User talk:Jamesinderbyshire/Archive 2

WT:BISE
You made a comment relating to the linen industry at BISE. Not sure if you'd seen my response to TFWOR? Assuming you did, how is it not WP:SYN for the entire statement? --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I admit the arguments have gotten pretty complex now, but to keep it simple if possible (and I have read through all of the section) - is it the basis of your argument that there isn't a source using the phrase "British Isles" in connection with the spread of Kay's invention and therefore it can't be used? Nobody else join this discussion please, just asking HighKing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument concerns the entire statement. There's no source saying "James Kay helped industrialize the linen industry in the British Isles".  That claim is without foundation, and stitching together different sources to reach this conclusion is WP:SYN.  James Kay's invention was initially and primarily used in Northern Ireland and this book links James Kay with the statement "The Linen industry becomes industrialised" - but only in the context of Northern Ireland.  And this reference talks about the linen industry within Europe and spends considerable time discussing the regions of production and industrial organisation, so I'm hard pressed to understand the significance of industrialisation with regard to the "British Isles" unless it was somehow special (and not a synonym for UK).  --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree most of the sources seem to be talking about what is now Northern Ireland. The clincher for me was BW's final source, ""In 1825, James Kay of Preston invented wet spinning, soon adopted by Irish manufacturers." When you read on in that book, it does seem to be mainly about Belfast, although it is not unequivocally clear as to location of all the mills, but as the starting point is 1825, this would seem an acceptable usage of BI. It doesn't look to me as if this is synthesis, more a drawing on of an argument using a collection of sources and a good quality source that does actually call it the BI, within the context of many of the discussions we've had about the relative merits of historical usage of the term. Hence my initial reaction to TFOWR. Please don't come in BW, keeping it between me and HK here for now, sorry. Please come back HK if you want to and say why you think I am wrong, if you still do. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks James. For clarification, when you say "acceptable usage of BI" - by this, do you mean BI as a historical term in connection with the Linen industry, or as a political short-hand for UKoGB&I?  The reason I ask is because that particular reference (Pre-famine Ireland) uses "Irish and British" and "Britain and Ireland" more than British Isles when discussing the industry, and also be aware that on Page 50, when discussing populations, it is using "British Isles" to mean the four countries.  --HighKing (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the article is "was a British inventor who developed a successful wet spinning process for flax in 1824, helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles." This seems to be adequately provable from the sources. I mean using British Isles here to mean the spread of industrialised spinning in Britain and Ireland. I am not sure if all the rest of the references in that book are strictly relevant, but the ones I've looked at seem to refer to what is now Northern Ireland. All of these terms are somewhat flexible in practise - if they were strictly defined and easy, we wouldn't be having these lengthy debates. In this context, I think I mean BI as both a geographical term meaning Britain and Ireland and as a historical term, but it's not 100% clear-cut. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't drag this out any further on your Talk page. Would it be fair to say that at the very least, you've simplified the argument into the the acceptability, or otherwise, of using "British Isles" instead of "Britain and Ireland"?  That might be worth posting to BISE.  --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well also be worth revisiting the recent discussion at the British Isles Talk page with what you've stated above in mind. I'm not sure if your views here are the same as ones you expressed earlier with Personally I think precision matters more in most articles. There are lots of places where BI or B&I are being used as shorthands for things that would be better explaining more exactly. Just saying "BI" or "B&I" when you actually mean "parts of western Ireland, northern Scotland, but not the CI or Cornwall" for example.  Just a thought...  --HighKing (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both can be true - I was really talking about the need to expand articles with additional material. Using one of these phrases as a catch-all instead of explaining. Not sure that's true in every case and it doesn't justify removing BI in every case. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks James. I took your name in vain over at BISE, hopefully I didn't misquote or misrepresent you.  I appreciate your help.  --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification on acronyms over at the BISE page - I was vaguely aware that the second one referred to pre-Irish independence United Kingdom of GB and I, but wanted to check. It helps me understand your position I think. Am I right in thinking (HK comments only please) that your position is that if something relates to the UKoGB&I, in general terms the usage "BI" is not appropriate for such a context? Just speaking generally right now and not in relation to a specific like politics, flora, fauna, etc. Thanks for spending time on this for me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe context/topic and geographic area involved, and not time period, are the key attributes to determine the appropriate/correct terminology. I realise that in many discussions, I end up "suggesting" an alternative to "British Isles" - but that is usually after looking at the article in (roughly) the following way:
 * What's the reference (if any)? If a reliable reference exists, I don't care if "British Isles" is used to mean "Britain and Ireland" or whatever, since nobody here should really try to argue the intent of the source author.
 * Is the topic one where "British Isles" is a common (and valid) term? For example, most "geographic" subjects discussing distribution.  But there's a few oddities too, like some religions/churches still use "British Isles" (and I don't really care if they mean UK&I).
 * Is it a "contentious" topic or subject matter where "British Isles" is usually avoided. You know the ones I mean.  Actually, you may or may not have noticed, but I avoid those topics.  I've been asked once or twice to get involved (e.g. River Shannon) and I've stated that I don't have a problem stating that it's the longest river in the British Isles.  But I steer clear normally.
 * Is "British Isles" used as a political term, as shorthand for UK&I or UKoGB&I? Pet hate TBH.  Should never be used in those circumstances.  That's probably as close to the answer about "historical" usage as I can get (and once upon a time, I suggested we write a "History of the term" article where we could put all the "political" stuff.
 * After that, it's usually a topic where there's no clear rules, but where I'll probably have an opinion that there's a more appropriate term. Thanks James, appreciate it.  --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't find myself in material disagreement with most of those points and possibly all of them subject to some clarifications. I think your first (references) is fine, as long as you don't take it to mean the existence of a reference using the term BI is a neccessary condition to considering it's use at all. Your second point, common and valid, would cover scientific, religious, also probably most pre-partition uses where it's typical and in sources. Your third point, contention, is where I mainly hesitate. Like you, I don't really see why the Shannon should not be placed in a BI context. In this instance, I would say it's about sourcing and relevance. Clearly, the fact that some editors don't like it on a personal basis is irrelevant. Your last one, political usage. I am with you if it's restricted to "as a shorthand for UK&I or UKoGB&I". This is why I am checking closely with you on the last point, because I thought you were spreading that a little wider than "as a substitute" into territory where something spanned those territories at that historic time - and was not "a substitute" but used "in that context"? If not, fine.


