User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/April

Hebridean connection

Just stopped by to say I was glad you were on the look out and all now seems quiet on the archipelago front. Sorry to see you are having hassles. Let me know if I can return the favour. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whisk(e)y

Bardcom,

While I imagine your editing of the whisk(e)y articles was in good faith, I must object to the fallacies.

1) "Half-truths" - this term, only used in my editing summary, not in the article itself, describes the FACT that whisky is not always distilled twice and whiskey is not always distilled 3 times. Your edits re-instate this non-fact.

2) Cooley whiskey is distilled twice. It is Irish. Auchentoshan and some Springbank whiskies are distilled 3 times. They are Scotch. Thus, "generally" is not a "weasel word", it is an expression of the truth.

3) Irish pure pot still and single malt, and Scotch single malt are distilled of barley. Any grain whisk(e)y used in making blends, Irish or Scotch, can include other grains than barley. Therefore the statement in your edit re. barley is also not true.

The reference you show is quite evidently false in these regards. We need to find a solution that gives a correct picture of these whiskeys/whiskies in Wikipedia. Any suggestions (outside of a stupid edit war) on how to solve this?

Jtnet (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC) --Bardcom (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

- - - -

Hi, thanks for the constructive answer! I always hate it when it seems like an edit war is brewing.

Re. your Qs, to my knowledge only the Cooley distillery double-distills in Ireland, and only some of their whiskeys are double-distilled. Others are "normal". Whereby we must realize that the Irish Distillers group (Pernod Ricard) tend to state the 3-times process as a "fact" for Irish, but they are using it as a sales argument. The same is true of the peat/non-peat statements they make. Cooley, an independent distiller, does not seem to buy into that strategy.

As for Scotch, many used to be distilled 3 times, and it was (is?) even considered "traditional" in the lowlands. But there are now only 3½ functioning lowland distilleries, and only Auchentoshan still distills 3 times. Springbank (Campbeltown) distills 3 different whiskies, one twice, one three times, and the eponymous brand Springbank is famous for being distilled "2½ times". Actually, parts of each batch are distilled thrice.

Re. the barley statement, perhaps I was mixing two things up. There was a parallel edit of the Whisky and the Irish Whiskey articles, one by you, another by 76.22.5.217. At least in one of them, it was stated that all Irish and all Scotch whisky are made only of barley. This is only true of single malt and pure pot still whisk(e)y. Blends can use other grains.

I will get sources for this, and there are many -- but at the moment, all of my books are packed in moving boxes, so I have no chance. Jtnet (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC

You do know that you are expected to respond to an RfC opened concerning you, right? Tb (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please desist with your harassing behaviour - how many times do I need to ask? Bardcom (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just making sure you knew that the RfC procedures specify that a person complained against is expected to make a response, since you had read it but hadn't done so. It's not harrassing to use user talk pages to contact users about ongoing things. Tb (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. In light of the fact that you brought the RfC against me, this could be construed as continuing your personal ad hominen attacks, trolling, deliberate needling, point scoring, taking delight in causing upset and stress, getting a kick out of the attention and process, and trying to provoke a reaction. You appear to have made this a personal issue. I am still hoping you are acting in good faith. So please stop - there are more appropriate pages where you can have your say, and I've asked on several occasions that you use those pages and not this one. Bardcom (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously tensions are running high, take it to RfC... Bardcom apparently got the first note about the RfC, no need to leave another. This isn't harassment, but its a good idea to stay off each others talk pages untill things are resolved..--Hu12 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. The RfC rules say that the arbitration committee expects people to respond to RfC's and I was trying to be fair because I didn't know if you knew that. You can hardly complain that I opened the RfC, since you requested I do so. Tb (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a good idea to stay off each others talk pages untill things are resolved...--Hu12 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Closure

I have proposed that the RfC be closed unconditionally. It would be really helpful if you signed up for that. Crispness (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that, and thank you. I also appreciate Tb's genuine attempt to resolve this issue by starting a proposal for guidelines. But an RfC is about a user's conduct, which points directly to me. Tb has acknowledged that he sincerely believes I am acting in good faith, but that my conduct is still disruptive. I have difficulty accepting that my conduct was inappropriate. I would prefer if this RfC was withdrawn along with the allegations - or something whereby my "reputation" or "name" is cleared of any wrongdoing. Like Tb, I would also prefer to look forward and I do have some ideas on this. But I'm feeling very beat up and bruised today - (everyone say Awww!) - and I need to understand in more detail what "closing" the dispute means. Bardcom (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were very good. I don't think any editor on Wikipedia has to prove that their edits are perfect, and the term has so many connotations that its use is often quite problematic on many occasions. Many articles with names like"Monarchs of the British Isles" are plainly named quite wrongly. But then, trying to rename them to a NPOV title could be an arduous task. Wikipedia has many weaknesses, and getting some of the historic articles correct is certainly one of them. I looked over the edits in question, and I know that they are fine edits. 78.19.177.225 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any time limit for a response. If that is correct I'd certainly advise Bardcom not to rush into this till I (for one) have had a chance to examine the issue. I would be extremely concerned if correcting an article title such as "Monarchs of the British Isles" was regarded as "disruptive" when clearly any attempt to defend such a manifestly incorrect title must be taken as simple pov-pushing and the relevant editors dealt with forthwith is they persist in edit-warring. Starting a spurious RfC is a serious matter and it is only fair that there is time given to evaluate the legitimacy of this one (without making any pre-judgments). Sarah777 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Australian statistics

