User talk:CarterBar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] British Isles

Hello CarterBar. Would you please stick to that article's talk-page & ease off on the 'revert button'? GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm having a confusing kinda day. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up on Wikipedia so quickly. You just happened to choose an article which is a part of the British vs Irish disputes. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common Bluebell

Hi, before we both start reverting each other, let me point out first that plant distribution has it's own different ways to refer to geographic areas, as it recognises differences between each area and it groups Channel Islands and Monaco with France, Austria with Liechtenstein, and so on. Check out Flora Europaea, and expecially look at the section on geographic codes. Then after looking up Hyacinthoides non-scripta (L.) Chouard ex Rothm, the distribution is given as Be Br Ga Hb Ho Hs Lu [*Ge It Rm] (reference is in the article) and I translated these codes into their common forms. --Bardcom (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bodleian Library

I've reverted your change and added an explanation on the article Talk page. --Bardcom (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and Edit Warring by User:CarterBar

Ali, pl note that this British editor has moved the article while discussion is ongoing. Are you going to do anything?????? Sarah777 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left this message on the pages of a variety of Admins - I note you are "new" and don't understand the Wiki concept of "consensus" and you've got involved in edit-warring rather quickly. Are you a WP:SOCK of someone we all know perchance? Sarah777 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gentlemen's Club

Hi, the quote in question states "British islands", and not the "British Isles". There is a separate link to and article called "British Isles". In either case, the spirit of the quote states "500 miles in a straight line from London", which indicates that the sprit of the text intended "Great Britain", the island, and it's surrounding island. --Bardcom (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No - you are talking of two different aspects; the distance of required travel is naturally given from the capital. It would not make sense to use other reference points. British islands is the location from where members might originate. At the Talk page I've explained why British islands means British Isles in this case, and it certainly doesn't mean British Islands as you had it. CarterBar (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Good explanation, but only your interpretation. In the absense of a reference, it's Original Research. It's just as likely that the author intended to say Great Britain. Or did the author intend to also include the Channel Islands, which are 200 miles from London? Don't think so.... That's why if it's a quote, it's a quote. Or if you have a reference, then it's no longer WP:OR. --Bardcom (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Not OR, just common sense. It obviously didn't mean British Islands, so what else could British islands (plural) mean? The author didn't say Great Britain, he said British islands, which at that time included Ireland and all the others owned by Britain, but I've explained all this already. CarterBar (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please find a reference. How do you know that the term "British Islands" as used in this context covers the same geographical area as "British Isles"? There is an equal argument to say that the term was intended to mean United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which would specifically exclude the Channel Islands (and which, btw, is more likely). I've looked for references - haven't had much luck so far, TBH, for either argument. That's why I removed the wikilink. I'm happy for you to replace it if you can find a reference though. --Bardcom (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no chance of finding a reference. We'll have to go with the footnote as suggested on the Talk page. I'll set the text to be something along the lines of the argument I origianlly posted on the Talk page. CarterBar (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice compromise! Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

Just to say I replied on my Talk (a bit later than I said - sorry). I notice you've been reverting some of Bardcom's systematic removals of British Isles from Wikipedia: good job. Certain editors are guaranteed to try and claim that as 'so few' articles are now using the term, it must be out of favour! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied again late last night - I've just come back to amend it slightly, and noticed Bardcom’s 'warnings' inserted into our discussion. They are quite ironic given what I had written to you (and which he had read) - but there you go! Do you mind if we refrain from replying to any of them that occur on my Talk page? (these basic 'warnings' at least). As you have already been in conversation with him here, I think it's best if we try to keep my own Talk page on track re the Wikiproject (or whatever we do) - and not have it distracted by the endless arguments. At least in the section we are discussing it in, anyway. The bit where he said "If you continue, you will be blocked" is just a wind-up too - he's not an admin and those decisions are made by them, not him. Your "bucket and shovel" comment was nothing given what he's been doing: no admin will look kindly on the systematic nature of his approach in removing the term - you've done nothing wrong in following those edits, and you have not reverted them without considerating their validity too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Regarding your comments on User Talk:Matt Lewis: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User Talk:Matt Lewis. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You continue to personally attack my edits, and reverting without apparent reason. On Matt's Talk page, you described my edits as they blatantly remove facts just to get rid of the term. This is an ad hominen attack and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I am always happy to discuss my edits, and many times in the past you have found this to be so also. If you continue to behave in this way, I will report your behaviour. Bardcom (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's discuss