 * All in all, a very useful and precise summary of your position and an excellent basis for a constructive dialogue about when to not use it - inevitably there will be demands for you to be more flexible than this, but I would support such a framework in general terms subject to the clarifications I need above.


 * I invite Snowded in here - Snowded, if you have a minute, what do you think of this as a structure? Would welcome your opinion. Many thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in broad agreement too, but it will not get through BW, LevinBoy & Triton. However its worth looking at RA's previous attempt, combining it with the above and posting something for discussion (James that is) -- Snowded  TALK  04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Small groups of determined people can move mountains! HK, can you please come back on the points I asked about above in my reply to your list of points? I think if the three of us can bash out a framework, we can then take it to others. If RA or TFOWR are looking in on this, it would be great to have their views too. Many thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce market cap
Hi thanks for your message. I deleted the market cap information from the Rolls-Royce header for a few reasons. Firstly, market cap and the relative 'ranking' in terms of size compared to other LSE-listed companies changes all the time (and can change considerably over a short period). Secondly, I don't see the 'ranking' of Rolls-Royce in terms of its market cap compared to other stocks on the LSE as being particularly relevant, and could actually be unhelpful. This is a global company and its peers are not listed on the LSE, but are U.S. companies. Saying that it is 33rd in terms of the LSE, in my opinion, also understates the importance of the company. To give an example, Lloyds Banking Group has a much bigger market cap than Rolls-Royce, but Rolls has a massively bigger global market share in aero engines than Lloyds has in banking. The citation is of course a fact but placing it in the header gives it an emphasis that I feel does help the uninformed reader towards a good understanding of the company.

Re my description of edits, I do try to give them a suitable description but perhaps not hard enough and will make an effort to be more detailed. I will also try to be more judicious in my description of edits as 'minor'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoon11 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, market cap fluctuates - which is why it needs to be dated, which it was. I was actually intending to maintain the RR one monthly (have a personal interest) and so would appreciate it remaining there. On the whole, I don't think it need underestimate the "importance" of the company, because, as you say, we can put information into the article about a range of ranking criteria, including market shares, market cap, turnover, revenue, etc and all of these are in. Relative market cap would be worth having in all of the FTSE 100 in my view, but if it's something that you think shouldn't be in any company, I guess we should take the discussion to a relevant project page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce
Sorry didn't sign my previous post.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE
Okie Dokie, your version is cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My version of what? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oopers. I meant the template suggestion at BISE. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you would not end up with a block report, but a prohibition would be found if you were going for an admin position etc. -- Snowded  TALK  04:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, that doesn't sound too good, does it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Stratford-upon-Avon
Hi James. Your edit, 'Shakespeare is often called the Stratford Man', is not supported by your citation. I take it these are what your statement is based on? 'In this splendid new biography, however, Stephen Greenblatt assumes, unlike the well-named 19th- and 20th-century scholar Thomas Looney, that Shakespeare was indeed what the Oxfordians call "the Stratford man"' (notice the minuscule initial 'm') and '. . . there is plenty of dross in the Stratford man"'. In which case, the most you can say is that Oxfordians call Shakespeare the "Stratford man" and the author of this article does also. And indeed, it is usually only anti-Stratfordians who do so, along with other epithets such as "Stratford malt dealer", "Stratford wool dealer and loan broker", etc., and this author seems to use it satirically.

