Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 2 July 2008

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Thank you.

Archives

2008/March 2008/April 2008/May 2008/June 2008/July 2008/August 2008/September 2008/October 2008/November 2008/December 2009/January 2009/February 2009/March 2009/April 2009/May 2009/June 2009/July 2009/August 2008 2009/September 2009/October 2009/November 2009/December 2010/January 2010/February 2010/March 2010/April 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September pre April 2010 Archive 1 2011/October 2011/November 2012/January 2012/February 2012/March 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/July 2012/August 2012/September 2012/October 2012/November

This page has archives. Sections older than 9 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Straw Poll 2 and "favourite hate" name poll

Hi. I'm posting you here rather than Talk:The Great Hunger because I think it will be easier to communicate this way. Although your poll and mine are both showing the same trend against those two particular names, I would be wary of assuming that "option 4" has thereby got a consensus. Because of the way Straw Poll 2 was designed, option 4 was the only option for those of us that didn't opt for "hunger", "potato" or dates. It doesn't necessarily have a consensus over any of the other "greats". We've made decided progress in the last couple of days, but I think we still need to wait a while, make sure we eliminate all the contentious or potentially contentious names (the vote could easily swing around) and then throw all the remaining choices back in the hat. We only realistically have one shot at a page move. It's worth taking the time to get it absolutely right :-) Scolaire (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, I was hoping that a consensus would Option 4 as the least objectionable term. Those editors that selected Option 4 as their primary choice had mostly rejected/objected to Option 1, but it didn't apply vice versa. I am also aware that the an admin might decide that the debate has gone on long enough, and might close it with a view of "No consensus", thereby leaving us with the most objectionable name. It doesn't help that Domer quickly adds new conversations to the bottom of the Talk page, or adds lots of comments to the discussion, thereby giving the impression that there is a lot of debate and contention, when in fact there is very little. The polls quickly get buried - is there any way of keeping the poll at the bottom, for clarity? --Bardcom (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, just as another thought....you say that it doesn't necessarily show that Option 4 has a consensus. But I think that it probably does. Perhaps we should, at this stage, cut to the final step. Put forward a new poll that asks people to indicate in a table the following:

What do you think? Too complex for people to fill out maybe? --Bardcom (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not too complex, Bardcom, just wrong! I checked the May RM - there were no votes for "The Great Famine" and three votes against it! For comparison, there were two votes for "Great Irish Famine" and none against. In your June straw poll that became an RM without me noticing, you said: "This straw poll limits the options to the ones with the most expressed preferences." Can you see how this statement is incorrect? Right underneath that you'll see where I asked why "Great Irish Famine" was omitted. I never got a response, so I and others were obliged to vote for the nearest equivalent. I won't say more for the present but please reconsider going with "option 4" - it's a bad name and it will come to a bad end! Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right! Counting all preferences expressed, the results were:

I mixed it up with Great Famine (Ireland) which was selected 3 times. But it's still clear that Irish Potato Famine is the most selected, but also happens to be objectionable by most people. My understanding of why it is objected to, is that it blames the potato as the cause, and not the British establishment for failing to provide relief. I believe this should not detract from the COMMONNAME, and this is not about what the article should be called (according to some editors), but what it is actually called. --Bardcom (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I will say one more thing, actually. An admin closing this RM won't stop us from opening another one at any time, any more than closing the May one did. So let's sit tight and get it right. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're right. There was a lot of resistence to opening the current RM. I'd like to quickly reach a point where we can summarize the current standings in order to see if we are close(r) to a consensus. With that in mind, I suggest posting a summary, and then using the table above to allow editors a (last) chance to make a selection, and hopefully we can see is a consensus is finally emerging. What about expanding the above table as a summary as follows:

By this reckoning, it seems that a consensus is moving towards "The Great Famine". I'll post this in the next hour or two, but if you get a chance to look and check the numbers and comment here first, I'd appreciate it. --Bardcom (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom, just to make myself crystal clear, if you post anything in the next hour or two, I will oppose you with every breath in my body! I will come back in a while with a reasoned summary of my position. In the meantime, stay cool, okay? Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done to generate this response from you, and it comes across as a threat. But, sure, there's no panic on this, I'm just trying to extract a meaningful summary from the masses of polls and arguments, so that the current position is made clear. I am not trying to interpret the results.... --Bardcom (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No threat intended, but the emotion is real. I'm typing up a detailed response that hopefully will be emotion-free. I'll post it here as soon as I'm satisfied with it. Scolaire (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not really been following individual preferences, but you have obviously got some strong feelings about something. I just think that the current title is wrong. I also now understand why people object to Irish Potato Famine. I've no objections to it though, and I've no objections to "The Great Famine" or "The Great Irish Famine" either - both terms I've heard used to refer to this period in Irish history. Are you preparing a response to me, or prempting a response to the summary? --Bardcom (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm preparing a response to you. Hang in there. And make yourself a cup of tea, it's going to be a long one :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooohhh! The suspense is killing me. This is like waiting for Santa! --Bardcom (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now, I'm going to take this step by step. Inevitably, some of it will appear critical, but I am not interested in putting anybody down, only in getting some clarity:

1. On 5 June Bardcom began a new section, "Move Proposal - Straw Poll 2", saying it was "time to reopen a straw poll to retest consensus" (emphasis added). It purportedly "limit the options to the ones with the most expressed preferences" viz. Irish Potato Famine (10 votes in RM), Great Irish Famine (1845 - 1852) (two votes by my count, zero one (things keep changing!) by yours above) and The Great Hunger (current), but not Great Irish Famine or Great Famine (Ireland) (two each by my count). It was implied, though not stated, that adding names was not an option. Twelve minutes later, The Great Famine was added by Bardcom, apparently now in error. By any standards, this was a very poor design for a poll, but as it was only a straw poll, nobody complained too much - after all, it could still produce something useful!
2. By midnight on 6 June it seemed to have done just that! Six votes out of seven for Irish Potato Famine, and the one dissenting vote (Scolaire) was weak and easily answered.
3. At this point, Angus McLellan intervened, striking out the proposed close date and suggesting (inexplicably IMO) "allowing a week from the time that this is listed at requested moves." There had been no proposal to list it at RM at this point.
4. On 7 June a requested move was listed by Bardcom, with a link to the (closed) RM of May. The appropriate template was added to the Great Hunger talk page, but as far as I can see there was no notification on the talk page proper, either before or after the fact, that there was now an RM in progress, or that "Move Proposal - Straw Poll 2" was it. It is my belief that many, perhaps the majority, of participants in the "straw poll" still do not know that they are retrospectively participating in an RM. This is, to say the least, a most unorthodox way to request a page move. To put it bluntly, it is a shambles!
5. On 14 June Scolaire asked for clarification on whether the (?) was closed or not. Nobody was able to provide it. At this time the vote stood at nine votes for Irish Potato Famine to two against.
6. Within hours, the vote had changed to 9:5 for Irish Potato famine.
7. On 18 June, 13 days after the original "straw poll" proposal and with 14 votes cast, Bardcom, again without notice, changed the question. I don't know if this is unprecedented in an RM but it is certainly highly irregular! Its effect was to make a straw poll/move request hybrid, which was already on very shaky ground, utterly unviable. The poll/RM, in simple English, was an unmitigated disaster!
8. Later on 18 June, Scolaire opened a new straw poll, the "favourite hate" poll. Bardcom responded by asking editors to revisit his (re-jigged) poll instead. To date, two editors have done so.
9. As of now, only three possible names have been voted against: "The Great Hunger", "The Irish Potato Famine" and "The Great Famine". These are the very three names that, until a few hours ago, you were proposing to put to a vote, confident that a consensus would be quickly reached. Can you really not see that that is the very opposite of common sense? These are the three names that are now guaranteed not to get a consensus!

