User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/March

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the redlink (event cloud) in my revision on Complex Event Processing. ;)--Hu12 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Complex Event Processing
Policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). The goals of policy may vary widely according to the context in which they are made. After considerable amount of thought I believe complexevents.com is likely to remain relevant and acceptable to the article in the foreseeable future. Guidelines are not set in stone, lets allow this link to be included. Thanks--Hu12 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank Hu. I understand your underlying reasons and agree with them.  I'm happy that complexevents.com is deemed an appropriate link.

List of CEP Vendors
(NB: I normally just respond to threads in-line. However, I'm not sure how familiar you are with WP practices so I'm copying here as well)
 * I did not close the AfD discussion, nor would I since I had participated in it. I believe it was closed by User:VirtualSteve. I simply removed a link to an article that had been deleted. If you think the AfD discussion was closed in error, you may ask for the deletion decision to be reviewed here. Ronnotel (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ronnotel - I'll follow up with VirtualSteve. Bardcom (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bardcom - I noticed that admin Steve didn't explain (in simple enough terms for me to understand, anyway) his justification for closing the discussion and deleting the page. As you are considerably more versed in Wiki policy, are you planning to challenge the deletion on the review page? Thanks Isvana (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isvana, I've been away for a couple of weeks. Having thought about this, I believe a challenge is appropriate. Bardcom (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bardcom I accept your right to challenge via a DRV. At this stage I have taken the step of making your challenge more transparent by inviting all commentators that initially took part in the debate - I note that you had not done so (I also note that you have made the request to Isvana on his user page - rather than his talk page?).  I also take this moment to comment on Isvana's response above - which appears to show less honesty than it could because he clearly has come to my page to ask a question concerning the AfD and then actually withdrew that question indicating Update: ah - I see this topic has already been well discussed above. In this case, Steve, no need to reply! Isvana (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) - as shown here.  You will note that his withdrawal of the question is earlier than his comment above which states that I did not explain to him the reason for closing the discussion.  In terms of your DRV - I welcome your use of editor rights in this area and may make a comment there in the future.  Best wishes.-- VS  talk 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi VS, I tried to insert the DRV in all the commentators page, but many commentators appear to be anonymous. But I have inserted the DRV in as many places as I can, including your talk page, Hu12's page, Isvana's page (although, yes, I made the mistake of putting it on the User page and not the Talk page - thanks for fixing).  Is there a better way or easier way to do this?  I can see that you've gotten to other pages ahead of me - that was fast!  Is there a shortcut way of doing this?  For clarity, and in case people interpret from your comments that I was trying to hide anything, for the record I was working to do this on all pages I could.  In terms of the Isvana comment you quoted above, I don't interpret it the same way as you do, and I think you're being a bit harsh and unnecessarily inflammatory.  I believe Isvana asked the question, and withdrew the question once it was obvious that you had no intention of further discussing the deletion, and didn't want to reopen an otherwise closed discussion.  Bardcom (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well that is an interesting way of interpreting Isvana's comment - of course I never even read his first request before he posted his second withdrawal of request (linked above response) and if he had have waited I certainly would have responded to his request for further information with a response. Whilst you might consider that a "bit harsh" I do note that he doesn't refer to what you say his belief's were in his response to you above which occurred about 22 hours after he withdrew his question from me.  I should also add here - reiterating what I have said before to you - that I have no personal interest in the article whatsoever - I closed it on the basis of what I saw as a consensus to delete and I did not discount the contributions of "per nom" editors as per your request.-- VS  talk 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS You do not appear to have posted the DRV link to Hu12's page - as far as I can tell?-- VS talk 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdented for ease of readability] Bardcom you are getting a bit silly and out of context with the material you are putting into the deletion review at this stage. I request that you adjust your comments from appearing to shoot the messenger to those that reflect fact. The snippet of my response is being completely misinterpreted by you and in fact you had been informed before as to why the debate had reached closure some days ago by Ronnotel who state:
 * And further, User:Bardcom, I encourage you to learn a little more about the deletion process. In particular, they generally run for five days, they are not affected by movement towards (or away from) consensus on the nominated page, and the decision is based on objective deletion criteria. The relative weight given to arguments in the debate varies to the degree that those arguments are judged to adhere to those criteria. A per nom argument can outweigh an extensive comment if the nominator has accurately cited a relevant deletion criteria. Ronnotel (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could adjust your comments as soon as possible please?-- VS talk 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your request but in this case I decline to adjust my comments. I understand why you have quoted Ronnotel, but I read the policy and it contradicts much of this (policy has been quoted in the deletion review).  It would have been much better if you had decided to quote the relevant piece in the relevant policy.  I object to 'silly', and find your remark condescending.  I am increasingly finding myself coming to the conclusion that the spirit of Wikipedia is being overshadowed.  