Hi Bardcom. The 17.6 million (or 85%) figure of the number of "Anglo-Celtic Australians" could not have been derived from the cited website, or for that matter from the Australian Bureau of Statistics at all. Persons can nominate up to two ancestries, so if you used those stats you could necessarily be double-counting English-Irish for example. Furthermore a large number of respondants simply identified themselves as "Australian", and it is impossible to garner any more ancestral information from this figure, although one would expect the majority would be Anglo-Celtic. In other articles on different ethnic groups we use other statistics like country of birth. Kransky (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the article talk page Bardcom (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Canadian statistics

Hi Bardcom,

You made a change just now, here. The statistics seem likely, but did you forget to supply your source? One was removed, but no substitute was made. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, still editting. Actually, that edit is incorrect in one or two places still. Trying to put in tables and not double count. I'll add the reference in too - thank you. Bardcom (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like a good change to the article. Thanks, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the statistics though, is that it's impossible to assign a percentage to the number of people that have British ancestry. You *could* just add up the respondents that gave a single ancestry, but this is only 2,547,995 people or 8% of the population. Adding up the respondents that gave multiple ancestry doesn't make sense because you are double counting - for example someone could have answered English/Scottish. I think the table is slightly better for this. Bardcom (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rounders

Your citations are not scholarly. 78.19.204.21 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One is, one isn't. Not very many 'scholarly' citations available I'm afraid. Feel free to edit/delete any that offend, especially if you manage to replace with better.... Bardcom (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some American sport history books deny any connection between Baseball and Rounders. It's an all-American game, so they say. Rules for Baseball were codified about 1845 or so. 78.19.204.21 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that while it's difficult to point to a direct link between baseball and rounders, they all stemmed from the same source - games like Stoolball and further back, brought to the USA when it was settled. There's lots of references to "baseball" in english contexts from early times. I don't have a copy of the reference you make for Rounders originating in Ireland, but I don't have any issues with a verified/referenced claim. Thanks. Bardcom (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just something else here, etched in my memory. A book I was reading, 12 years ago or so, claimed that Cricket descends from an old Irish game called "Bails", and was brought back to Britain by English soldiers returning from Ireland in or about the 15th century. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the title or author of the book. apparently "Bails" was played with an ash hurley type bat. Must check that one out again, if I get the time. 78.19.204.21 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to download a copy of the book you cited, and there's no evidence that it attributes Ireland to the origination of Rounders. It doesn't mention Bails either (Vol. 1). Can you confirm that a reference exists - page number would help. I'm afraid the reference can't stay otherwise... Bardcom (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I got the ref over the phone, from a scholar no less, I'll have to recontact tomorrow, as there is more than one volume, and second edition too. I never said I read about "Bails" in that book. I thought you might know something. 78.19.8.44 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can download a copy of the book online - I've downloaded the 2 PDF's, and there's no attribution of Rounders (or Stoolball) to Ireland. In light of this, I'll change the article to remove the reference. As to "Bails" - you know, it rings a bell.... Bardcom (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Them is what they make hay into while the sun shines. Sarah777 (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Back then it would've been cocks though....no machines, see... Bardcom (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't originally called rounders, I'm too busy to be looking for old refs, but maybe later in the year. Were the rules not codified in Ireland. Also re "bails", the little stumps on the wicket are called bails too, so connection, zing.....zing!!!! I'm certain rounders, (in an older form), is independently an Irish game too. The English had there version too. -78.19.232.240 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Sounds good. But until you can get the time later in the year, the article will need to stay as is WP:NOR. If there is a verifiable connection, I'd love to learn about it. Bardcom (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom replacement

I noticed you replacing the Great Britain link with a United Kingdom link on Uniform Penny Post but that is inaccurate, because the United Kingdom link is for the current UK as opposed to the correct link which is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the correct legal entity at the time. I have corrected it but please check that you use the appropriate link if you have to do any similar future changes. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes

It is my hope that we will pass one another under better circumstances in the future. Best, -- Secisek (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We'll leave it. Thank you. And I hope for the same. Bardcom (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cnut the Great