So, what I am proposing, after a suitable pause in case the current vote swings suddenly as the last one did, is to put all the possible alternatives except these three, which will inevitably be opposed, to the editors on the talk page for adult, considered discussion. These will include, but need not be restricted to:

• Irish Famine
• Great Irish Famine
• Great Famine (Ireland)
• Great Famine in Ireland
• Great Irish Famine (1845-18xx)
• Great Famine in Ireland (1845-18xx)

BTW there is no reason to believe that consideration of all these alternatives will not produce a consensus as fast or faster than either of your schemes above.
It's late! I'm going to log out now. Please believe me that all of this comes from a deeply-held desire to find a consensus, and not a "thing" against anybody or anybody's POV. Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You've put a lot into this. I'll disagree with some of your assertions and conclusions, but I do understand why you've said them. The purpose of the RM is to open a process to allow discussion and test for a consensus. I was away and out of touch for 6 days, and to my mind, the discussion petered out and had stalled. My "rejigging" (as you call it) of the straw poll was simply in response to the fact that many people that had selected Option 1 had not objected to any other options in the same way that people you selected Option 4 had objected Option 1. I was trying to see if Option 4 was objectionable to perhaps only a couple, and acceptable to most if not all, thereby showing a consensus. This did not happen, so I'm no longer pursuing that course.

We're interested in the same thing - reaching a consensus. You can post the above to the Talk page, I don't mind, but at some point in time, we're going to need to test to see if a consensus has formed. The purpose of the first table I suggested above was to draw a line under all the other polls, and allow people to show approval or objection to the available choices. I have no problem adding other choices either and I think it would be a good idea to do so. Like it or not, this isn't about the "truth", it simply about consensus. The discussion should help people make an informed selection.

Your idea above appears to remove the most popular selection and is not a good idea for the very reason that it is, after all, the most popular to date. The purpose of removing options the last time was because I tried to reduce the options to only those that had gained some sort of support in the past (and I boobed). I fail to see why you are attempting to reintroduce options that did not gather any support in the past, or for introducing options that have not been previously suggested. It would only serve to dilute the selection (as happened in the very first poll) making it seem that there is a split over several options.

My prefered and simplest way forward is to extend my first suggestion. Add more options to the table. Allow editors to either approve options, and to object to options. Example:

Thnx S777 point taken :-)

--Bardcom (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom, I think you are having trouble with the concept of consensus. A consensus is not, ever, a majority vote. There is only consensus when all parties are in agreement. That is just a general observation; now for my response:

• "The purpose of the RM to open a process to allow discussion and test for a consensus." That's fair enough.
• "I was away and out of touch for 6 days, and to my mind, the discussion petered out and had stalled." That's because there was no consensus. The same people were saying the same things as they had two weeks before. You had allowed a discussion and tested for a consensus, and a consensus was wanting. It still is.
• "but at some point in time, we're going to need to test to see if a consensus has formed." Certainly not at his point in time, because it is plain as day that no consensus has formed.
• "The purpose of the first table I suggested above was to draw a line under all the other polls, and allow people to show approval or objection to the available choices." Why not just draw a line under them now? People have shown approval and objection to all the choices that have been put to them so far (which is not the same as all the available choices). You have summarised them and so have I. Consensus has been tested and we know exactly the state of play.
• " Your idea above appears to remove the most popular selection." Yes, it does, because it was also the most unpopular (apart from the status quo). In an RM, unpopular trumps popular. The request is closed with the result no consensus. If you want to establish consensus, you don't go with the most unpopular selection, however fond of it you or even the majority are.
• "I fail to see why you are attempting to reintroduce options that did not gather any support in the past, or for introducing options that have not been previously suggested" The most popular names are "Irish Potato Famine" and "Great Irish Famine". No other name can be said to be "popular" in any sense. Great Famine (Ireland), for instance, garnered votes without anybody ever saying "I like this name!" The names on your table are exactly as arbitrary - neither more nor less - than the names on mine. If you think they've "gathered support" you're not reading the discussion.
• " It would only serve to dilute the selection (as happened in the very first poll) making it seem that there is a split over several options." There is a split. That's why we have no consensus. That's why the first RM failed. That's why this RM will fail. There has been no attempt to reach a consensus - only a series of exercises in highlighting divisions.
• "The discussion should help people make an informed selection." Isn't that just what I'm saying? In short, the polls are done, the results are out and we know exactly the state of play. No matter how pretty your little boxes, your suggestion can never do more than restate the same result. What's needed is discussion.

