User talk:H. Carver

Reliable source for Niamh Algar
Hello Thank you for your message. I am unclear as why you continue to delete the most reliable source of information about Niamh Algar's early career and facts relating to it from verifiable / reliable sources. Has it come to a point where wikipedia (the open source encyclopedia) is now censoring what a reliable source is and what is not a reliable source? For your information the article I am referring to in my updates (which you continue to delete and I will continue to update) is an Irish media platform called her.ie owned by maximum media (maximummedia.ie) It is important the lies and mistruths are not propagated throughout the net. Given Algar is of Irish descent and that she got her start in ireland and was a relative unknown until the her.ie article (and even past it) their journalists have factual information, which you continue to censor and I am confused as to why that is? You refer to the terms of service etc however her.ie is a reliable source, the article was printed 2014 (it shows 6 years ago over her image) and CLEARLY states the actress is 25 years old. https://www.her.ie/entertainment/one-to-watch-irish-actress-niamh-algar-wows-in-texas-185493

What is the issue? As I am confused as to why you will not accept the written word from a her.ie journalist?

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewotter (talk • contribs) — Joewotter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Britain isn't a country
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Great Britain is an island within the country of Britain" (paraphrased). Britain isn't a country and never has been. Great Britain was a country from 1707 to 1800, when it was superseded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It then became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the early 20th century. There is no reason to distinguish between the United Kingdom of GB&I and the United Kingdom of GB&NI. – PeeJay 17:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Neighbours
Hi,

Thanks for your edits to the article today. Amazing how many just ignore the hidden comments. Thanks again 5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Science fiction editors
An editor of a Hugo-winning fanzine, semi-prozine, or related work, is a Hugo-winning editor. Your level of film knowledge is impressive, and your work in those areas is appreciated. But don't tell actual Hugo voters that some of our editors are not "real" editors. If Buck and Juanita Coulson were not "Hugo-winning editors", then the term has no meaning. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
Hi H. Carver. I saw you undid my edit for the 11 September section on the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and that the BBC schedule listing page is not a reliable source.

Would you be able to clarify your position on why you believe this is an unreliable source? It comes from the official BBC website and I believe it to be reliable as a result. Happy to discuss this further with you and thank you for helping out with the article :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @XxLuckyCxX, I'm happy to clarify. A schedule listing is not a Reliable Source because it doesn't have an author. As a result, you are making the statement that the 'tv schedule has returned to normal', and you're using the published schedule as evidence to back up this claim. That makes it Original Research. In this context, a Reliable Source would be one where someone writing in the source explicitly says something like "After having rolling coverage of the Queen on BBC 1 for the past few days, the BBC will start to return to showing their normal programmes from Sunday." If that source were available, then you wouldn't be making the claim yourself, you would be showing that the article is presenting information that has been properly sourced.
 * If you look at WP:NEWSORG, for example, which is a category the BBC would fall under, you will hopefully see that while stories on the BBC would be RS, a schedule doesn't meet the standards given.
 * In a nutshell, someone else (who can be used as a Reliable Source) needs to make the claim/report the news about the TV schedule. You can't use the TV schedule to make or report the claim yourself.
 * I hope that helps make the distinction clear, and explains why more is needed than a TV listing. Best regards H. Carver (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's helpful, thank you. I have re-added the sentence in as I have found another source which is more suitable & reliable^, so hopefully that should be fine. Thank you for the clarification, appreciate it :)

^The source is a tweet from Twitter and whilst WP:RSP says Twitter is generally unreliable, that does not usually apply if the author is a subject-expert or verified, which they are both XxLuckyCxX (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's perfect; I'm familiar with the work of Scott Bryan and there's no doubt in my mind that as a journalist and TV critic (for the Guardian, among others) he meets the standard needed for being a Reliable Source. Great work getting the information sourced and back in the article again so quickly. I most assuredly will not be removing it this time :) Best regards H. Carver (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Coffin clarification*
This is perfect. Thank you so much for sorting it out so well. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

*Yes and it is not often I get to type a Talk page subhead like that ...

Twitter discussion
Hi, thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I do appreciate the hard work you've put into that article, and I do believe we're largely thinking along the same lines when it comes to improving it. Now I need to go back and focus on actual work! Best wishes, --RFBailey (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cardiff Arms Park - a decision
A decision needs to be made on whether or not to split Cardiff Arms Park - To split or not to split. There are two options which have been agreed. Seth Whales  talk  16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)