky's ffirst number of reverts (so I'm not cherry-picking):
  • The Charles II of England article incorrectly used the term British Isles to refer to the areas ruled by Cromwell. These are geo-political areas, and therefore the correct terms are the names of the appropriate kingdoms.
  • The Demographics of Saint Helena site was plain WP:NOR. I've since replaced with text from the official tourist site linked from the official government site
  • The Demography of the United Kingdom used the term "British Isles" in the context of Roman occupation. This is an example where an editor is confusing a geographical region with a geo-political region. The romans did not invade the British Isles - they never came to Ireland and never invaded Scotland or other parts of the British Isles. Using the term British Isles in this context is lazy, and implies that "British Isles = Great Britain = England = United Kingdom". Some editors suggest it's pedantic, but I disagree - it's highly inaccurate to use the term "British Isles" in this context. The other change in that article is because the references specifically state "Britain", so the editor was again falling foul of the British Isles = Great Britain = England = United Kingdom" way of thinking.

And so on. If there's any edit in particular you want to discuss, I'm more than happy to explain the reasons for my edits. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Leopardstown Racecourse

Do you have any sources for the edit to Leopardstown Racecourse? ww2censor (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, most of it was condensed from the racecourse home page here and here. --Bardcom (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's great but those references are here on your talk page and not where they should be; on the article page. Perhaps you would add them there as appropriate. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the racecourse home page is already referenced on the article page. Why the snippy remark - did I offend you somewhere along the line? --Bardcom (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I seemed snippy. Indeed there is an external link to the racecourse already but that is not a reference to the data that you added, it is an external link. Inline citations are something that is requested these days and a simple external link does not qualify because anyone checking has to search around for the actual information. On the other hand an inline citation will bring you directly to the information, but I am sure you already knew that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Bardcom (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blog Link

You changed my edit, removing the citation because it is a "blog" link. It's a link to a blog post made by Wired Magazine, a trusted source, and should not qualify for blind removal according to the rules on WP:EL wich state: 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

I don't know if it is the absolute best place to link to this "press release" style blog post, but it seems to be one of the only permenant sources of the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialuser (talkcontribs) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The primary reason for not including blogs in external links is because a blog is usually one persons opinion, and often is not a reliable or neutral source. You added the link as an anon IP address, and used marketing-speak terms such as "Next Generation" and "will open the way". In addition, this camera is not available as it is a research model, so any text will be future-looking and possibly inaccurate. --Bardcom (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Bluebell

Hello Bardcom, I note your comments on the Common Bluebell article, and yes, I see that you are correct in your reference to the Flora Europae. It does indeed categorise plants by very specific geographic areas. Their groupings are perhaps questionable in some cases, but there we have it. I've expanded the particular section slightly, just to clarify the point about Flora Europae. However, I also notice that your edit conveniently managed to remove British Isles from the article. I wonder about your motives here. Are you primarily interested in factually correct articles, or in removing British Isles, or perhaps both? I ask because when looking at your work it often results in the removal of British Isles and there are several references to this on your talk page. I have re-instated the words in the article, but in another area. I belive the usage is now factually correct, given that there are impressive bluebell woods in all (well, most) parts of the British Isles. I hope we can compromise on this usage. Additionally, I have noticed your edit to the Bodleian Library article. Again this resulted in the elimination of British Isles. In this case you are wrong. There are six Legal Deposit Libraries in the British Isles, of which Trinity College, Dublin is one. They are linked by the work of a single agency, so it makes sense to list them under British Isles. Your edit saying there are six legal deposit libraries in the UK is wrong, as was the text further down in the article. I'm going to correct this. I hope we are not in the position of the factual accuracy of articles being compromised by a desire to remove the use of British Isles. CarterBar (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carter, thank you for allowing the corrected text to stand in the Bluebell article, although I disagree with and have removed your insertion of the term "British Isles" as it only serves to introduce a contentious term into an article where it does not belong. In addition, there are Bluebell woods everywhere it is endemic. To understand how contentious the term is, see the Talk:British Isles page, and to understand the various ways to refer to the countries and islands see the article on British Isles terminology article. You can see by my talk page and my contributions that I do indeed examine articles that use the term "British Isles", and where the term is used incorrectly, I change the term to use a correct term. I find many articles, just like the Bluebell article, where the term is incorrectly used. As a simple rule of thumb, the current consensus is that the article is fine when it relates to geography (e.g. Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in the British Isles). I am always happy to discuss the edits. As to the Bodleian Library article, thank you for pointing out Trinity College. As I stated in my edit, I corrected the text based on the use of "United Kingdom" further in the article. Looking at the reference, it states "United Kingdom and Ireland" and this is what the article should state, and not the "British Isles" which isn't a legal entity. Finally, don't think I'm suggesting you have assigned a motive to my edits, but I am acting in good faith - please WP:AGF and do not try to read any anti-British motive into my edits. This is not about "compromising" on usage, it's about using the appropriate terms correctly. --Bardcom (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, my edit didn't last long! Please read the reference. Here is the relevant part "Legal deposit is the act of depositing published material in designated libraries or archives. Publishers and distributors in the United Kingdom and Ireland have legal obligation to deposit published material in the six legal deposit libraries which collectively maintain the national published archive of the British Isles." The National published archive of the British Isles is the point here. They use it, so there shouldn't be a problem with it. Is there a policy or something that we shouldn't use British Isles? If there is is, then OK, but I doubt it. This usage seems fine. CarterBar (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't let this one pass! It's OK to gratuitously REMOVE British Isles form articles, but not to add it? What's going on here? CarterBar (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't let this pass either. I'm not gratuitously removing the term from articles; I warn you toWP:AGF and no ad hominen attacks. I see from your edit history that you are already familiar with the British Isles debate, so there's no need for me to explain it again here. Finally, if you wish to discuss my edits (only), I'm very happy to do so. Either here, on the appropriate article Talk page. --Bardcom (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm here partly as a result of the British Isles debate. I made some changes there when I first signed up and you undid them straight away and said any further changes would be regarded as vandalism. I have read the ramblings at British Isles and elsewhere, including here, and I am not at all impressed. I take your point about geography, but reading Ireland article I don't see a reference to the Shannon being the longest river in the British Isles. It's very hard to assume good faith when all I see is the systematic removal of British Isles. I dare say some of your removals are valid but the two under discussion here really aren't CarterBar (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to add that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles in whatever article, I won't correct it. I'm happy to discuss the edits. Your addition to the Bluebell article is not correct. You added that many woods in the British Isles are covered in a carpet of Bluebells in Spring. Leaving aside the fact that you have no references for this, it is also a "parochial" POV as this is also common everwhere the bluebell is endemic. Your alteration to the Bodleian Library was also incorrect for two reasons. The first reason is that the reference provided, uses the term "United Kingdom and Ireland". The second is that since the status of "Legal Deposit Libraries" is governed by law, the correct terms to use are the terms that define the national legal jurisdictions. --Bardcom (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to add the fact about the Shannon? I have a feeling that if I do, someone other than you might come along and change it, very quickly. No, it is you that is wrong about the Bodleian. The reference actually uses "British Isles", and even though the LDLs are mentioned and supported in the law of the UK and Ireland, I don't recall ever seeing anywhere that "British Isles" should not be used in connection with such entities. British Isles is a general term, specifically a geographic term, well placed when there's a need to encompass areas of the islands, especially when there's bringing the two major islands together in the discussion. At best, your argument is pedantic in the extreme. I claim it to be wrong. CarterBar (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord

Thanks for your recent edit to lord! I was just wondering why there is no tiarna article? I'm sure there is enough info to add. I created the Laird article a while back. Sorry if this is a rather random request to the first Irishman I see but I think it would make a good article. Feel free to contact me if you ever need any help making such an article! = ) Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my reply to your "Frodsham" message on my talk page

Thanks for your comments. I also avoid ad hominem attacks as they usually are fallacious, and contribute nothing positive to any typical debate on wikipedia (if you see my research areas on my main page, you will appreciate why I should be committed to these ideals.) In that light, can I reassure you that I did not intend to write that you were on a crusade to remove "British Isles" from wikipedia. The only relevant sentence was in my reply about the book's accessibility and was placed on two talk pages, where I stated "You are obviously trying very hard to find a reason to remove the phrase "British Isles" from an article", which I thought made it clear that I was referring to an article (Frodsham in this case) and not all articles. I should have perhaps been clearer and stated "this article" instead of "an article", and so I apologise if any misunderstanding came about by some clumsy wording on my part. I also thank you for allowing me to clear this up. I believe I was therefore assuming good faith, and your request that I abide by it was a bit unnecessary, though it is always useful to remind people at times. I hope this is acceptable.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And as I said, I hope we meet again. I respect your calm and measured approach. --Bardcom (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