I maintain that a rough consensus had not been reached, that the article was deleted after the minimum period, and that the arguments for deletion had not been made or carried. Bardcom (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bardcom - to make it abundantly clear I do not think that you personally are silly, in fact I admire your single-dimensional interest in the deleted article. However your process for establishing the validity of your interest leaves a lot to be desired - because the basis of your process includes emotive and weasel style words like "Unfairly and Incorrectly deleted", "Speedy deletion of" etc towards those who are deletion proponents; various Wiki guidelines and policies; other articles that you consider have made it through to the mainspace when they in your opinion shouldn't have; and then the poor old administrator :) who is only doing his job.  I again reiterate that I have no personal opinion about the article whatsoever and if it makes it through DRV to be reinstated then that is fine with me.  But I do note that other editors are again coming to the fore to state that deletion was appropriate and I again reiterate that I would prefer that you use direct and honest language to display your objection to that occurring.-- VS  talk 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * VS, I have the utmost respect for Wikipedia admins, and for you. It's a difficult and thankless job, and you do an exceptional job.  I mean that.  All my comments are in good faith, and I try very hard to avoid emotive and weasel words and phrases.  If my process leaves a lot to be desired, it's probably because I am relatively new to this process, and it seems that I may have been looking at WP:DP for guidance instead of WP:AFD - which is confusing to me.  The single most frustrating aspect of this process to date, for me personally, has been the lack of engagement by many admins to explain precisely why the article was deleted.  Many admins took part in the AfD without taking part in any debate or discussion.  Their contributions were sweeping comments such as delete per nom, pointless list violating policy on wikipedia.JJJ999 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC) with no further contributions and not willingness to explain further, or else the comments were simple per nom comments.  Myself and Isvana tried very hard and put a lot of effort into trying to debate and discuss the article, and were willing to edit and change the article to avoid it being deleted.  I genuinely feel that many admins appear to treat the AfD as a housekeeping task, and blindly support each other without reading the article, without understanding the discussion and debate, and without making allowances for editors willing to change the article to make it better.  It's almost as if it's a numbers game - the more articles deleted, the better (yeah, OTT, but as a newbie, that's what it looks like from here...).  But as I said earlier, it's a pretty thankless job anyway, and I can understand why some admins appear to behave in this way.  But, it's not right in this case.  :-)  This discussion is probably taking more time that you'd like to spend on an AfD, but hopefully you will accept that Yes, I feel strongly about this topic and the article, Yes, I'm acting in good faith, Yes, I expect to engage in a meaningful discussion in an attempt to understand and where appropriate change the article so that it's a better article, and Yes I think that many admins appear to act as a supporting quorum without understanding the discussion taking place or the editors acting in good faith to create a useful article.  Bardcom (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mule
Why you delete the links.  MisterWiki   do ya want to speak me?, come there!  - 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for starting the discussion on my talk page. As per WP:EL under Links normally to be avoided, policy states

In general before deleting external links, I ask myself if the article requires the link. In this case, the article is about Mule, and a list of "similar products" does nothing for the article about mule. The same information may be imparted by a simple one-liner that says "Other similar products exist and are often referred to as ESB products". Bardcom (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Links normally intended to promote a website
 * Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services
 * And also the section about using Wikipedia to advertise
 * Give to the page only link to external pages, do not remove all the links. -- MisterWiki   do ya want to speak me?, come there!  - 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the page only have 2 external links... -- MisterWiki   do ya want to speak me?, come there!  - 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, but other links should also be removed. For example, the Sonic link points nowhere, the IONA Artix link doesn't point to an IONA Artix article but to an IONA article, E2E Bridge points nowhere, the Cape Clear article points to a company article and not a product article and is debatably not notable and doesn't even exist anymore as they have been acquired, Question mark over Chainbuilder for notability - the article reads like an advertisement and has no external references, etc.  Do you want to do it, or will I?  Bardcom (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can continue.  MisterWiki   do ya want to speak me?, come there!  - 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
See my discussion at that page. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you're removing 'the island of Ireland'? you'll have to change the map (as it has both islands highlighted). PS: I hope this isn't a 'political correctness' thing. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: AFD
Hey there! I closed on consensus of keep because a majority of the editors involved leaned towards keep, and also because I was leaning towards that as well; I don't feel that WP:NOT applied in the situation, and that the WP:NOT issue could be discussed and resolved. Overall, I didn't think the article should be deleted. Also, I can't really compare this to the other AfD you cited, as each AfD is closed by (mostly) different administrators following a set of guidelines. However, we may apply personal judgment, so naturally every admin will make a slightly different choice. Hope that clears things up, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Hi there, I've noticed you reporting vandals at WP:AIV and this always a much appreciated process. However, you have been submitting many reports were there were fewer than 3 vandal edits and the vandals were either never warned or never received the final warning. Please make sure that the vandal is active, has been properly warned, and continued to vandalize after a final warning before submitting a report on WP:AIV. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting and warning is the pretty much the most effective way to deal with vandalism ;). If they persist, then take the steps I mentioned above and report them on WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! - Master Bigode from SRK.o// (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