I respect your point of view here. It is always good to get a bit of a push to better things you are part of. I put in the reference to support the British Isles thing, and as I see this was not good enough for you, I am now doing an addition in the Other Dominions section to support it. Basically a breakdown of the evidence in the reference. I did think there was something missing from this bit. Now I think it it complete (saying this as I write it). I hope this imforms well of the political circumstance for this period, in the British Isles.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for discussing this. I see the edits you've made, but look at it another way. The British Isles comprise mainly of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, and the Orkney Islands (plus other islands, etc). Your edit states that his kingdom spread over the British Isles .... except for Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the Orkney Island. His kingdom didn't even stretch to all of England either. In List of monarchs in the British Isles he is listed as an English monarch. (Side by side table, easier to use and see, is available on older page - try here. Using the term "British Isles" isn't accurate. It's not even close to being accurate. It would be better to just say England, or even the island of Great Britain... Bardcom (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I was not aware of this.

It was not really a stright revert though. There was an addition.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I just reitterate though. I do not actually say his kingdom spead across the British Isles. This is meant to refer to his dominance. I stress the difference between hegemony and sovereignty. Still, these are both forms of dominion.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great editing

I don't do barnstars, but if I did, [1] would merit one. Crispness (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - very nice of you to say so. Bardcom (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop

Bardcom, will you please stop removing the term British Isles from this encyclopedia. I have now reviewed a significant portion of your edit history and also the RfC and related documents. You have been asked on a number of occasions to desist from this activity but you continue to ignore all requests. You are acting like a single issue editor and when anyone challenges you about this you simply accuse them of ad hominem attacks. Many of the removals have absolutely no justification and it is abundantly clear that your primary motive in editing is the removal of the term. In a small number of cases your edits lead to an improvement, but generally your overriding desire to eliminate the usage is driving your editing activity. I ask you not to remove any more instances unless you have reached a consensus on the talk page of the article in question. Alternatively, you could in some cases ask for a citation. I am particularly concerned about edits such as the one you made here [2]. The references in no way back up your assertion (that the storm was not the most severe in the British Isles - was there a more severe one in Ireland?) and you went on to eliminate further instances of BI from related articles on the grounds of standardisation - and your edit summary of "Added references to most severe storm in Great Britain" did not adequately describe the change you made. Your actions are akin to those of editors who carry out wholesale modifications of AmE to BrE (or vice versa), or AD to CE. Such actions are disruptive, Please Stop! 86.27.186.36 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While editing as an anonymous user is allowed, I'm not prepared to carry on a conversation with you on any subject not related to an article and it's content - especially when the editor continues to participate in ad hominen attacks such as this one on my talk page. Your language such as "You are acting like a single issue editor and when anyone challenges you about this you simply accuse them of ad hominem attacks. Many of the removals have absolutely no justification and it is abundantly clear that your primary motive in editing is the removal of the term." is a personal attack, does not assume good faith, and most clearly attacks the editor and not the content. The only example you quote relating to the Great Storm of 1703 has since been reviewed by other editors and the article corrected. If you persist in wanting to comment on my behaviour, you are welcome to continue to add your concerns to the RfC (with which you are familiar). If you were truly reviewing the edits and my edit history, you might actually notice that just about all of my edits in relation to the term British Isles have stood up under scrutiny, and are factually correct. For those that haven't, the other editors concerned have engaged in honest explanation (and education) and we've all learned. It's the small minority of editors, like you, that wring their hands and lament the loss of the term "British Isles" that are puzzling....I would have thought a more accurate encyclopedia was a worthwhile goal? Do not comment here again on this subject as it will be construed as yet another attack. Bardcom (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks; another article where you've replaced British Isles with a less than satisfactory alternative [3]. OK, I won't comment on the matter - on this page at least - any more. Promise. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR

We've had our disagreements before and some of your edits I do believe to be wrong. However your edits on Leonard Le-Bec and Acheloos TV are indeed spot on. However I ask you to be careful as an anon, of possibly and established editor, has decided to pick an edit war with you on these articles. However as a result I am obliged to remind you, in a friendly manner, of the 3RR rule and to be careful you don't break it. It's borderline whether the anon editor's edits are vandalism, and yours most definitely are not on these articles, but I wouldn't want you to get blocked just because an anon got to you on this. Take it easy and take care. Canterbury Tail talk 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - you're right of course. But this editor is blindly reverting and leaving ad hominen comments in the edit summaries. I've left warnings on the talk page - I'll report and let an admind decide what to do. But again, thanks for the "Take a Deep Breath" type comment. Bardcom (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's okay. I'm an admin and yes I've had disagreements with you but he is just edit warring and has been warned. Take a breath, step away and get a cup of tea. Maybe leave Wikipedia alone until tomorrow. It's not worth it, especially since if you get blocked for 3RR violations it means you're more likely to be blocked for things in the future when admins review your block log. I'm on top of this one, they are just edit warring and are possibly an established editor. Canterbury Tail talk 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good advice - thank you. Bardcom (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland is 32 counties, not 26. The Republic of Ireland is the name of the state, and it still claims Northern Ireland/the Six Counties in its constitution, but that part of Ireland is still ruled from England.