I would have no objection if the author had written, "Shakespeare is often called the "Stratford Man" (or more accurately 'man')', but he does not do so, nor do I know of any academic source for such a statement. In any case, using that to pipe in a link to the Shakespeare authorship question is gratuitous to the article and contrary to WP:ONEWAY. I didn't revert your reversion (I had signed out last night when I noticed that and forgot to sign back in before making the edit) because I don't want to edit war over it. In fact, this very thing is up for mediation. All best. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK I wasn't trying to be smart - I hadn't quite grasped the wiki-significance of it all. :) I can self-revert, and I will look for a better reference - in this context, I was really just looking for a nice vignette on the significance of Big Will to Strat. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce
I sent you a detailed explanation about my deletion and you never replied. If you want to discuss, please do so.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if you look about an inch up this page, you'll see my reply. Is it that we are not flipping between your talk page and mine every time? Maybe because you delete very recent comments there, that might explain why I didn't comment back at your talk page. Also, you are obviously a very skilled editor (presumably you've been on Wikipedia before your Rangoon incarnation?) and so I don't see why you wouldn't realise that it's completely disingenuous to claim you didn't get an answer as the justification, when you are going to the article and changing things without mentioning them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies I have now read your reply above, I genuinely hadn't seen it before. Of course I've no problem with you posting it here, it just means that I didn't receive an alert about it. I don't want to 'edit war' in any way. However my firm belief is that market cap data (and particularly market cap 'rankings') should not be in the introductions for FTSE 100 companies. The further you go down the list in terms of size, the stronger the argument gets in my view.

I understand that you are happy to update the market cap data for Rolls Royce every month (which I am sure is true) and that you therefore feel that this is a 'special case'. However this still does not address the issues of the 'ranking' amount being misleading in terms of describing the size and importance of Rolls Royce, both in the UK and globally. I also wonder if it is a good idea to base page content decisions on the willingness of one wiki user to update a page monthly.

Re a previous incarnation on Wiki, no I didn't have one although thanks for the compliment. It's only in the last couple of months that I have been editing on Wiki, partly due to being off work sick at present.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are a very accurate and skilfull editor, so it surprised me when you hid an edit which had been contested. It's not a good idea to do that, surely? As regards the content, there are lots of big PLCs with market cap data and in many articles it is carried in the infobox. I think the facts speak for themselves - Rolls Royce is a company/group that has lots of data indicators and one of them is mark. cap. - there are loads of others and we can use them. It's just background data and it doesn't mean anything about "importance". I don't care that much actually about it, but I do care about misleading edit comments. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that I should have put a proper description on that particular edit and for that I apologise, the intention was not to hide it though, and I fully expected that the edit would be seen as it is right in the opening of the article. I have only been editing on Wiki for a couple of months so please accept that I am still 'getting up to speed' in some ways. I think that things would have been smoother if I had read your reply before making the edit and probably should have checked here to see if there was one before making my edit. On the other hand the fact that it was here meant that I didn't receive an alert that it had been posted.


 * Yes, sorry if I got a bit irritable - you are so obviously an accurate editor that I "felt" you must have more experience - just shows that "feeling" stuff in Wikipedia is not always a good guide - generally, "thinking" is better. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Re the actual point in question, I do, for the reasons I have already given, feel that placing the market cap data and 'ranking' in the Rolls-Royce opening is potentially misleading and places very time sensitive data in too prominent a position. I am prepared to accept that you regularly check that page and keep the reference reasonably up to date however, and it therefore isn't such a huge point for me if the market cap reference is retained in the article (although I still think it would be best to delete it). I certainly do not think that a reference like that should be on the article openings of FTSE 100 companies as a general rule however. I will accept that FTSE 100 'rankings' are useful for understanding the FTSE 100 as an index (I should note that a ranking of the top 30 or so companies in the FTSE 100 is in fact already on the FTSE 100 wiki page), but firmly believe that they are not useful - and are often actually misleading - for understanding the companies within it, especially in the context of someone just reading the info box and opening of a Wiki article (which I expect many people do).