Hello Bardcom. If you want that page unprotected? place your request at Request page protection. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay, actually I don't disagree with the decision to protect the page! Looking at the history, and even the fact that there was an accidental 3RR violation, it looks like there was an edit war started to me.  Actually, oddly enough, I blocked myself from this article for 24 hours to try to prevent an escalation.  Bardcom (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No harm done. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Heshs_Umpire#Speedy_deletion_of_Billy_Sheehan_.28Gaelic_football.29
Please note A7 does not apply to speedy CSD!Gnevin (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnevin. A7 applies to articles about a person where the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. I listed the article for speedy because Billy Sheehan (Gaelic football) falls into that category.  I'll remove the speedy based on WP:Athlete, and I'll replace with a tag looking for extra references.  The article also needs disambiguation from the other Billy Sheehan Bardcom (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A7 can apply to AFD but as per CSD, A7 or notability is not a valid criteria for speedy
 * Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
 * Failure to assert importance but not an A7 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion Gnevin (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnevin, thank you for explaining this, but you are interpreting this exactly the opposite of me. The article on Billy does not assert the importance or significance of the subject, therefore your first point does not exclude the article.  It is eligible for speedy deletion *because* of not asserting importantce of significance.  And therefore your 2nd point is automatically excluded.  Am I interpreting this incorrectly? Bardcom (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How long is a peace of string ? To be honest i don't really know, all I know is that in the past i've attempted to speedy things per A7 and was pointed to this,tell you what I'll raise it as WP:CSD and hope for a clear line to be drawn in the sand Gnevin (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnevin, no need for this article just yet - let's wait and see if references are added that can help to assert the importance of significance. Bardcom (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is more a in general thing,not a you and me thing :) ,see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion if your interested, Also senior inter county players are inherently notable Gnevin (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Rescure Squad
Yeah, a lot of people don't know about the ARS. Someone really should link to it somewhere in the deletion process pages as an alternative to 'get this article off mah intarwebz, I'm too lazy to fix it myself'. Celarnor Talk to me 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

King of France
He wasnt de facto King of France but it was a title of the sovereigns of England back then...It is def. correcter than prince of wales...--Camaeron (t/c) 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will remove it. Sources wouldnt be much good in this case...I will add a bit in the first sentence though...--Camaeron (t/c) 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

G-Log
Hi, thanks for you message regarding G-Log and it's AFD. I am unwilling to relist the AFD for a couple of reasons. Firstly three comments + the nominator in an AFD is about average and I generally only relist where there has been less comment than here such as Articles for deletion/Zeus (band) and Articles for deletion/Narito Ang Puso Ko. They rarely get a large number more contributors and all three contributors to this AFD were established users making (to me) reasonable, though not great, arguments. This makes me feel that relisting will not change the situation and there has been a longstanding consensus that no quorum is required at AFD.

Secondly there are references in the article here which provide the beginning of a case that it does meet the notability guideline. They meet the main verifiability policy and at least two contributors to the AFD felt the article could pass the notability guideline. I agree however the press releases found in the AFD are not independent so cannot count towards notability. Therefore I felt there was a balance between the keep and delete opinions making a no consensus closure the only one I felt was appropriate.

You are free to renominate after a reasonable period if you feel there has been no improvement to the article. Hope this explains my decision. Davewild (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I decided to take a look myself for some sources and found several. I have added some of them to the article and with these sources I think notability is established. Relisting the debate now would seem unnecessary, take a look yourself and see what you think. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Wikipedians' notice board
You may not realise it but the Irish Wikipedians' notice board is intended for news items and not for commentary or discussion. Use the talk page for such things. BTW, such questions as how to move a page can be found in the help areas or use the Village Pump to ask questions you cannot find answers to quickly or easily. Anyway, all you do is click on the move button at the top of the page, select a new name and click on the Move Page button, but do not move any pages where there might be controversy over a rename. Instead discuss it at the talk page first and see if there are any objections and seek consensus for the move. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do. Bardcom (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need any other help, just ask. Have a great Easter. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good
Just a note that I think this combined with this seems like a good way forwards for both of us and the wider editting community. Hope it helps alleviate your concerns as much as mine. Thanks for discussing the changes. --Jza84 | Talk  19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd go along with that. Go ahead and make the edits.  And thank you. Bardcom (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * However, I don't think contributions like this are entirely fair or helpful. "Freedom" is bound to be favoured by some, but detested by others for obvious reasons. I brought it up for discussion because, (quote) "Quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged need a reliable source". A simple source could've avoided the whole issue. --Jza84 | Talk  20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken jza, but your objection seemed very passionate and to me (and others) appears odd. Perhaps it's just me, but why would you object to "Freedom" in the first place?  It's not obvious to me (apologies if that makes me dumb, but I really don't know...) Bardcom (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because, "Freedom" implies the Irish were enslaved, which is open to alot of POV (to say the least!). The Irish republic was brought about by a much more complex set of circumstances, including a powerful independance movement. It's probably our alterative cultural perspectives (as a Brit and Irishman) that inform us of our different views here, but I believe "independance" is a far more neutral term.