Hello Bardcom. Let me pick up on another couple of your recent edits - Frodsham. Is there a place called Frodsham in Ireland? I don't know the answer, but I suspect there isn't. If this is so, then the article was correct to state that the place name is unique in the British Isles, so there was no need to change it. Similarly with Cumbrae, is there a smaller cathedral in Ireland? If not, and again I don't know the answer, then the use of British Isles was correct. I can see how controversial the use of British Isles is, and how controversial its removal is. Maybe you could enter something on the talk pages of articles before changing British Isles to something else? I know this would be a bit of pain, but it would at least give interested parties the opportunity to challenge your proposals, and if, after discussion, you managed to carry the day then no one would have grounds to dispute your subsequent edit. As it is, you make a change and it's then difficult for it to be retracted and there are many editors who seem to be unhappy with this. CarterBar (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as to Frodsham, I changed the text because it was unreferenced. Perhaps Frodsham is unique in Europe? Perhaps it is unique in the world. On another note, it is not a particularly notable fact .... can you imagine if every location made claims of it's unique name - I'm pretty sure that Dublin, Glasgow, London, and Cardiff are also unique, no? The article on Cumbrae is also making unreferenced claims, and can therefore be removed immediately. The alternative way to deal with claims like these is to delete the claims entirely, but sometimes after an edit like this, an editor comes forward with a reference. As to your suggestion that changes are discussed in advance, I often do (e.g. see Talk:Lord. But for simpler edits like these, there's rarely any need. --Bardcom (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a need for one simple reason, the changes are controversial. At Lord you entered your reasons on the talk page then immediately carried out your edit to the article. No opportunity for discussion and a potential edit war in the offing. Would you consider commenting first in each case, and then waiting for other comments before proceeding? Obviously if no one is interested then no one could complain if you then did make your change, after a suitable time, but I really do think you should try to get agreement before making these controversial changes. CarterBar (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm always happy to discuss each edit. While the term "British Isles" is controversial as the name of the geographical area, the current consensus is that it is, a valid geographical term. The articles on British Isles terminology makes it clear as to what the correct terms are in a geo-political frame of reference, and other articles (used to be a great table in the List of monarchs article) reference the correct terms in historical contexts. Other references exist (for example Flora Europaea) for other article types, etc. These are the articles I generally tend to correct. I don't see a reason for my edits to be seen as controversial as they are corrections for accuracy. --Bardcom (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
CarterBar, are you suggesting that every edit that Bardcom makes is controversial? Or that every edit involving the term British Isles is controversial? Or that the Frodsham edit and Lord edits are controversial? Crispness (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Every edit that Bardcom makes which results in the removal of British Isles is 'potentially' controversial. I've no doubt some will be valid, and no doubt some will not be; I have no idea how the split would break down. However, it's a straightforward request that Bardcom asks for comments first, and it is in the interests of Wikipedia that he does so. CarterBar (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Like it or not, you (Bardcom) have become controversial, and thus any edit you make to do that removes the term 'British Isles' is certainly at least potentially controversial. As I'm sure you will agree, not all of your edits have been 'accurate' and some seem to have been done in some haste, leaving grammatical and other errors behind. Discussion would certainly help prevent these problems. I also think that any discussion needs to be open and transparent in that Bardcom needs not just to explain his rationale but that the particular edit is not a one-off, but one of a large number of edits that Bardcom is making in which he is either deleting or replacing the phrase 'British Isles' with something else.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I have not become controversial - my edits are made in good faith, and are available and accessible for anyone to comment on. Unlike Tharky who has (for the 2nd occassion) blindly reverted all my edits with no comments. That is vandalism. There may be a small number of mistakes, but I would challenge any editor to show a record of perfect editting. Are you objecting to grammatical errors now too? And for those editors that claim that I need to make it clear that the edit is one of a series - I disagree. Each edit must be judged on it's own merits. It's either correct, or it's not. --Bardcom (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Bardcom, try opening a discussion first and achieving consensus, before changing anything - and in each case make it clear that you are going through Wikipedia and deleting instances of British Isles from many different articles (but never, for example, adding any). You really need to state your reasons for this, as clearly as possible. Otherwise, your edits are likely to just keep on getting reverted. TharkunColl (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree totally. If anyone sees an inappropriate use of "British Isles" it must be removed at once and any revert of such a removal constitutes edit-warring. This 'requirement' for Bardcom is total nonsense. I find every edit Thark makes potentially controversial; so should I revert everything till be explains himself? (And I could find you a bit "controversial" too Doug - why stop at Thark? Sarah777 (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You might find every edit that ThakunColl makes controversial, but I guess most people don't. When I say most people, I don't mean most people engaging in the warfare at British Isles, but the community in general. With Bardcom, on the other hand, there are many editors who disagree with his actions. I've been reading all the material about this issue on this page and elsewhere, and it is clearly controversial, so the request that he comments first is valid. Could someone more knowledgeable than me in the ways of Wikipedia put this request on a more formal footing? CarterBar (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong CarterBar. As defined by you, I represent most people and thus Tharks edits are controversial per se. Your's too probably. Sarah777 (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