Another issue on the Rolls-Royce page that I wondered if you might have any thoughts on - the name of the article. As you know, the name of the company is technically Rolls-Royce Group plc, not Rolls-Royce plc. I wonder if the article might be better just to be named 'Rolls-Royce', since this is now by far the most important use of the Rolls-Royce name and the Rolls-Royce cars page is already titled 'Rolls-Royce Motor Cars'. Do you have any thoughts?

Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On the name issue, I suspect this is a problem of common name - note that on the Rolls Royce website they simply call it Rolls-Royce. The problem is clearly that common name here clashes and so we need disambiguation (Rolls-Royce) and that's when it all starts going wrong. :-) We should probably raise this on the Rolls Royce talk page as an issue. You are right that the official name is Rolls-Royce Group plc  and so as it's disambiguated to something not common now anyway, I suspect you are right. We should probably give any other knowledgeable editors a chance to comment though. Do you want to kick off the discussion over there? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi James, agreed I will put something on the Rolls Royce talk page along the lines of what you have said above, it's right to give others the chance to comment on this particular issue. There may have been a heated debate in the past on the naming of the page and there could be a good reason why it was chosen... Hope all's well. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not impressed
I am not impressed with your comment at British Isles James. I had thought that you had moved beyond petty unjustified sniping. --HighKing (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't think I was sniping - you do seem very keen to get rid of that part and given the history I think it's reasonable to ask you to give more detail as to why. I don't quite understand your reasoning, or the point at issue, hence my asking. I did say "just asking". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about getting rid of that part? And what does "given the history" mean?  The reason why was given - very clearly.  It's a largely unintelligible sentence, recently added by RA, without discussion or consensus, and I don't understand what point its trying to make.  It seems to simply be stating that "Britain" is derived from the latin "Britannia", which in turn is derived from terms used to describe the entire archipelago and the people living there.  It's extremely stressful to have the hardcore disruptive editors revert my every edit, and take every opportunity to wiki-libel me.  So why am I so surprised and disappointed when editors that appear to see through their BS come out with statements like this?  Perhaps you should take a cold look at your own actions and suspicions, and if you can figure out what exactly I did to earn this latest pall of suspicion and commentary from you, would you let me know?  --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Don't mean to be so goddamn touchy.  Was just pissed off at how accepting everyone was of RA's edits which were made without discussion, which I partially reverted but tried to discuss.  So there's me trying to follow procedure and AGF (as usual) but then I suffer insta-reverts from editors who give me the impression that they only reverted because it was my name associated with the edits.  I took your comment as "sniping" because you also seemed to assume the worst, and make assumptions that my motives were somehow connected with the (very tired) conspiracy theory.  Somedays I believe adopting a confrontational attitude would save me grief.  --HighKing (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm sniping, I'm sorry. Frankly, the current debate over there is getting a little beyond me and I am also exhausted from work - I will take another look at it when I'm more focused. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeepers, we seem to be rubbing each other up the wrong way recently. Not sure why. Feel free to be blunt with me here (just not over there) - if there's anything bugging you, let's hear it. --HighKing (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, when I make any comment at all that you regard as adverse, you jump all over me. That's not something I complain about generally, so I'm not clear why you come back so strongly when I make even a fairly mild remark in your direction. For example, having a poke at me for saying a usage is "poetic". Is Wikipedia to be entirely written in compromised objective factoids or can it not be "nicely written" sometimes? OK, you don't feel that "BI" is an example of "niceness" and I do. That's a difference we're going to have for some time to come I suspect. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept my tolerence levels are very low, and my reactions appear over the top and out of scale with the comments. That's from experience and having learned the hard way, how other editors pick up and *believe* comments made by editors even if there's no truth in them.  Especially if the comments have even a whiff of anti-Britishness or nationalistic overtones.
 * Yes, perhaps we disagree about some usage of BI. And it probably seems that I'm very anti-BI because I tend to highlight articles where I believe usage is inappropriate.  But without waving a flag, I'm not a tenth as anti-BI or as nasty as the collection of hard-core pro-BI editors.  If you feel like seeing what it's like from here, try and to go against these guys (or this guy, whatever) and support removal within an article or two.  Look at the tactics.  Snowded is now falling foul and being labelled a Welsh nationalist, even though he probably only agrees with me around half the time.  And then you'll see the slow creep, where other unrelated editors start using the same comments and remarks.  So yeah ... tolerance levels are low, and my reaction trigger is overly twitchy.
 * Usually when I strike up a good relationship with an editor, I don't react negatively - and I believed we'd struck up a reasonably good working mutual respect. Not sure exactly why things seem to have gone downhill - trying to explain, there's been a slow creep up of things recently (being blunt here).  There's a number of items where you made comments, and I made an effort to explain in great detail and put in a lot of time, only for your reaction to be that you're busy, or there's a lot to take in, and you'll revisit the topic in the future.  Only there never is a revisit, or a retraction of some initial comments made, or a correction.  Then coupled with your recent comments, I suppose I'm scratching my head wondering what happened for me to deserve the recent "sniping", and I've reacted.  Anyway, food for thought.  I'd obviously prefer to get back to where we were.  --HighKing (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see how it would look that way. For my part, I have been genuinely very busy, so I was just trying to be honest about the situation. Sometimes I have a tendancy to make quick remarks that aren't helpful, but then again, a lot of the general badinage in WP is terse and snappy as a lot of people don't have time to make intricate counter-arguments. On the recent history of it, I confess to feeling disappointed. I thought we had gotten quite close on this page to have a geographic agreement. I put some further questions to you about it, but you didn't reply. I took that (perhaps wrongly) to mean that you had lost interest in the process of building an agreement between us about it. I happen to think that if you, Snowded and I agreed a framework, that would prove very effective in making such a framework happen. Thoughts? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I agree. I wasn't aware I hadn't replied - I thought I'd replied to all your questions.  I also know that the three of us can get extremely busy in real life, and sometimes a gap of a couple of days can seem like a lifetime in internet-speed.  I also reckon we're still pretty close to an agreement on several issues, and I reckon TFWOR is also keen to move the process along and continue to make good progress.  I believe there's a general sense of calm and progress these last few weeks in terms of reducing the tensions and injecting a sense of structure - but we've not focussed on general topics or general agreements to save us the bother of examining multiple articles one at a time.  We did a bit with Fauna where we accepted "British Isles" as a geographic unit, but Flora wasn't accepted and we haven't started on any other general areas.  I'm happy to produce a starting list - or if you have any ideas yourself?  --HighKing (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