So now here's what I have done and what I am proposing: I have asked people which names they are most against. The result, at this point in time, is (1) that there is a consensus for change, and (2) that Irish Potato Famine will not get a consensus in this or any RM (Like it or not, this isn't about the "truth", it's simply about consensus). What has also come out, much to my surprise I have to admit, is that no name that incorporates "famine", "great" and "Ireland/Irish" is opposed in a straight vote. In other words, a name incorporating those three elements is most likely to get a consensus. This may be my POV, but it's now also an objective fact, supported by a (carefully designed and unbiassed) poll. If you want a consensus, and I know you do, the way to reach one is to talk about (not vote on) variants of names that incorporate these elements with a view to hitting on one that satisfies everybody's requirements i.e. that it be easily recognisable, that it be unambiguous, and that it not be seen by anybody as contentious. Once people have had a chance to discuss this, then you can hold a poll and structure it any way you want. But you can't put the cart before the horse; it has to be this way: try to find consensus first, and then test whether there is one. Scolaire (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Four hours later) I'm afraid I have pre-empted you after all. Forgive me if it looks like stealing a march; it's not meant that way. I just thought that Saturday afternoon is a good time to have a discussion on options we've tried and options we haven't. With luck we might still be able to have a vote by the end of the weekend. Domer48 is currently blocked so closing the debate before tomorrow is not an option anyway. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Lots of hours later). Hi, I was away today, but I'm happy with the way things are going. Good job. --Bardcom (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, thanks!  :-D Scolaire (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've written you another essay, this time on my own talk page :-) Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear all along that I would not add "Irish Potato Famine" to the poll, once it was rejected by the previous one. However, if you add it, I won't interfere or complain. No need even to initial it. Okay? Scolaire (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's really for "completeness" so that we avoid a situation whereby we have to return to this again because a choice wasn't available... --Bardcom (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as it doesn't come up with a majority of "prefers"! I don't think it will, but if it does we'll be right back to square one. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's the trouble with consensus-building! You might want to register your Oppose then :-) But this is also why the "Will Also Accept" comes into play. I bet a consensus emerges from this poll though. Fingers crossed! --Bardcom (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed ref

I wonder why you removed a perfectly good incline citation which does refer to the Uniform Penny Post. Perhaps you did not search the reference well enough but there are several paragraphs about this topic about 65% way down the document. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation was being used as a reference to assert the claim that the Uniform Penny Post refered to sending a letter anywhere between two points in the British Isles. But the reference was incorrectly being used in this regard - it referred to the 4d post for this - a private service. --Bardcom (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To me This was such a success that after only four weeks the promised 1d uniform post came into being on 10 January 1840, making it possible for anyone to send a letter anywhere with{in} this country for 1d. means that it says exactly the opposite to your comment above. Are you seeing something else I am not? BTW the 4d post was not a private service; I have a draft article in preparation here. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I only removed the reference because it seemed to (incorrectly) allude as fact that the 1d Uniform Penny Post (UPP) was to carry post between any two places in the British Isles. This is not correct as references for the UPP either state "within Britain" or "within the United Kingdom". BTW, the draft article on the 4d post looks good - this reference also has some interesting info and stats perhaps for your article --Bardcom (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Today I added an image of the PO regulations issued on January 7, 1840 that are quite clear where, when and what happened. ww2censor (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll and Requested move