On a point of information, Bardcom's comment: "Hi, as to Frodsham, I changed the text because it was unreferenced." is incorrect. It is referenced to Latham's book, page 14. I have a copy, and on page 14 we see "Frodsham is unique in the British Isles in that the name does not occur anywhere else." (middle of the third paragraph on the page.) Each sentence in a paragraph does not have to have a reference if the entire paragraph can be referenced by the same one which is included at the end. Indeed, this is so in this instance, as the rest of a paragraph in the article contains facts included on that page of the book. If the matter of the name "British Isles" is controversial, then the sentence can be converted into a direct quote, and that will be the end of the matter. In any case, it is a verified fact which I consider is very likely to be accurate since Frank Latham is a well-respected local historian within Cheshire, and the criterion for inclusion on wikipedia is via verification using reliable sources which therefore are quite likely to be true.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi DarkGreen, thank you for the quote. I changed the term because it was unreferenced. Given that a Verifiable source be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)., can you also provide an ISBN number? --Bardcom (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(The i.d. is ddstretch, darkgreen is the colour I use, by the way). As I stated before, it was not unreferenced, as there is no need to continually reference each sentence in a paragraph with the same reference if a single reference at the end of the paragraph will suffice, which is the case here. I was adding an isbn number as you wrote this message, but this would not mean that it could not be found without one, and so your quoting of the terms for a verifiable source are too stringent an interpretatoon of them. Although an isbn number would have helped, some books do not contain them yet they are easily found in libraries, etc, and are still reliable sources and considered to be verifiable. Your objection on this point is not valid. Just accept that you made a mistake in this instance and move on, please.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry DDStretch. My quoting of the terms for a verifiable source is directly from the policy. My interpretation of them is a common interpretation. I accept that not every line of text is required to be referenced, but please accept that it was not clear what the reference was being used for, and also that the reference was not "demonstrably findable". --Bardcom (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh! If you wish, therefore... You are simply incorrect in your interpretation of policy here: I asked the question on WT:V#Demonstrably verifiable, and got a reply from Blueboar, who is an acknowleged expert on interpreting policy on wikipedia. His reply says "Providing the isbn number is good citation practice, but it is not required by this Policy. One can easily find a book without having the isbn number." So, this current "objection" is a quibble. Furthermore, "British Isles" was originally replaced with another term, and yet in these replies to me, it has been suggested that this was because the sentence was unverified. Since the change made introduced a different unverified claim to the article, a warning for adding unsourced information could have been issued by yourself to the editor which added it if you feel strongly about such matters 8-) Seriously, a better way of proceeding, if the concern was about unverified information as opposed to other concerns, would have been to ask for a citation using one of the templates available or by asking on the talk page. In the spirit of offering some advice, ex post facto rationalisations may work sometimes, but they can get one into a deeper hole, and so its best to throw away the shovel and walk away.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You raise a good point about whether replacing a reference is a better practice than deleting a reference. I lean on the side of replacing the reference, as sometimes (as in this case) an editor will step in to help create the correct form of the article, but I have deleted references in the past too. But it's an excellent point - which do you think is better practice - change or delete? I also take your point about ex post facto rationalisations. --Bardcom (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I would have to say that one cannot do anything other than consider each situation on a case-by-case basis to decide. But in the present situation, the book reference without the isbn number (if that is still being discussed) could have been easily found without the isbn number, though it would have been much better as it is now after I added it. And I'm not sure what you mean by "deleting a reference", do you mean just deleting the citation, leaving a claim in the article unverified, or do you also mean deleting the claim (the sentence in the text purportedly verified by the reference) as well?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies - I meant deleting the claim (as policy says that unreferenced claims can be immediately removed by any editor). BTW, I searched for the book here and it's not available in Ireland. Or the USA. Or anywhere in the UK except in one library in Bristol. --Bardcom (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied from the relevant page on WP:V#Demonstrably verifiable. My apologies if other think this unnecessary duplication): You are obviously trying very hard to find a reason to remove the phrase "British Isles" from an article (see User talk:Bardcom#Use of British Isles and are now trying to remove the book's claim to be a reliable source or of being available to be verified. Firstly, I have the book, and I can confirm what is written. Please accept that as an experienced editor and as a professional academic of longstanding (though not of local history) I would not invent such claims. Frank Latham is a local historian who has been the editor in charge of a number of books which trace the local history of various Cheshire villages. Each of his books (I have a number which I use to source statements) make use of documents held in the Cheshire Record Office, which is a department of Cheshire County Council, and he has worked with them on similar projects in the past. I have cross-checked some of the statements in various publications of his against the originals and always found he has been accurate. This lends weight to the idea that the claim mentioned in Frodsham is accurate, and, in any case, I have provided a quotation that may resolve this. On your talk page you cite a link which shows that the book can be found in Bristol, though I see that it is available at British Library, Boston Spa (not Bristol) from which books can be got by inter-library loan from any other UK library. Since there is pressure on libraries to save money and reduce space taken up by books which are not loaned out often, it is not unreasonable to assume that libraries would note that such a book as this could be got by means of an inter-library loan request operating within the UK and usually at cost to the person making the request. I do not think this makes it not readily available.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently asked about a source which was a 19th century book in German. See [4] As ddstretch knows, the ultimate source was not readily available but was considered ok to use as it was in a more readily available source. We shouldn't even be discussing the Latham book, it is clearly acceptable.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody has stated that it's not acceptable? I'm looking for clarification on the policy, but that is a separate matter, and in truth, your thread above answers my query. But as far as I'm concerned, the article quotes a book, and an editor has provided a reference for the book, and that's all that's required. --Bardcom (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Other possible uses of "Frodsham"

Does not Newton-by-Frodsham in the neighbouring parish of Kingsley, also qualify with Frodsham in the Parish of Frodsham for this most sought after title. Sorry to be pedantic but my edit to the Bodleian library seems to have been caught up in this fracas. Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. DD? --Bardcom (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Lucian Sunday and Bardcom) It may appear to be so (Newton by Frodsham being another example) at first glance, but a more detailed investigation yields the following: The uses of "X by Y" type names can be kinds of disambiguators when there are many settlements within Cheshire with the same name: thus "Crewe by Farndon" distinguishes it from Crewe, similarly "Churton by Farndon" distinguishes it from "Churton by Aldford" by using, as in the case of "Newton by Frodsham", the Ancient parish name as the disambiguator.