trolling
What trolling are you accusing me of? I am a serious, published historian who is holding British as well as German degrees and awards. You really have to try better than this. Bully. --IIIraute (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, make a concrete revision proposal then - at the moment you are just sounding off in ever-decreasing circles. When someone offers one point, you move on to another. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about; you were accusing me of trolling. I am not moving anywhere. I have made my points very clear and that sentence, how it stands, is wrong. You are the one moving like an eel, suddenly the "foremost global power for over one century" is interrupted by a couple of years. Ridiculous. Playing puzzlework now? Foremost Global Power that had to run at Dunkirk?; have you ever looked at US figures from the 20's and 30's? Do you know what debt Britain was in after 1919? That just shows again what lobbying is done at the wikipedia and why every student is adviced to make a big move around it. I thought one could help to improve. But it seem meaningless.--IIIraute (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand questioning about the "foremost" bit, but what i do not get is why an historian would think the British Empire was not a "global power", when it obviously was one even if some think it can not claim to have been the foremost global power over a certain period. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel a little less than convinced that we are dealing with a university professor here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You do? give me your e-mail and I send you some degree certificates. What do you want? University of London, Cambridge, Nottingham or Glasgow?--IIIraute (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Crumbs. All four? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem; so give me your e-mail. I don't mind sending them. It doesn't really seem to matter anyway, does it?...with all of you fantastic selfclaimed-historians here. Well, who would have thought that people with a relevant education are trying to help. But who needs an education anyway, as we can see, anybody can write history.--IIIraute (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still not clear what you're trying to achieve, but generally having a dig at everyone doesn't usually help around here and neither does showing off about qualifications. You aren't making concrete suggestions as to changes and you yourself appear to be doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing, eg, conflating differing points. For example, above you claim that the strength of the US economy undermines the global power argument; yet the article itself already makes it clear that the empire was in severe economic decline in the 20s compared to the US. There isn't any need to email me anything - what you need to do is make a definite proposal for a rewrite of individual sentence(s) in the article. Instead you just seem to be saying it's all wrong. That will get you precisely nowhere. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it did get me degrees, honours and awards, with merit and distinction. I am still very much prepared to send you a copy. I do not care if it's showing off; I did work for them for many years, very hard. Almost ten years in the UK. Somebody is talking about history? I can't help it, I try to get involved, that's my job and passion. I didn't just argue that it is all wrong; but the article is full of flaws, not reflecting the real content of most of the sources cited. I know many of them myself. It's a colourful mixture of quotes and facts, to puzzle together an article no serious publishing house would ever consider to put in print. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, yet it cites lots of sources that were written from the point of view of lobbyists, historians, economists, etc. They are always opinionated, always. I am a historian myself. When I write a paper, I can choose what sources to use and which not to use. It is always biased; that's why there is a historical discourse. The problem is, that for the Wikipedia only secondary sources are used. There is no research. As a historian I can tell you that you can basically find sources and statistics for almost everything. The sentence how it stands is wrong; it just is biased. There are too many controversies about the phrasing... i.e. global power, foremost empire, for more than hundret years, etc. What power? political, economical, intellectual, georaphical, by population, military, foreign investment, GDP, etc. You think it did qualify for all of that for more than 100 years? also when they had to loan money from the IMF? what's an Empire? contiguous, or by mandate, owning a letter? what's the biggest one? largest by what? how it's spread, having a sqaure meter on every third island of the world, or from Prussia to Canada; or having it in 1920, when one is already bankrupt and one just about managed not losing WWI with the help of the US? it's all relative, isn't it? That's the reason why they should be avoided in an article like this. Especially when its written by people with british interests. That is why all the other (French, German, Dutch, Spanish, etc.) Wikipedias did not translate this sentence. But you know what; it's ok with me: I'll resign. Other people pay me to write for them. It just costs too much energy... and for what? Somebody changing it again tomorrow? This experience really put me off.--IIIraute (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...by the way, I am not any kind of stupid troll. You also got that one wrong!--IIIraute (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah! Now please make, as I suggested, some concrete proposals for sentence(s) over at the talk page for the article(s) in question. If you don't want to, that's fine, but don't expect me to pay attention. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ted Hughes