 * Did Northern Ireland obtain "freedom" from the Irish Free State?? Did Kosovo obtain "freedom" from Serbia?? -- Me thinks not, for obvious reasons. The term "freedom" isn't even used on Wikipedia for the downfall of Nazi occupied Europe! My only passion is to ensure Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable source, not anything to do with the politics of Ireland. --Jza84 | Talk  20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
Would you kindly stop with your systematic removal of worldwide accepted term British Isles from Wikipedia. From your editing patterns concerning this it is difficult to assume good faith and that your edits are possibly stemming from a POV motivation rather than an aim for neutral editing. In case you were unaware the term is used worldwide and is widely accepted by many. Please stop altering things until at least there is a community consensus on the issue (other than the current one which finds the term acceptable.) Canterbury Tail   talk  00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ben, wow, what an accusation! The "systematic removal of the worldwide accepted term" no less.  Kindly point out where my edits are incorrect and inaccurate and I will gladly revert them myself.  I have corrected numerous incorrect uses of the term.  The latest of which was moving an article from "North Channel (British Isles)" to "North Channel (Britain and Ireland)".  As part of the move, I manually fixed many links - do you have a problem with that?  Other uses I've fixed include where the term incorrectly uses the term in as a political term, or where the term is an inaccurate geographical term, or where the term is used in sentences that also include Europe, therefore making the term redundant.  Which one of these edits are you unhappy with?  Equally, I have reviewed numerous article where the term is applied perfectly correctly - in a geographical sense.  Although I am glad you have asked the question here, and given me an opportunity to respond, I am not happy with your language or tone which makes it clear that you have already leaped to a conclusion, not am I happy that you posted a smearing post on a very public page.  Do not presume to tell me that I am not acting in good faith, or that my edits are incorrect, or that I am damaging wikipedia, or that I am working against a community consensus.  In fact, how dare you sir!  Examine my edits, and point out which articles you have a problem with.  Then apologize on the same public page you smeared my name and reputation.  Bardcom (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I pointed out about six easily found cases which were inaccurate, and User:Bardcom did not revert them, instead he just deleted the complaints from his talk page. Tb (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Bardcom. I admire you enthusiasm, but I'm concerned. Has there been an Arbcom ruling on 'British Isles' usage at Wikipedia, that I've missed? GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay, I can understand why anyone would get concerned given the highly slanted "question" posted above by Ben. I am annoyed at his insinuations, but I accept he is also acting in good faith - although his choice of language and tone of questioning leaves much to be desired.  As I've said to Ben, I have been reviewing articles using the term and correcting articles that use the term incorrectly or inaccurately.  I have no problem with the consensus formed over the term "British Isles", and that is also why I participate (with you) in the ongoing debate over the term. Bardcom (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly true that Ben's accusations are somewhat shocking, but unfortunately there seems to be a strong ring of truth about them.
 * There was no consensus for a move of North Channel (British Isles), and in any case "Britain and Ireland" are not the two islands that the channel is between; that would be "Great Britain and Ireland".
 * You changed Act of Settlement 1701 to state that the monarch was prohibited from leaving the island of Great Britain (as opposed to being prohibited from leaving the kingdom). Such a dictat sounds very unlikely and needs to be backed up by explicit references.
 * You changed Anglo-Celtic Australian to state that the term relates to people from the UK and Ireland only, excluding Manx and Channel Islanders - again with no reference to support this change.
 * I could go on. It seems fairly clear that Ben's request for you to stop this disruptive behaviour was wholly reasonable and I second it.  You have been making edits that change accurate information into inaccurate information and making contentious changes without backing them up with references.  We have a name for that sort of behaviour. Waggers (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Waggers, personal attacks are not tolerated on wikipedia. Acting as judge and jury on this, and calling me a vandal is not acceptable behaviour.  Your list of "evidence" is a deliberate ploy to select edits to justify your attack.  And BTW, I have not made any edits since Ben's notice above.
 * You claim there was no consensus for a move of North Channel (British Isles). Kindly check the talk page where this was discussed - the only other suggestion was to rename it as "North Channel (Irish Sea) and this was rejected by two other editors.  Note that there were no objections to the proposed change.  I am happy with either - I went with the original suggestion as I believe it was more appropriate.  In addition, I followed procedure.  I I nominated the article in the discussion page, asked for advice on a noticeboard on how to perform the move, and left the discussion open for the recommended couple of days.  I note you have reverted the article on the basis for not having a consensus.  Reverting the edit reverts the article to an inaccurate term, and there is clearly a consensus that it is incorrect.  Your reaction is not appropriate.
 * I changed the Act of Settlement 1701 to remove the "British Isles". This is an example of a geographical term being used in a political article.  Kindly check the talk page where I posted a question looking for references to where in the act it states this.  I have read the act.  Several times.  And nowhere does it state that a British monarch is prevented from leaving the British Isles.  There were "kingdoms" at that time - the "Kingdom of Scotland", or the "Kingdom of Great Britain".  I changed the term to read "Great Britain", and my edit note commented on the fact that I was still looking for references.  But my edit is much more accurate than the term "British Isles".  Here is a link to the full text of the act  - check it out yourself.  Policy states Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor, therefore I was fully entitled to remove this change.  I note you have reverted this edit.  Do you have a reference for this change?