In the case of "Newton by Frodsham", it disambiguates this name from "Newton by Chester", "Newton by Malpas", "Newton" (which was in Middlewich ancient parish), "Newton by Daresbury", and "Newton by Tattenhall", and possibly a few others (including a Newton now in Wirral which used to be in Cheshire up to 1974.) In some cases, the "by Y" component may have been absorbed to become part of the actual name, but this does not always happen. In the case of "Newton by Frodsham", the relevant OS 1:25000 Map (Sheet267, Northwich and Delamere) gives the name of the settlement and hall as simply "Newton". I think we can accept the OS 1:25000 Maps as being a reliable source.

As a selection of information about the other Cheshire Newton's: for "Newton by Daresbury", OS 1:25000 maps 267 and 275 (Liverpool, St. Helens, Widnes and Runcorn) don't show Newton by Daresbury as anything other than a scattered group of features, either called Newton, Newtonbank or Newton Cross; "Newton by Tattenhall" is also shown on the relevant OS 1:25000 map (Sheet 257, Crewe and Nantwich) sheet as "Newton", though the civil parish it is in is named "Newton by Tattenhall". "Newton by Malpas" is the name of the civil parish near to Malpas, whereas there appears no settlement called Newton, apart from Newton Hall and scattered farms in this civil parish (also Sheet 257 of the 1:25000 OS map.) So, the situation is not clear, though there may be a trend to name any civil parish "Newton by Y" to distinguish it from other civil parishes, whilst keeping the name of any contained settlements "Newton". So it needs to be carefully considered.

In the case of "Newton by Frodsham", I believe the evidence shows that the "by Frodsham" component is a disambiguator that has not been absorbed into the name. I hope that clarifies matters a little.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So would Frodsham Lordship be a disambiguator...because there is another place called Frodsham? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Frodsham Lordship was an area of land that was connected to the manor of Frodsham and contained wholly within Frodsham Township (these are historical issues that are no longer in operation.) These two sub-divisions of Frodsham were so intertwined with in places that they can only be disentangled by looking at the tithe maps for the area. You can discover this in, amongst other places, the map insert given in Phillips, A. D. M. (2002). A new historical atlas of Cheshire. Chester, UK: Cheshire County Council and Cheshire Community Council Publications Trust. ISBN 0904532461.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Similarly, we have the Rudheath Lordship (which was originally an extra-parochial area, and was made up of portions of land of a similar status connected with Rudheath, though distributed over a larger area in different ancient parishes to the case of the Frodsham Lordship.) Frodsham is the name of the Lordship, and Rudheath is the name of a different Lordship. If one wishes to pursue the disambiguator interpretation (which I think it a bit much, since I was only writing about apparent names of the "X by Y" form) then it is "Frodsham" and "Rudheath" which would be assigned to the role of disambiguator in these cases, not "Lordship". If one is concerned with all things Frodsham, then the use of "Lordship" distinguishes it from Frodsham Township, where the two were intimately intertwined areas of land still within the general boundaries of Frodsham, and so "Lordship" and "Township" would be the disambiguators. Note that in the source you gave, this is almost implicit, and only not totally clear because the name "Frodsham Township" is simplified to just "Frodsham" because the column is labelled "Township", and by that time, "Frodsham Lordship" was actually classified as a township as well within the same ancient parish of Frodsham (the second column. See page 19 of this source for verification of this: Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270. ) However, this is all of historical information, and does not detract from the disputed statement about Frodsham as it applies today and as it is written in the article. I can supply relevant reliable sources about this if so desired as well. Does that answer the question?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(THis discussion has been moved and continues on Talk:Frodsham.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Immediate removal of inappropriate use of "British Isles. A question