The Republic is the state, Ireland is the island and nation... --MacRusgail (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to MacRusgail's talk page to keep conversation in one place. Bardcom (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Can I ask a favour of you. Can you please refrain, for a period of one week, from making any edits with regards to the British Isles. As you know many editors, including myself, have raised issues over your edits with regards to this topic, and this will give a chance to have a discussion on the topic. I know your edits are in good faith, and some are perfectly valid. So I ask you as a favour. You know you are not obliged to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem for those reasons. Bardcom (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being so understanding. There is no reason you have to stop editing Wikipedia, and if you go back to editing on the topic I wouldn't be blocking you (as I'm involved) and I can't stop you. However thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 23:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New handle Ben? Very nice. Didn't realise you'd become an Admin - no extra points in my book for that I'm afraid! Now, while you are asking Bardcom to stop editing "British" Isles articles could I ask you to do likewise? Please do not revert my edits on the "List of British (sic) Isles" page without getting agreement on the talkpage. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Part II

Thanks Bardcom, for removing that section from talk: British Isles. I only noticed moments ago, that Deacon had previously removed it. It was just ranting by an anon. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-America

I was just trying to decide what to do (the only definitions I can find are US + Canada) and you fixed it. I don't think many Irish Americans would relish being called Anglo-Americans, do you? Anyway, thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No bother :-) --Bardcom (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacobitism

Hi Bardcom, I've reverted your edit at Jacobitism, I hope you don't mind. It was just that the way it read was not good compared to how it was previously. The British Isles does embody all the entities that you listed separately, so I think it makes sense to use those words. However, I can see on your Talk that there has been a number of issues on this usage, so I'd be interested in your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Stoat (talk • contribs) 11:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Silas, thanks for opening the discussion here. I changed Jacobitism because the term "British Isles" is inappropriate in the context of this article and where the term was used. In this case, the term is being used in a geo-political way where the article is describing how Jacobitism was present and spread throughout the various separate kingdoms. But the "British Isles" did not exist as a geo-political term at this stage - it wasn't until the Act of Union 1800 when the separate kingdom of Ireland was merged with the unified kingdom of kingdom of Great Britain (itself a result of the Union in 1707 between the kingdoms of England and Scotland) that the term "British Isles" also had a geo-political context. The only other occasion where it is perfectly fine to use the term, is as a purely geographical term - for example the highest mountain in the British Isles, etc. Given the inaccurate use in this article, and since the article pre-dates the Act of Union in 1707, the correct terminology is to refer to the separate kingdoms. While the term "British Isles" might "sound" correct to some, it is actually wholly inaccurate, and not appropriate for this article. I'll await your feedback - perhaps this discussion should take place on the article Talk page? --Bardcom (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the lead it might be better to refer to the kingdoms individually (though it would be a good idea to link to the correct political entities, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England, rather than simply Ireland (which links to the article on the whole island, England and Scotland which link to articles on the modern countries which are constituent parts of the UK, to link to these is just as inaccurate as linking to the British Isles). In the "Political background" section though, I think there's a good argument to retain British Isles, since Man and the Channel Islands remained Royalist strongholds for sometime after the civil war had effectively ended (or at least died down) in the three kingdoms. Prince Rupert of the Rhine maintained naval squadrons in Man and the Channel Islands which caused Parliament some difficulty, see The Command of the Ocean by N.A.M. Rodger. As we've discussed before, these were Crown Dependencies, and not part of any of the Kingdoms. David Underdown (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, thank you for your response. It would still be incorrect to refer to the "British Isles" in a geo-political context for this time period, even if it matches the current geographical area - and especially in the "Political background" section. I suggest a term like "the kingdoms" or even "the realms" would be fine for the second instance. --Bardcom (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, Man and the Channel Islands were neither realms nor kingdoms - the disturbances covered the whole geographic area. David Underdown (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If the disturbances were so notable, why doesn't the article have any mention of them? Regardless, the primary point is that it is incorrect to use the term "British Isles" in a geo-political context for this time period - especially when there is no need. The article in the main refers to the three kingdoms. If there is another term to describe the entire jurisdiction of the British monarch for that time, that term would be a better choice. Such a term doesn't exist though, and that doesn't make it a good reason to use an incorrect term. --Bardcom (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

English Civil War

Please see Talk:English Civil War#British Isles and the following section "Casualties" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already responded on your query on "Casualties" on the talk page. The numbers are all sourced. I've seen your subsequent query and I will respond. --Bardcom (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)