Is there any reason why we shouldn't close the straw poll now and move straight to the Requested move on Talk:The Great Hunger? After all, the only purpose of the poll was to allow those editors most involved with the discussion to express a preference for a single name, and all of them have now voted except one, who is page-banned. Leaving it open won't achieve anything except delay, and the RM will have to stay open for five days anyway so nobody can say they're being kept out of the debate (well, some people will, but those same people will have some objection no matter what we do). What do you think? Scolaire (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw I have an analysis/summary of the poll, which I'll publish when I'm closing it, whether that's now or later. Scolaire (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to summarize and close the poll. And if the older RM is still active, there's no need to open a new one. --Bardcom (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just remember what I said on my talk page: the older RM is "The Great Hunger → ?". How do we convert that into "The Great Hunger → Great Famine (Ireland)"? And does it not mean that the closing admin will have to take into account all the votes from Move Proposal - Straw Poll 2 down? Which would of course mean no consensus no matter what happened in the next five days. What I said back on 22 June was, "I was wondering if the best course might be to, first, make a new request, then, replace the template with a "The Great Hunger → Everybody's favourite name" one and, finally, add a note on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Backlog (pretending you don't see my foot-in-mouth moment) that the request has been superseded by a new, named request. How does all that strike you?" I still think that's the best and safest way to go forward, unless I'm missing something blindingly obvious. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I doubt that a closing admin would pay attention to any older polls, as they're just an early part of a long process to reach consensus. The test for a closing admin is to see if a consensus exists - and I believe that the latest poll shows that it does. Maybe we should ask an admin who can advise as to the next best step? --Bardcom (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do, please. I don't want to come this far and see it all go up in smoke for the sake of a minor procedural slip. But just explain to me first what a closing admin does. Surely they have to put a template at the top and bottom of the RM? How can you do that if there are just short of 40,000 words (70 pages in MS Word) between the top and the bottom, peppered with content disputes and including a complete U-turn in consensus? And surely they have to count something? Whatever way it's done are we not now obliged to say "this is the proposal now, please vote again, for or against"? What is the advantage of trotting out that behemoth over starting a nice new little vote? Once again I feel that it looks like I'm putting your RM down, but once again that's really not my intention! Anyway, I really would like to see a clear procedure decided upon within the next twelve hours, because the weekend has come around again, and we have a unique opportunity that we dare not squander. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: putting a {{helpme}} on this page might get a quicker result than posting to admins at random. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I've put a {{helpme}} on my talk page. Scolaire (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

If you do not cease your relentless campaign to remove the factually correct "British Isles" from articles, I will be forced to file an arbitration request. I have removed your use of self published sources and replaced them with acceptable ones, showing that British Isles is 120% correct. On another article I have provided a Google Books link to a source you provided, which shows the source uses British Isles as well. Also, adding British Isles and using reliable sources is not vandalism, do not label such edits as that in future. Good day to you! EmpireForever (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your dislike of the term "British Isles" has caused you to flout policy and revert my factually correct and sourced edits.

This source is hosted on freeserve, it is self-published and cannot be used if you read Verifiability especially when there are two reliable sources that state the Shell Guides covered the British Isles, which always have, and always will, include Ireland.

The source you added, so no backtracking as it is your source, says on page 143 "..to any part of the United Kingdom or British Isles", so it is your incorrect insinuation that the UPP did not apply to the British Isles I am afraid to say.

There is seemingly little more to discuss, the term "British Isles" should stay as it is reliably sourced and correct. If you or others named in conjunction with your campaign remove it again, I will file the arbitration request against you without further discussion or delay. EmpireForever (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The most accurate term is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Leave out British Isles because it is offensive to many Irish people. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not an accurate term for the British Isles as it leaves out the Isle of Man and other islands. Accuracy should not be sacrificed to appease the Irish. EmpireForever (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling this is a road that's been gone down before? Can you point me to where this debate has happened previously? —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