{unindent}Sarah777 says "If anyone sees an inappropriate use of "British Isles" it must be removed at once and any revert of such a removal constitutes edit-warring." Is that your opinion also, Bardcom, and on what is it based? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Define "inappropriate". --Bardcom (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume that isn't addressed to me as it's not my claim.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is addressed to you, as you're asking the question. --Bardcom (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice yet more reversions and counter reversions of a wide-ranging group of articles. Bardcom - are you prepared to discuss each proposal for the removal of the phrase British Isles on the appropriate Talk page before making your edit, and then wait for comments from other interested parties? CarterBar (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove any more instances of "British Isles". Instead please let's come up with a neutral central venue where the content issue can be addressed and a consensus formed. Could you also refrain from using "vandalism" to describe the good faith efforts of others to improve the project? Vandalism, as I said, is when someone adds "poop" to articles. This isn't vandalism but a content dispute. If we can tone down the rhetoric a bit, the content dispute will become easier to resolve. I hope you'll be able to help. --John (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate intervention John - but not unexpected. Inappropriate instances of "British Isles" should be removed on sight and I congratulate Bardcom on doing so (I'm not endorsing all his edits as I've seen only a few, which were good). And action must be taken against those blindly reverting them - that is edit-warring. If you cannot adopt a neutral position in this issue John, I politely, suggest you stay away as you are likely to exacerbate the situation. Sarah777 (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect John, given your lack of intervention to Tharky's blind reverts and the fact that you are now asserting his behavior as Good Faith behaviour to improve the project - and your assertion that because this is a content dispute, Tharky's behaviour does not merit even the smallest warning or mention on his Talk page, and given the fact that your request, directed at me, to tone down the rhetoric immediately gives the impression that I have been anything other than open, honest, willing to discuss my edits (almost the exact opposite of Tharky), and available. Given all this, with respect, I find your request to not remove any more instances as astonishing. Your request is inappropriate, and for that reason I will ignore it. If any editor wishes to discus my edits, as I've maintained from the beginning, I am happy to discuss them. I am not aggressive, my edits are available and open for anyone to examine. Attacking an editor, and not the content, is deemed an ad hominen attack - I would also add that the framing of your unfounded request could also be classed in this way. --Bardcom (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
"Tharky" has nothing to do with it. It is your edits that are the subject of this debate. The problem is, you make an edit and engage in discussion after the event, buy which time an edit war has often ensued. Far better to pre-empt the edit war by discussing first. I ask you again, will you agree to discuss first and only remove the phrase British Isles after agreement? CarterBar (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope; is is anyone's edits who is involved, including vandals and edit-warring reverters. And especially Admins who appear to support the warring faction and attack the editor (Bardcom) seeking to improve the articles. Sarah777 (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As I've already stated, if you have an issue with any one of my edits, I'm more than happy to discuss. Unless the term "British Isles" has got an official special status, I don't understand why you are making this inappropriate request. Also, looking at your edit history, do you have any other accounts on Wikipedia? If so, what is the other account name? You appear very familiar with Wikipedia for a relatively new account.... --Bardcom (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so you won't discuss before making an edit. Well all that will mean is yet more edit wars, unnecessary arguments and much time wasting on the part of many editors. Since you ask, I've been using Wikiepdia for few months making the odd trivial edit, but signed up for an account a week or two ago, so what? CarterBar (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Depending on the article in question, posting to the Article Talk page in advance, is appropriate. I sometimes do this. It's not appropriate for most articles though. --Bardcom (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, I think that given the number of people who have disagreed with your interpretation of when it is appropriate to remove "British Isles", you can assume that in most cases, if your removal of it doesn't simply go unnoticed, it has a high likelihood of being controversial. In fact, I think you can consider the high number of editors challenging your policy here to be a blanket statement that your edits of this kind are controversial, without there needing to be an objection at each individual article.
I disagree. Given the number of editors that have examined my contributions, and have been doing so for the past couple of months, a very small number of editors - actually the same 3 or 4 editors over and over - have continually objected and been extremely disruptive with a high number of ad hominen attacks. Produce a list of articles and edits that are wrong, and we'll discuss them. Until then, the only controversial behaviour I can see is the bullying and blind reversions and constant ad hominen attacks by editors and a handful of admins. --Bardcom (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Please show evidence (a diff will be fine) of where you suffered an ad hom attack or bullying from an admin. If you are unable to do so, please redact this. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I am definitely not referring to you. But do I really want to make those kind of enemies by posting those kind of smearing diffs here? Would you accept a private mail? As a hint, if you start reading my Talk page from the Top down, you might find an example yourself. --Bardcom (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In my case, when you reverted my edit to Anglosphere, your edit summary actually left me completely in the dark as to what your objection was. It was only when I came to your talk page that I saw that you have a general aversion for the phrase "British Isles". And after discussion with you, I think your revert was inappropriate. Joeldl (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I ask that you assume good faith. I'll state again, that I do not have an aversion, general or otherwise, to the phrase "British Isles". If you have a problem with any of my edits, simply ask me to explain. In the case of the article Anglosphere, the lead paragraph states "The word Anglosphere describes a group of anglophone (English-speaking) nations which share historical, political, and cultural characteristics rooted in or attributed to the historical experience of the United Kingdom (UK).". The map in question is supposedly showing the Anglosphere from the point of view of ancestral origins, and the caption reads "Another view of the Anglosphere: countries with substantial populations having British or Irish ancestral origins". The caption is at odds with the lead paragraph because the caption suggests that the Anglosphere is derived from Irish ancestral origins, yet the lead paragraph makes it clear that the origins are the UK only. I don't see what's difficult to follow in that explanation, and I see that the caption on the 2nd map has been changed, yet again, to include the Irish ancestry link. --Bardcom (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that POV pushers are more numerous does not make them WP:NPOV. If they revert a good edit simply because Bardcom made it they should be blocked for edit-warring. Period. And any Admins not prepared to uphold such basic Wiki-process should consider their position before the Community starts to consider it for them. Sarah777 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And that could be messy, both ways. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bodleian Library

Hello Bardcom, I've reverted your latest edit at Bodleian Library for the reasons given on the Talk page. Please note that you have now reverted the original edit twice within 24 hours (the one by the anon IP, and mine). A further revert will constitute breach of the 3RR rule, so please don't revert again. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the Talk page in question. I won't revert (even though it takes 4 edits to breach 3RR) - let's see you justify your edit first. It's a clear case of using the wrong term. Bardcom (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving Article without agreement