Thanks for your useful edits to Ted Hughes. Best wishes and have a good week. Spanglej (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, let me know if you want to discuss further improvements to the article - looks like we could put quite a bit more in about the actual poetry for example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic. What would you suggest? Spanglej (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you spend a lot of time writing material for literature articles, so you will probably be better at it than me, but I was thinking in terms of better sources on the critical reaction to Hughes' works over the years, some more quotes from his letters (I have the book, helpfully - I mean his own letters, not Birthday Letters), some quotes from poems (I assume that's allowed) and so on, stuff to counter-balance the personal life material. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds exactly what's needed. My thing has mostly been clean up and adding biog material which is why I've added more about the life of the person than critique of their works on the articles I've edited. It can make things a bit lop-sided. I am fairly new to this myself, so claim to be no expert. I am using articles like James Joyce, Yeats, Oscar Wilde and Philip Larkin to learn from - Good and Featured articles. WikiProject Poetry has a full list and guidelines. I am learning as I go, making my share of mistakes along the way. I am getting to grips at the moment with WP's secondary sourcing approach. In the past I saw it as flagging something to watch out for but now I am seeing that using others' analysis this is the basis of its ethos, more than "no original research". Also, in most GAs and FAs I learn that there is little direct quoting either of secondary sources or writers themselves. I am now taking that tack - trying to keep things secondary and indirectly quoted. Just wanted to pass on what I've gleaned from the past 18 months of editing. If you want to work together on a sandbox for a new Hghes section, I'd be happy to do that, or if not, that's fine too. Happy editing. Spanglej (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Useful information, thanks - I will take a look at some of those pages. On the Hughes thing, I was thinking that phrases like "modernist, ecological", etc, don't quite capture his work, much of which seems to be musings on man's place in the cosmos, the nature of religion, creation, etc, as well as more local and material matters. It needs sourcing of course - when I get chance I intend to look through the works I have and see what can be done, but feel free to press on in the meantime. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking back at the history of the article it seems much of it hasn't been touched since 2006. . The modernist bit hails from back then. He was certainly very influenced by them ("The Faber Crowd") and Eliot in particular. I'd say he was more shamanically inspired by nature and landscape but I don't know his 'ecological' view off hand or the academic perception of his environmental standpoint. This is a lovely interview with Hughes where he talks about Eliot's influence. (Not very secondary, but fascinating). I don't have a full good crit work of hughes to hand at the mo. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's more shamanist and animist than it is "ecological". I will scan through the letters and see if he says anything about the environmental or ecology movements. I suspect it stems primarily from an interest in language and religion rather than the lives of animals, etc - those are just symbols, as in Crow - but this all needs some kind of sourced write-up of course. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Interesting Hughes stuff at the Poetry archive and and at the BBC though much of sound archive for Hughes interviews is not online yet. The Laughter of Foxes: A Study of Ted Hughes By Keith Sagar looks very relevant as in full view on google books. Also Sweeting's essay on Hughes and Shamanism in The Achievement of Ted Hughes, Volume 1983, Part 2 By Keith Sagar. More on Hughes and shamanism on full view here.  Edgar Allan Poe is another well written article to refer to, by the way. Spanglej (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IPA
Hello James, I noticed that you've been changing my corrections to the IPA transcriptions of some English counties. To be honest, I'm quite surprised to see that you're English yourself yet prefer to transcribe into a pronunciation that is not standard English. You may, of course, be able to give some kind of explanation for this, however, in the case of Northumberland (the place where I grew up), I know that we say /nɔ:θ/ and not /nɔrθ/. I'd be grateful for your clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.203.163 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reverted them because they appear to be a significant change across multiple county articles without discussion; you will find that issues like pronunciations in English county names have been much discussed in the past and the version that currently appears will have been agreed by many. Therefore you will need to seek consensus first for such a change by discussing it on the relevant project talk page - in this case, you could look first at UK Geography and follow links and suggestions from there to either the correct talk page. Clearly you are intending a major change and that needs discussing first. Hope this helps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2010