 * I changed the opening paragraph of Anglo-Celtic Australian because in the paragraph denoting "Usage", it clearly states The term Anglo-Celtic is primarily associated with Australians of British and/or Irish ancestry.  Since there are approx 17,631,805 anglo-celtic australians (around 85% of the population), and a total of less that one fiftieth of one percent from anywhere outside of Great Britain and Ireland, the edit was clear.  Also, kindly notice that I did not remove the term from other places in the article.  I notice you reverted the edit.
 * Waggers and Ben, you have done me a great disservice. This attack is completely unjustified, especially in bringing into a public domain first, without discussion.  Waggers, your reversion of my edits are completely unjustified and wrong, and I notice that you are now methodically reverting all my edits.  Waggers, you have also accused me of being a vandal - I would argue that the actions you are now engaged in are more vandalistic than any of mine. Bardcom (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've just noticed you are an admin! !  I'm lost for words... Bardcom (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quire right that I'm an admin, and as such I have been appointed by the community to act in cases such as these; for that reason I find your comments about being "judge and jury" somewhat strange - as an administrator it's my job to make judgements like this. It's very clear from your edits in this case that you've been trawling through the "what links here" page for British Isles looking for excuses to remove the term, and the links, from other articles.  Trolling, vandalism, call it what you will; there's no personal attack involved in describing your actions as such.  The advice is always to talk about the contributions not the contributor and at no point have I made any personal comments about yourself.  The fact that you've gone on to claim that this is somehow a personal attack against you when it clearly isn't, only serves to cause further disruption.
 * Regarding North Channel (British Isles), silence does not necessarily equate to consensus; the fact that alternative suggestions were made indicates that some editors felt your suggestion was not the most appropriate. As far as due process is concerned, was the proposal listed at WP:RM?  With Act of Settlement 1701, the proper way to challenge a statement is to add the  (or ) tag.  If no reference is forthcoming, the proper thing to do is then to remove the offending statement - not to change it into something else that's equally unreferenced and therefore just as invalid.  Finally, with Anglo-Celtic Australian, just because the numbers are small is no reason to exclude them from the definition of the term altogether.  British Isles is a perfectly valid and more succinct way of including the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
 * "I notice that you are now methodically reverting all my edits." Not true.  I was reviewing them on a case-by-case basis; you'll notice that I've left some of them alone as your edit was indeed valid in those cases. Waggers (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Waggers, what does trawl mean - I'm not familiar with that usage? I did examine the list and review a number of articles.  Whenever I came across an article that incorrectly used the term "British Isles", I changed it.  I didn't try to hide my actions, I posted questions where I needed answers, and I only changed the term where it was obviously incorrect.
 * Regarding North Channel (British Isles), I originally posted the proposed move on the talk page, and I also posted a question on the Irish Wikipedians notice board asking for help and advice on how to move the article, and I followed that advice. As it turns out, I agree that (Britain and Ireland) is not the best phrase - it should be (Great Britain and Ireland).  Your reversion to (British Isles) is wrong.  Why have you not nominated a change on this article - just curious...
 * Regarding Anglo-Celtic Australian, the main reason was not because the numbers were small, but because I was making the article consistent with the 'Usage' paragraph where it states very clearly that the term is mainly used to describe British and/or Irish ancestries. Do you really believe that 0.0017% of people justify the use of the term British Isles?  In that case, why don't we also count French people too, seeing as Brittany is also in France, and we can just use the term northern European?  Why did you decide to draw the line where you did, and why do you feel justified that your revert is correct?
 * Regarding Act of Settlement 1701, as I've already stated, I posted the question in the talk page and got no response. There is no policy that says a tag must be used.  I researched the article and could not find the quoted reference (I posted a link above). As I've pointed out in my response above, it would have been well within the rights of any editor to have removed this claim just for not having references in the first place (to quote you, from above, Such a dictat sounds very unlikely and needs to be backed up by explicit references).  I made a judgement call between removing the term, or changing it to something more plausable to draw attention to the term and perhaps get a response.  I did not expect to be attacked though.
 * Finally, regarding your attack. You maintain I have not been personally attacked.  I disagree.  You said this above: It seems fairly clear that Ben's request for you to stop this disruptive behaviour was wholly reasonable and I second it.  You have been making edits that change accurate information into inaccurate information and making contentious changes without backing them up with references.  We have a name for that sort of behaviour.