Bardcom, pl check Great Britain and Ireland asap; some e-warriors are trying to merge it despite an active discussion which is not concluded. Sarah777 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ice Cold Alex

Sincerest apologies B, I carelessly missed that the sentence was in quotation marks, Ms. Parks should have known that the Royal wasn't the sole possession of the Hibernian metropolis, tut tut, wot wot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belacqua Shuah (talkcontribs) 23:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a few comments on my page

Hi Bardcom and thank you for your comments, to tell you the truth over the past while I have conmducted a little experiment regarding certain postings on wikipedia. I know I should have followed the proper procedure regarding this, but my overall goal was to flush out (or piss off) an un-signed editor(s) who has continually belittled and has accused me of slanderous accusations. This started from the outset way back in 2006 from a former editor Bluegold and his many sockpuppets, as you can see here from the Harp discussion [[5]] who even brought my character into question with un-signed comments like [[6]] and my response [[7]] Since then he has gone underground or as another editor although this does not stop him from including vandalism on my own home page [[8]]. Every so often an un-signed poster comes on and edits my contributions, changing key phrases and to my horror specific sentences out of context WITH my references as proof to push a POV [[9]] , [[10]]. Or completely remove references he does not agree with and includes articles that I have built up and almost reserched single handedly like the pastoral pipes [[11]]. Also there has been a silent campain against me, Other editors like the Deacon of Pndapetzim have also been a target. Deferring my edits and the use of black propoganda to other contributors to defer my character as you can see on the Reverts on Wales page Garik [[12]]. This has annoyed me and I have thought long and hard about jacking the whole thing in because of this. Basically why should I go to the trouble of researching credible data when a poster changes one word completely out of context to the original article and slates and destroys my work. Furthermore they are unsigned as seen by user 128.232.8.86, user 83.104.228.97, 78.19.156.62 and even editors like 86.148.42.85 to name but a few who specifcally target my pages and cant even be bothered to sign up, or who moans about the unfairness of not being allowed to edit!

That’s why I have done some silly edits as an unknown poster who also brought my character into disrepute (a common Bluegold tactic), as I feel that wikipedia is infested with editors with multiple accounts, and can’t be bothered to sign in but malicouslty edit other wikipedians hard work to push their own POV. I am an editor who usually strive for the best possible research regarding credible empirical data and it really pisses me off when my research is misused.As a result of Bluegold and his like, I have done that to see a pattern in the un-signed editors IP addresses and hopefully see a link between them. I would appreciate your help in editing, but also feel that the plague of un-signed editors on Wikipedia are actually turning off most editors including myself. I hope wikipedia can do something about that and in future I will stop random editing to piss of the unsigned editors. Thank you once again for comments I think wikipedia needs better editors like yourself. I’d appreciate help too at times if thats ok. Celtic Harper (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi CH, I can see that you got caught up in a lot of personal attacks and edit warring. The only advice I can give is to always deal with the facts and the current consensus. Never deal with the editor yourself. If the editor attacks you personally, it's OK to warn them or to get an admin involved, but there's no point in trying to discredit the personal attack. Most editors can see the difference between a factual debate and a personal edit war over a difference of opinion. Facts and references are your best friend, followed by the current consensus. Personally I believe that there is too much ad hominen attacks here, and admins should be a whole lot stricter on this behaviour - but nearly all editors are genuinely acting in good faith - even the ones that disagree or even launch an ad hominen attack. So stick with it, be consistent, keep calm, and if you need a 2nd opinion on anything, just shout. --Bardcom (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

No, it's a POV fork, pure and simple. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Bardcom (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

OK, I'll give you that one. CarterBar (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your British Isles sandbox