(UTC)

"English Heritage" on Wikipedia
TEXT DELETED BY YOURSELF TODAY 2 OCTOBER 2010

"===Big controversies in relation to the supposed required connection between English Heritage and theoretical requirements under both domestic legislation and treaties===     - English Heritage has been given an historically complicated task, and understandably has taken a very safe line in accordance with apparent government intentions as distinct from history and law, in particular so far as war memorials are concerned. It is a matter of controversy, as something debatable, whether this body (together with the executive government department) has (under the legislation as arguably interpreted in accordance with, in particular, the 1985 Granada Convention) completed its task, or carried it out correctly at all in some cases. Within Wikipedia, a relevant section may be the Talk Page page of West Hartlepool War Memorial, and, more generally, one or two comments currently (October 2010) added, in the related website (British Listed Buildings British Listed Buildings), to sections on relevant war memorials in the North East (Hartlepool) in what is unfortunately likely to be recognized, eventally, as an endless, or at least long-running, series of controversies within the Internet (and only here, for the time being at least, although things may change). P Judge"

COMMENT ON THIS DELETION BY THE AUTHOR PETER JUDGE The above is the text which you saw fit to delete completely TEN MINUTES AFTER it had been included within the article English Heritage (that is without, quite evidently I think, ever having considered in any detail at all the various references and links to other Wikipedia sites and websites and thus without knowing whether or not they were at all revelevant from the point of view of justification of the addition to the website on English Heritage), giving reasons in your learned but specifically modern language based on technology (the Internet) which unfortunately I myself (at my old age) am not likely, Sir, to understand (you can of course choose to explain yourself here in plain English if you wish).

May I make clear that my principal reason for adding to Wikipedia is because of the incorrect information which quite clearly is provided in many places elsewhere, arguably contrary to the requirements of legislation, in relation to the above subject matter, (with the blessing of the Administrative Court, suggesting a completely corrupt system of government in the United Kingdom at least so far as this particular matter is concerned).

I will consider what you now say (if anything) in response to this, but I wish to inform you that I consider it unlikely that I shall, in any event, consider it to be worth the trouble to restore this contribution to this particular website, given that it seems clear that you will remove it again. P Judge


 * Hello. There were various reasons for it's deletion. Please don't give up - have another think about what you want to say. The main problems with it were:


 * (1) The title was very long and read like a paragraph sentence - that needs to be shorter and more concise.


 * (2) It expressed opinions of a personal nature and took other Wikipedia articles as a source. Neither are allowed. Please take a look at WP:SOURCE, WP:OR and WP:NOT as starting points. Wikipedia has guidelines about what sort of content can be included in articles and those pages will help you understand how those guidelines work.


 * (3) It was signed by you "P Judge" - articles in Wikipedia don't have an association with one specific editor.