CarterBar, let's not get into the whole 3RR stuff as you're about to breach on a number of articles - although if you do, I'll leave it anyway. You've made some good points in the past about some of my edits, and those articles remain with the term British Isles. But for the most part, you can see that I'm not editing willy-nilly, although it does result in fewer articles with the term. It's not my intention to remove the term from Wikipedia - but it is my intention to check the usage to ensure that it is used as a geographic term or as a valid historic term. By now, you must acknowledge that there are a lot of articles misusing the term, and a whole lot more that use the term in a way that equates British Isles = Britain = UK. As I said before, knowing that there are a number of editors looking over my shoulder tends to ensure that I make less mistakes. Is there any way that we can perhaps highlight particular problematic edits? Are there edits I've made that are acceptable to you and if so, what type of edits? Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom, OK, I'm quite happy to work with you on this, provided you only replace British Isles where it is genuinely being used incorrectly. Without wanting to trawl through your past edits to highlight ones that I agree with, I can think of the edit you made to Bishop Rock. Your replacement of British Isles in that instance was entirely correct. Its usage in the article was a straight error. I'd have replaced it myself if I'd found it. There are others of your edits that make similar corrections, and these are good. The ones I object to are where you seem to be replacing the term for reasons other than error correction. Again, I haven't the inclination to go back over your past work, but one that comes to mind is Lowestoft. I reverted this because you replaced the term when its usage was factually correct (I think my reversion still stands). In other cases you replace the term and then someone like me comes along and finds a reference that supports the original usage; Snowdon Mountain Railway is an example of this type. The problem here is that you replace the term, then the onus is on others to ferret out a reference, and sometimes it's not easy, and it's often time-consuming. While it may be appropriate in some cases to find a reference (maybe you could also look?), in other cases it's not worth it, especially when dealing with well-known facts such as "the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles". I know you might argue this to be "local POV", but it remains a fact. So it is this type that I'm most concerned about - where facts are removed on the strength of local POV or similar arguments. How do you want to move forward? Perhaps, as a first step, you could select some of your edits highlighting the different types of usage and we could then mull them over. CarterBar (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi CarterBar, that's a good way to proceed - let's try to work something agreeable out. I'll try to explain how I'm applying rules to my editing. I'm essentially following the Wikipedia guideline that the term is geographic. That means that there's a whole lot of things that it's not - with the most subtle contentious usage being geopolitical. Let's look at Lowestoft first. I changed the reference because the lead said United Kingdom, and further on it said British Isles. In many cases, the terms appear to be used interchangeably so that British Isles = Britain = United Kingdom - in this case I reverted to UK. Yes, I could and should have found a reference, but an initial search showed up UK. I'd like to highlight that this wasn't one we clashed over though - your edit made it easy for me to find a reference and agree with you. But overall, one that in hindsight should have been avoided. The reason I agree to this reference is because the most easterly point is of geographic significance. I have a problem with Snowdon Mountain Railway though. If the reference was in relation to the height of the mountain or some such like, I'd have no problem. But it's in reference to the uniqueness of a man-made object with no geographic significance. It's like saying "The only red-nosed one-eyed 25 foot statue in the British Isles". Using the term "British Isles" in this way is to use it in a geo-political fashion, since it refers to a man-made object. It implies BI = UK. Subtle, but one of the more contentious uses of the term. On occasion, we've both come across uses where a website says (correctly) UK and Ireland or GB and Ireland on the home page, and buried on some other page the term "British Isles" crops up in the same context. Again, for me, this is an instance where the term BI is used in a geo-political way (kinda proved by the initial use of UK&I in the first place). Hope that helps... --Bardcom (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unfounded accusations

CarterBar, You are going around making unfounded accusations. My edits are not aimed at the systematic removal of the term British Isles. You seem to lack the brainpower to realise is that there are probably 10 times the number of articles reviewed where the term is being used very appropriately. What I have been doing is removing those that are not being used appropriately. If you haver a problem with individual edits then please feel free to discuss them either on the article talk page or on my talk page. But if you continue with your aggressive and unfounded accusations then I may be forced to report your behaviour further. Crispness (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airfix

Your recent edits to Airfix are unreferenced. Do you have any evidence that the 1:12 scale models include any Irish or WW1 figures, as the inclusion of such a reference would make a useful addition to the article. Crispness (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)