When are ya gonna present your BI article idea? I think it may be accepted by the community. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... I don't think it's quite ready yet. I want to work on it a little more. And I'd be glad to listen to any of your ideas. You can use the Talk page on the sandbox. --Bardcom (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Bard, I can't see where the discussion was closed nor can I see how my objection that a head-count isn't an appropriate way to resolve this issue has been addressed. Sarah777 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, my support for this article was based on the fact that a geographical article describing this archipelago didn't exist, as the current B.I. article reflects a geo-political POV (even against consensus). Added to this is the apparent contradiction of including the Channel Islands as this is definitely a geo-political addition. I added to the GB&I article to show the direction and gist of where the article should go and end up, and requested comments from Batsun and Deacon. The merge proposal was that it was a fork of the "list of islands" article, so clearly it was no longer a fork of this. Unfortunately, neither editor agreed, and both felt it was a fork - either of the "list of islands" article, or of the current B.I. article. I agreed, and also realized that my support was mainly because the existing B.I. article was not reflecting the consensus of usage. I withdrew my objection to the merge and redirect proposal based on the arguments presented and the fact that the way to address the problems with the B.I. article isn't to write an article containing what should be in the B.I. article, but to make the B.I. article better. On the positive side, it appears that there is now a spirit and momentum behind removing the political/historic stuff from the B.I. article, and making it a geographic article. This would also help to form a policy behind usage of the term B.I. - as you know I take an interest in this. So overall, I would say that the issue of the current geo-political nature of the B.I. article has been highlighted and this article appears to be establishing a new and different consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't really see what is either new or different or consensual about this "consensus". Sarah777 (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Your last posting didn't take effect. Not sure why. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's working now. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Hi Bardcom, your raison detre for removing the term British Isles is that it is used incorrectly. This is not the case regarding your recent edits of Isle of Man-related subjects. In your view the additional clarification is superfluous; I beg to differ. As I've pointed out in the edit histories it clarifies the location of the island to those many readers who will never have heard of the place. It's best not to remove facts. Now if it was stated as IoM, BI, Europe, World then fair enough, but BI on its own is a reasonable clarification. I suggest you concentrate on the erroneous uses of BI. CarterBar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CarterBar, I'd miss you if you ever went away :-) You keep me honest. But if you check out the "What Links Here" on the Isle of Man page, you'll see that all articles (bar the 7 or 8 I changed) do without the British Isles reference. Your argument that it clarifies the location of the island does not make any sense. The name of the island is all that is needed, and people can click on the link to learn as much as they want about where it is located. It's a superfluous addendum. Using your logic, you would expect to find the same in reference to other major parts, but I couldn't find it being used anywhere else. It is also not serving a DAB purpose either... --Bardcom (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should start putting it in then :-) CarterBar (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear - what have I helped to create!  :-) But seriously though, there's over 3,000 articles that link to the Isle of Man page, and only 7 or 8 added the British Isles reference. It's clearly not the right way to refer to the Isle of Man. And that's waaaayy too many article for you to do. Isn't it. No, really? --Bardcom (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting you know exactly how many Isle of Man articles find the need to use "British Isles"! Just because they all (naturally) don't need to use the term, doesn't mean you are entitled to remove it from those that do! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a deal - I won't add it to any of those articles, or any others, if you stop removing it (excpet where is is obviously wrong)? CarterBar (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Systematic removal of wikilinks to "British Isles" from Wikipedia

So why are you looking for every Isle of Man-related article on Wikipedia with "British Isles", and then deleting it? - in fact why are you going round deleting the term throughout Wikipedia? (like the Natural history articles etc?). Is it always used 'incorrectly', or is it just because of your unhidden dislike for the term?--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt, please be civil as per WP:CIVIL and no ad hominen attacks. I am not engaging in a "systematic" removal of the term, and I do not dislike the term. I have placed a warning on your Talk page as a reminder. Please comment on the edits only. --Bardcom (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That is simply a misuse of the term ad hominem. I'm asking you questions - and on your talk page too. You can't just stick "ad hominem" in front of everything, although that does seems to be the fashion with some editors these days. Knowing exactly how many Isle of Man articles mention "British Isles" (as you just admitted above) seems pretty "systematic" to me, especially as you are also deleting the term from them!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You are making assertions that I am systematically removing the term, and that I have an unhidden dislike for the term. There is no tolerence for personal attacks on wikipedia. If you need to ask questions, be civil, and no personal comments. If you read above, you'd also have read that 7 or 8 article out of 3,000 were editted. What exactly are you basing your accusations on? That I did some counting? That I looked? With respect, can I suggest that you refrain from commenting further on my Talk page. --Bardcom (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You removed "British Isles" from Man (disambiguation) calling it a "superfluous reference"! Did you read the rest of the article? You could have removed a number of "superfluous references" from this article (like the band 'Man' being from Wales) - but you chose to just remove "British Isles" from after the Isle of Man, when it simply showed people where the island is. It's not in the "UK", so what is wrong with that? Would you go round deleting "Wales" from after every Anglesey? etc? You are clearly just focusing on removing "British Isles" from articles, and not just Isle of Man ones too. I don't like it, I find it extremely anti the philosophy of Wilkipedia, and I am entitled to tell you. You cannot say I have "bad faith", as you have a contibutions page that simply lists you doing it. I am simply stating facts, and informing you of how seriously I feel about your actions. I don't know how admins and Wikipedia 'policy' would ride with what you are doing, but I think you should stop it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll say this again - ad hominen attacks are not tolerated. If you want to discuss the edit, I'm fine with that, but keep your personal comments to yourself - you are not entitled. This isn't a pub or a forum. Other people can run their talk pages any way they like, but I chose to run mine this way. If you can't abide by this request, simply do not post on my Talk page.
You did manage to ask a question about the edit though. You asked why I removed the reference to British Isles from after the Isle of Man. I've already answered that exact same question on this page, but I'll answer it again, for you. It is unnecessary, and superfluous, and is not consistent with the way the other 3,000+ articles use the term. So far, neither you nor CarterBar have made an argument about why the term should be included in the first place. Please focus on the edit, and the argument for including the term - no more personal comments about me, your thoughts on how you feel, what you like, what you think I might believe or feel, what your opinion is on what other people might think, and how admins and policy might ride. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC) --Bardcom (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)