 * I would also advise as a starting point taking a look at WP:REGISTER which explains the advantages of creating an account - other editors can talk with you more easily, you can get more help writing articles and will be taken more seriously in general. Keep going - learning the basics in Wikipedia is well worth the effort. Thanks for getting in touch. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sir, for your three 'main comments', all three of which I must now admit are justified and in order, and which I now understand. My view that you were acting in a way simply intended to suppress what might after all I myself think can be held to be demonstrably the truth, even if it is described by yourself as a 'personal opinion', was, it seems, wrong, and I note what you say, with your references to connections to Wikipedia guidance and your advice. I shall probably embark at some time in the future (I cannot say when, but after due consideration and preparation) upon a revised contribution to this particular article on English Heritage. Please look at it again, and I shall carefully consider any advice you or anyone else may give. I do hope however that on any future occasion this will take the form of editing the text, rather than its complete removal, and that this will be done, if at all, after due consideration of what I suggest is in fact the complexity of these matters, in which what you would perhaps agree should be described, in point of law, as 'evidence' has, I am sorry to say, been deliberately suppressed by both local and national government over a period of about sixty years, together with the Royal Courts of Justice (possibly at their own ultimate expense, nationally and internationally); but this is of course something in the form of an allegation that neither you nor anyone else can be expected to believe (or even take seriously as an allegation) unless it has been demonstrated by the sort of verification to which you refer. I conclude with what I can assure you are my very sincere thanks and regards once again. Peter Judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.224.222 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again Peter. The best way to get your piece included and to have it edited is to raise it as an issue first of all on the talk page for English Heritage. Explain what you want to say (you could paste in a whole piece) and ask other editors to make comments. You will then find there is no need, once the text has been approved, for further edits or deletes when the resulting final version gets included in the article. If nobody comments on your proposed piece, then nobody can sensibly object if it then gets added to the article, although it may still get edited later. I deleted the whole thing because there were so many elements against policy in there, but will support discussing it with you if you raise it in the talk page first. Hope this helps. Please also sign any comments you make in talk pages using four tildas at the end of your comment. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Sir let us indeed be friends, for so far I have made none on the Internet! You will find I have already conributed to the Talk Page on English Heritage under the title 'It's All in a Name'. Indeed, James, it is! What is the name of any particular war memorial, in particular in what is now 'Hartlepool' (formerly two distinct towns, a Victorian new town and the historic, from the 13th Century, 'Hartlepool')? where the memorials are the property of local government this issue does of course relate to the status of Council minutes, being 'public documents', as evidence, entirely disregarded by English Heritage in the compilation of its lists. That is only one of the issues that needs to be resolved, in accordance with domestic legislation as that legislation may be construed in point of law, that is in accordance with treaty obligations. These are a few of the many I myself believe fairly evident facts, not personal opinions, ones which cannot however (in point of law, which requires the provision of the originals of documents relied upon) unfortunately ever be made entirely clear on the Internet. We shall see how all this turns out. Once again I note what you say, and will certainly choose to take your advice. Peter Judge
 * You will James (my technically relevant and competent comrade within this phenomenon the Internet if not on my own terms) probably have seen how things turned out yesterday Saturday 2 October on the site where you and I first met (myself as an amateur and you as somebody who evidently is full of knowledge and information relating to this new phenomenon, the internet, as applied within Wikipedia). If it is the case, then you will I am sure appreciate  that so far as the site on  English Heritage is concerned, and given the comment made on that Talk Page by a third party, this matter is now, for myself,  ended. You are of course, to save time and space, entirely at liberty to remove that Talk section (on the subject of the name chosen by the independent administrators, English Heritage, as distinct from that contained within the relevant legislation, which matter you both, if I understand you correctly, there declare irrelevant, but is in fact I wish to suggest related  to its status as a 'quango', or organization capable at least in theory of acting independently of the government which finances it, this being something discussed in the following section, and which is thus a legitimate subject matter),  together with this discussion on your own Talk Page, and both without any further comments from myself ... rightly or wrongly I would rather concentrate on other things. Now, so far as my proposed contribution to the main page, as discussed above, is concerned, this was never in fact made, as you know, and now (given the particular form of reaction of the third party as referred to) will I am afraid almost certainly never be made (to save my time and trouble, where others than myself quite evidently will be deciding whether anything is to happen, and that without any form of what I myself would describe as discussion). Thank you for your hospitality so far on this your own Talk Page which you can as I point out continue or not as you please and I conclude wishing you nonetheless a good and relaxed weekend Sir, and even good luck.
 * PS (note added at 10.19 a.m.) I have discovered the item in question within the Talk Page on Wikipedia has already been removed, early this morning. Evidently he wastes no times, does 'Charles'! (He incidentally completely confirms what I say about him, if only by implication, in the above comments to yourself today). I described him as an 'emperor', which was admittedly somewhat aggressive. He describes it as a 'conflict of interests'. If you can define exactly what he means by this, if it is the case that he means something other than the use of offensive language (whose interests, what conflict), I shall be obliged. Thank you, and do not bother if you have other things to do. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.49.8 (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You claimed in your posts Peter to be in litigation with English Heritage. That gives you a conflict of interest and means that you should not edit on the English Heritage page. Discussion pages for articles are only for discussing improvements to articles in line with the guidelines, which you can find by clicking the blue links that have been indicated to you. They are definitely not a place to air your personal grievances. You are welcome to contribute anywhere else and you will find editors helpful and encouraging to newcomers if you do not rub them up the wrong way.--Charles (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the (very lengthy) discourses from Peter on various IPs, I'm still at a loss as to what article point he wishes to make and as there also may be legal/conflict of interest issues, I now consider this discussion closed. I have tried to assist what I saw as a new user but without any apparent success. Any further material will be deleted and this dicussion will be archived. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)