 * First, I did stop when Ben posted - your insinuation that I didn't is designed to make it look like I was deliverately ignoring Ben and continued editting. You call my behaviour disruptive.  This is attacking me, as a person, and not the content.  You claim my edits change accurate info into inaccurate info - that is also a personal attack.  You claim I am making contentious changes without backing them up with references - I have explained in detail the changes, and you can see that I posted questions, asked advice, and in fact appear to have highlighted a lack of references in the material I changed.  Perhaps you could remove this material as not having any references?  Finally, you call me a vandal.  I think perhaps that the fact that my edits involved the term British Isles is what is really at the bottom of this.  You assumed too much. Bardcom (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you calm down and read WP:NPA. Every one of my comments was about your contributions, none of them were about you as a contributor.  You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here and I suggest you stop. Waggers (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Waggers, it states very clearly that an attack on the person instead of the content is a personal attack. Your response doesn't even attempt to address any points I raised, or doesn't acknowledge that perhaps some of my edits were justified.  No hint of any statement retractions.  No whiff of an apology.  I'm not impressed.   Are you sure you're setting a good example for the rest of us poor mortal editors?  I'm starting to suspect some double standards on your part - why is it that you can revert the term "British Isles" with no references while you insist that changing it requires references?  But leave that to one side for now - I'm more interested in your response to the points I raised in the last post.  Bardcom (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(red. ind.) "it states very clearly that an attack on the person instead of the content is a personal attack." Exactly. I have made no attack on your person. I have already given the reasons for the reversions I have made and have no intention of engaging in circular arguments. Regarding your comments about double standards, please see WP:WRONG - the same principle is present here; reverting an incorrect edit does not mean I necessarily think that the previous version is wholly correct. And regarding "Your response ... doesn't acknowledge that perhaps some of my edits were justified.", that's a blatant untruth. Read my comments again and you'll see the sentence "I was reviewing them on a case-by-case basis; you'll notice that I've left some of them alone as your edit was indeed valid in those cases." is there, plain as day. So if you're not going to read my responses to you, or ignore what they say, why are you asking me for more? Waggers (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Waggers, you ask me to calm down - please don't use this tone and language as it makes you appear as patronising. I looked at your reasons and I addressed the points you made.  You did not respond to any of my return points where I believe that it shows that my edits were reasonable, within policy, and justified.  It's only a circular argument if no new points are made, and I did make new points.  Your argument about WP:WRONG only applies to protected pages and is very specific - but taking the principal from this reasoning, it still means that you reverted because you believe that the edits I made were wrong, and anybody looking at this debate would see that you've labelled me as disruptive and a vandal, and that you agreed with Ben that I was systematically removing the term British Isles from wikipedia.  On reflection, do you still hold to that view?  Can you now see that I was acting in good faith, I was considering my edits, I was not being disruptive, and please, the important point, is to retract your statement on me behaving as a vandal.  I did notice that you mentioned you hadn't reverted all the edits I made, and this might indicate that you can agree that the principal is good - especially Be bold, but you have still left your original statements intact, you have still vigorously agreed with Ben, with no retractions.  Bardcom (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bardcom, I'm glad you've stop your edits (for the time being); not because I disagree with them, but because it's better to discuss such changes before going forward. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

General advice
Bardcom, as you (appear to be, maybe) new around here - some heads-up - Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You will be subject to lots of personal attacks and massive failure to WP:AGF by certain established editors if you attempt to remove pro-British pov from Irish related articles.
 * If you respond in kind you will be accused of exactly the offenses you are the victim of.
 * Admins will intervene to warn you - but not the folk who attacked you.
 * If you manage to escape being blocked for being "incivil" to an Admin you will, if you are persistent enough, find yourself the subject of an RfC or even a referral to Arbcom if an RfC fails to intimidate you.
 * You will find a small minority of Irish editors will be your most vindictive and determined persecutors - happily allying themselves to a group of extreme nationalist British Editors in order to silence you.
 * A bit like real life really.
 * You forgot checkuser too Sarah. BigDunc (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Dear - does that show something we should know? Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NO just I got all of the above plus 2 checkuser in my short time here.BigDunc (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You new?!! I thought you were as Wiki-long in the tooth as myself! Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well newish one year birthday in a few weeks, but as I said especially at the start I was hit with all of the above amo at one stage or another. BigDunc (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the Administrators are really getting slammed. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Chit chat
Moving chat to new section to keep clear of preceding discussion Hi GoodDay, thanks for stopping by. I genuinely feel very depressed and angry and put-upon as a result of this situation. This is bullying, plain and simple. Any advice on how to proceed from here? Bardcom (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest going to Talk: British Isles/name debate, and working things out there. Though I support the usage of British Isles, I do know & appreciate that it's a controversal term. Trust me, I've had frustrating momments myself - (see Scotland). GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay, thanks for the advice. I'm reluctant to bring this dispute to that forum for two reasons.  I agree that the term "British Isles" is offensive to a lot of people, and it's use is in decline.  But I also agree that it's premature to change the name of the article, and I don't see a clear alternative in use either.  But I also don't believe that the term "British Isles" has a special privilege where "permission" has to be sought to change articles where it is used incorrectly. I'm unsure if anything constructive would come of bringing it to that forum.  What do you think?  Would it just become another stalemated row? Bardcom (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would likely be another stalemate. Perhaps seeking a consensus for changes on each indiviudal article, is your best option. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I did for contentious changes. Are you suggesting that any article with the term British Isles will constitute a contentious change?  If that's the way it is, fair enough, but is that really necessary?  Take a look at the changes that Waggers is reverting and tell me what you think.  Thank you.  Bardcom (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The onus for getting a consensus for change, falls on the changer (that's you). That's how it is - For example: I want the map changed at Scotland? the onus is on me to persuade the editors there to change it. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For most changes, this is not practical. For large changes, or contentious changes, sure.  What happened to Be Bold?  Did you look at the actual edits I'd made?  I don't see that correcting the use of the term "British Isles", where it was used incorrectly needs a consensus for change.  Bardcom (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Going by the reaction you got, from the other editors? I'd say it does require consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - starting to look like it (glum). Depressing thought.  I'll wait and see though - I am hopeful that some simple rules can be applied... Bardcom (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the use of the term is manifestly wrong no consensus is required. Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments
Sorry for my delay in getting back, but thank you for these comments. --sony-youth pléigh 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

 * I like that idea! Be bold! Bardcom (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701
This is more like it! - Good editing. Waggers (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm more interested in seeing if you would retract your accusations and comments as per my response above. But I do appreciate this gesture - thank your. Bardcom (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only "accusation" I made was that your edits were disruptive. I stand by that. Waggers (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits most certainly were not disruptive. Sarah777 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've forgotten some of the conversation. You said I was behaving like a vandal.  You agreed with Ben's accusation of systematic removal of the term British Isles.  You accuse me of continuing to edit after Ben asked me to stop.  Please retract these statements.  Your accusation that my edits were disruptive is still without foundation, and I am surprised that you stand by this statement still.  Bardcom (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edits were good, Bardcom. Waggers accused me of loosing my reason last week, and really, I was just about as cool as a cucumber. It's just a strategy that Waggers uses, when he can't think of something constructive, he just throws a few stones, and he's really trying to disrupt you. He's not the worst, though he does try! ;~#)) 78.19.127.19 (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles 2
You correctly quoted WP:PROVEIT but then restored the very un-referenced information in direct violation of WP:PROVEIT. So I have revereted your revert until some one provided the required citations. I have no problem with the information but it must be provable and referenced by an independant 3rd party source. Triwbe (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes - I see whats happening. You're removing the "Cornish" inclusion.  I'm removing the "Home Nations" reference.  I have no problem removing the "Cornish" references until citations, etc, are found.  The Home Nations reference should be removed because it's not in line with the rest of the templates.  Will you make the edit or will I? Bardcom (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning users
Hi. Regarding the report you made at WP:AIV against, I am sorry to tell you that this request for action is likely to be rejected. The user in question has not been sufficiently warned, and hasn't made any edits for the past three days.

In Wikipedia, editors are encouraged to take justice into their own hands as long as they do not abuse their powers. When you are faced with a persistent vandal or otherwise disruptive editor, you are allowed to give appropriate warnings all by yourself, and, if that fails, that is when you should make a report at WP:AIV, where you first went today. For more information on how to warn an abusive editors, and for a list of appropriate template messages to use for that purpose, please go to WP:WARN. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki surprise

 * Wow, and so soon after being contact to collect some long-lost uncles plane-crash fortune in a Nigerian bank too! Bardcom (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ECUSA
Remember that the Church of Ireland existed before the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, but was outside the Kingdom of Great Britain. I've started a discussion on the talk page fo the article so that hopefully this won't turn into an edit war. David Underdown (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, join you there... Bardcom (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tb (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because you proceeded to repeat your edit-warring edit even after warning, I have reported the violation of WP:3RR on WP:AN3RR. Tb (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? Actually I think you'll find that threatening me with a 3RR violation when you've already reverted 3 times (and I've reverted twice) is a bit rich. And you've reported a [3RR] too?  I don't think that's right.... Bardcom (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, four times.     Tb (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the second isn't a revert - it's a compromise reached on the Talk page with the other editor. So I've only reverted two of your edits.  You've reverted three times.  But since I noticed you asked, I've stopped.  I'm know you're acting in good faith.  This isn't a competition.  I'm happy to discuss this, and see if we can see where each other is trying to say.  Please think about the point I make about naming the monarchs territory and make a response on the other talk page. Bardcom (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have, and I responded. The monarch in question ruled the British Isles.  Tb (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Objection to the use of "British Isles"