90% of the pages Bardcom edits, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bardcom may be a good place to begin. EmpireForever (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Irish don't need appeasing but neither does anyone need British-centirc POV railroading either. British Isles is a geographical term and not accurate here. It does not belong. I have removed it, leaving the correct political term United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the government of the Royal Mail who implemented the UPP and here is a perfectly good reference for that with no mention of British Isles. I have left a similar post on the article talk page. Please do not change it without discussion and consensus. If there is no consensus we will have to go to an AfD. Thanks all. ww2censor (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As for why I'm involved in this, I saw EmpireForever's edits on the new contributions summary and was concerned by the tone of them. That's why I went to the targeted editor to ask if there was some backstory I wasn't readily seeing. In other cases, new accounts like this have been created by blocked/banned users to circumvent the block, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred, thanks for stopping by. I share your thoughts - in the past there have been blocks dished out to anon IP editors for behaviour similar to this. I've left a comment on your Talk page. --Bardcom (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Radio 4 Theme

Hi Bardcom, just looking over the BI issue again, and as usual some of your edits are valid, some we could argue about, but there is one that stands out a mile as being, IMHO, completely wrong. I refer to the Radio 4 UK Theme. How do you know that Irish fishermen use RTE for the shipping forecast? I don't know if RTE provides a shipping forecast (I expect they do) but the BBC shipping forecast is for all, regardless of nationality, and if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the likelihood of a large number of Irish fishermen listening to it (and other nationalities undoubtedly do as well), but that would be OR if included here, a bit like your assertion. In the context of shipping areas the British Isles is admirably suited to describe the extent of their relevance. We're talking geography here, and the shipping areas completely surround all parts of the BI. If there's any subject where BI is correct that the Shipping Forecast must surely be it. I'll revert to BI in the article unless you can come up with a much better reason why it shouldn't be used. CarterBar (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (Move this to the relevant Talk page if you want). CarterBar (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi CarterBar - I know that Irish fishermen use the RTE forecast because I grew up in this environment. The assertion that the BBC forecast is for all of the British Isles is incorrect. The BBC provides a service for it's license holders - British license holders, and as such the forecast is for areas where these fishermen are likely to be fishing. Most definitely not off the coast of Ireland as this would be illegal (and they're not Spanish fishermen). I'm not about to revert until we've discussed this edit - and thank you for discussing. --Bardcom (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bardcom, I note that RTE do provide a shipping forecast but only for the waters around Ireland. As for the BBC, they not only provide services to the British licence payer but to others as well. Think of the BBC World Service, and the international element of the BBC website. Another point to bear in mind is how the "gale warning" Shipping Forecast is introduced: "Attention all shipping...", not "Attention British shipping...". The Shipping Forecast, broadcast on LW, has a range covering all of the sea areas around the British Isles and is clearly aimed at all mariners - not just fishermen - in all those sea areas, Irish ones included. The sea areas completely surround all of the islands and are of a geographic nature, so the use of British Isles seems highly appropriate. CarterBar (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC World Service is funded differently - not from license payers. The BBC Radio 4 is funded through British license payers. From the BBC article, it states As part of the BBC Charter, the Corporation cannot show commercial advertising on any services in the United Kingdom (television, radio, or internet). Outside the United Kingdom the BBC broadcasts commercially funded channels such as BBC America, BBC Canada, and BBC World News. In order to justify the licence fee, the BBC is expected to produce a number of high-rating shows in addition to programmes that commercial broadcasters would not normally broadcast. Please note the use of the term United Kingdom and not British Isles, as this is the correct broadcasting area coverage. Also please note the article BBC Radio 4 which has the opening line BBC Radio 4 is a domestic UK radio station. Again the use of the term domestic UK is accurate and correct. Please also note the frequencies section - it doesn't "broadcast" into Ireland's radio spectrum (officially...). One of the tenets of Misplaced Pages is consistency throughout the articles, therefore can you please revert the article? --Bardcom (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are both wrong:-)This Daily Torygraph article sort of explains that the extent is much, much farther than the BI. I've picked it up off Portugal on a good night. What does any reference to the possible geographical location of some phantom listeners possibly add to the encyclopaedicness (or is that encyclopaedicity?) of the article. Wherever the listeners are they will receive the broadcast, otherwise they are not the listeners are they? Crispness (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And from the BBC site, this one is probably the most authoritative. Northwest Europe again. Crispness (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the issues being raised here are irrelevant, but for the record the BBC broadcasts the Shipping Forecast on behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency and it is obviously aimed at any mariner who cares to listen while in the vicinity of the British Isles, particularly in the sea areas that completely surround the islands - Man and Jersey included. I suggest the article is left in its current state - which is how it's been for some time - and if you're set on making a change to remove British Isles (why anyone would want to do so is quite beyond me in this particluar case) we should engage the services of a disinterested editor who could arbitrate in this matter. I'll accept any decision from an independent editor and I'm sure you would as well. Have you any suggestions as to the identity of a suitable person, if you want to follow this course of action? CarterBar (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can edit any page on WP so long as they are not restricted from doing so by a disciplinary ruling. Asking for an 'independent' editor should never be necessary. You don't seem to understand how things work. BTW, have you any reference for your assertions about the BI? For what its worth, if someone can receive a radio signal in Jersey, it is highly likely they can also receive it in France. The reason why the reference to the BI should be removed is that it is unencyclopaedic. That you don't understand that says more about you, I'd say. Crispness (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it seems there are a number of issues - let's see if we can separate them out. My point is consistency across Misplaced Pages articles, and references for claims made. My claims and edits are referencable to the existing Misplaced Pages articles. In addition, (and as a litmus test for using the term British Isles) what would happen if you introduces a phrase into the Radio 4 article stating that it broadcasts all over the British Isles?