I invite you to outline the underlying reason for your objection to "British Isles." Saying "it's not correct" is not a satisfactory explanation, given that you have altered it even when it was correct. I suspect--but am not sure--that you simply object to the term at all, even to refer to the geographical archipelago, because you object to Ireland being named as part of an island group named for its larger neighbor. But perhaps that's not so. I invite you to outline the reason. Further, I ask you to reconsider your strategy of altering every reference of "British Isles" you can find to attempt to enforce your one issue. If you are unwilling to reconsider your strategy, I will ask the arbitrators to take the matter under consideration. Please let me know your decision by April 4. Tb (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether your comment on Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America means you reject my request or not. Can you please clarify whether you will accede to my request or not?  Tb (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're out of sync somewhere here. I just saw your warning to not revert on my talk page above, with the reporting of a 3RR below. I'm checking to count cos I'm pretty sure I haven't when I see this above. What request do you mean above? Bardcom (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just posted a reply on the ECUSA talk page. I was totally wrong about Isle of Man (and Jersey) - I boobed.  Apologies. Bardcom (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted the warning, then you proceeded to push the POV a fourth time on Episcopal Church in the United States. My request is that you "reconsider your strategy of altering every reference of 'British Isles' you can find." It seems clear that you search pages and always attempt to find a way to remove that term, no matter what, even running roughshod over history in the process. I am requesting that you firmly renounce that practice. Tb (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see it as trying to push a POV - I was trying to explain the point. Equally, nobody is trying to explain why the term "British Isles" is correct.  It misses the point totally about the fact it was in territory not controlled by the British monarch.  It's not about removing the term "British Isles".  If someone had replaced the term with "Europe" it would still be wrong for the same reasons. Bardcom (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, in 1789 it certainly was territory controlled by the British monarch. Regardless, the statement referring to the British Isles is in fact factually correct.  It has the benefit of actually being true, whereas your proposed replacements have the disadvantage of being false.  Moreover, as User:Secisek pointed out to you, fighting over naming is disfavored in Wikipedia.  Nearly your every edit is an attempt to eradicate "British Isles" from some article or other.  It is this behavior which I believe to be problematic, which you have not explained, and which I have asked if you will please stop.  Tb (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The province founded by Samuel Seabury and others (in America) was not in a territory controlled by the British monarch in 1789 as was independent in 1776. This was the first time that a province was founded in territories not controlled by the British monarch.  That's the point. --Bardcom (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right: it wasn't controlled by the monarch, and it was outside the British Isles.  Now what's interesting is that the Church of Ireland continues in territory also not controlled by the British monarch, but without breaking any succession from before 1922.  The interesting thing, from the standpoint of the Anglican Communion, and its history, is not the legal question about oaths. The interesting thing is about the extension of Anglicanism to a new place, complete with an indigenous episcopate.  The geographical reference is exactly the point.  But objecting to the political question isn't your only reason to object to "British Isles", so I'm awaiting any explanation from you about that.  Tb (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

'''I hope the sections I have added below give sufficient examples that you can identify what I'm talking about. A quick sample shows many, many more such destabilizing edits, in which you seek to find any way or any justification possible for altering "British Isles" even when the original reference is specifically to the archipelago; your changes often imply other things as well (as I note below) which you don't seem to care about and which you don't offer any reason. Moreover, you use terminology like "correction" and "avoid B.I." You seem like a WP:Single-purpose account. Tb (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)'''

snip Moved to the talk page of British Isles Bardcom (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''You are making what are clearly POV edits to any article that contains the term 'British Isles'. This could be considered vandalism thus this warning. Please stop.'' Doug Weller (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-America
On the other hand, I am supporting you on this one except I think you haven't been radical enough.Doug Weller (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My objections
My objections to your behavior had nothing to do with the British Isles page. I fear you want to make sure that other people who also object do not see your clear pattern. That really bothers me. You have thus far failed to make a clear answer to my request. Will you please stop your behavior in searching for uses of British Isles and eliminating as many as possible? Please answen the question, if the answer is "no", you think you have done nothing wrong, just say so here, clearly, and we can move to the next step. Tb (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tb and others, I have withdrawn from this topic for now. If you wish to discuss this topic, please do so on the British Isles talk page.
 * Also, I accept that you are acting in good faith. But I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on your behavior or that of your pals over the past 24 hours suffice to say that I hope that at some stage in the future you look back and regret some of the ad hominen attacks.  Bardcom (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Bardcom, you certainly appear to be searching for the phrase and replacing it, leaving a number of articles in a bit of a mess because you are in such a rush. And as I've said, when you do conduct a 'straw poll' you aren't open about what you are doing but act as though each one is an isolated case. Replacing all the occurrences of 'British Isles' on Wikipedia would undoubtedly correct a few errors but wouldn't be an obvious improvement overall, rather the opposite.Doug Weller (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, for the last time, I am not replacing all occurrences of "British Isles" on Wikipedia. Although I can understand why some of you would like a juicy secret anti-British plot to unravel, it is not systematic. And perhaps some mistakes have been made - I've tried not to though, and I've reasoned and considered each edit.  So stop with the attacks, look at the articles, and comment on the edits.  But not here.  Do it on the British Isles talk page. Bardcom (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you show a case where you introduced the term "British Isles" to a page which did not have it? Moreover, my complaint (can't speak for User:Dougweller is with your behavior as a whole and not with particular cases. I repeat my request for you to cease your practice, or at least have courtesy to say that you will not.  Tb (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is harassment, and you are trolling. I'm still trying to assume good faith on your part, but your actions in continuing your ad hominen attacks proves otherwise.  You can at least pretend that you are adhering to this fundamental tenet of wikipedia as a common courtesy.  How presumptive of you, and what gall, to make such a demand and to presume to treat my edits are incorrect and part of a plot to remove the term "British Isles" from wikipedia as a "practice"!  This discussion has moved to the talk page of "British Isles" where your attacks can at least be in public.  Do not post on this talk page on this topic again. Bardcom (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer seems to be "no." Tb (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) --Bardcom (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)