The second issue is from CarterBar who states that the broadcast can be picked up further away than just the UK, and that because it is broadcast on "behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, it should reference the British Isles. I've read this article and it uses the term UK throughout - not the British Isles.

The third issue comes from Crispness who correctly states that if the argument is about the areas the broadcast can be picked up, then the term British Isles is not appropriate, and provides a reference to "Northwest Europe". He also asks CarterBar for a reference for using the term British Isles which we don't have to date. The personal comments are irrelevant.

I still maintain that the UK is the most appropriate term with the "most" references, and the most obvious references. But in the absence of a reference for the term "British Isles", the claim is OR. CarterBar, can you find/provide a suitable reference? --Bardcom (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (again)

I'm going to be away from my computer for the next 24 hours, starting right now. If you want to keep an eye on my talk page (or if you get a definitive reply from your admin) and take whatever action is suggested, I'll be perfectly happy with that. Scolaire (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. --Bardcom (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No vandalism

What are You talking about. This IP is used by many people and is no vandalism here that I can see. 141.6.8.72 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I was reverting anon IP vandalism this morning and must have crossed some wires. I'll remove the notice. --Bardcom (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just checked. What are *you* talking about? I haven't posted anything to your Talk page...--Bardcom (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, our IP changes frequently at BASF Services but I see Your comments to the IPs and I don't understand your point. There is no vandalism anywhere. I think you need to be aware of the policy what means vandalism. 141.6.8.73 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider getting a login. No point in trying to carry on a discussion with anon IP's... --Bardcom (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now sir, please address the points I make. BASUSER (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! :-) I marked the edits in question as vandalism because the edits were made to incorrectly introduce the term British Isles into a number of articles without an edit summary explaining the edit (or any other type of explanation), and the editor in question appears to be attempting to "game" the system by using different IP addresses (all BASF addresses) to make the same edits in order to avoid detection. This is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, or consensus building, and is a form of vandalism. --Bardcom (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is a content dispute. You are informed above that these IPs quickly change and one person has no control over his IP. I ask You again to remind Yourself of the policy in this matter and You will see it is not vandalism regardless of a summary on the edit. You could remove the warnings from the IP pages or else I will consider all your edits and ask You for further explanation on the talk pages. Thankyou. BASUSER (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)