User talk:CarterBar

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bodleian Library

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nice compromise! Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Carter, Whethere the 'British Isles' existed in the 1300s is a matter of some dispute. But anyway, as none of the characters listed in the article came from Ireland, wouldn't it be more accurate and encyclopaedic (and useful to the reader) to use a term which described where the came from more succinctly and accurately? The currently listed characters are all English so England would seem the most appropriate term? Wouldn't you agree? Crispness (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi. While watching other things I happened to notice your correspondence with Bardcom and your post on the help desk. Just in case you weren't aware, there are two kinds of RfC: one for comment on articles, templates, or categories and one for comment on users. The first of those is the one you would want. Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment on articles, templates, or categories will show you how to put a template on the talk page of the relevant article. Then you need to check regularly that the request actually gets posted (it's done by a bot and it can take a few days). Hopefully then some uninvolved editors will offer their opinion. Hope this helps. Scolaire (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Radio 4 UK Theme. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I've just seen the comment left by CarterBar Removal of the term "British Isles" for what appear to be political reasons.. I object strongly to his insinuation. Ad hominen attacks are usually the last bastion of desperate editors pushing POV - attempting to distract attention from the edit onto the editor, but this behaviour is not tolerated by Wikipedia. Do not repeat. --Bardcom (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Bardcom (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User Talk:Ryan Postlethwaite, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. CarterBar, your personal vendetta is getting out of hand. You can't go around saying things like Bardcom was free to continue his war against British Isles in Wikipedia. and it is my belief that his actions in systematically eliminating the term British Isles from this encyclopedia are compromising the integrity of the project as a whole, apart from all the other problems his actions are causing.. I've constantly engaged you in conversation/debate/argument, provided references, etc as you've asked for them. You are not WP:AGF, and you continue to insinuate bad behaviour on my part, and this is a systematic campaign of ad hominen attacks on your part. Your behaviour is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and I will ask for you to be blocked if you persist. Do it right - as I do. And you don't incur my wrath - leave the amateur dramatics aside. You have to learn to engage in a neutral way, assume good faith, and stop insisting that just because the term British Isles is being found to be used incorrectly from a large number of articles doesn't mean that my edits are incorrect in any way. --Bardcom (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bardcom

I see you are having problems with him. I have filed an arbitration request; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bardcom. EmpireForever (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to revert the latest edits, and on some have now reached my limit. TharkunColl (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles Usage Guidelines

(discussion moved from above) You probably gave a wry chuckle (and perhaps derived a teensy bit of satisfaction/vindication - not in a bad way) at the goings-on over the last week. :-) I wouldn't blame you if you did. Although I got a little roughed up (in a wikipedia sense), life goes on. Looking back over my (our) behaviour, I can see that although we were talking about the issue, and trying to work out a compromise or a workable set of guidelines, events overtook us. My fault - perhaps the volume of edits I would make in a session was a bad thing and involved a great deal of frustration on both our parts due to unagreed rules being applied by me. Just thought I'd mention that I'm going to avoid this behavior in future. I'm also going to try to kick-start some guidelines around usage in a sandbox, perhaps with some invited interested parties to begin, and then looking for a consensus from the wider community. It's just an idea. What do you think? Would you participate? I'm just running this idea past you first (as the other most interested party), just to get an idea on what you think. As I've said before, I actually do appreciate your views. --Bardcom (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the arguments you put forth in the previous paragraph. If one were to follow such guidelines, one could never talk about such things as the longest suspension bridge in North America, or the tallest building in Asia. Geography is not confined to physical geography, but also includes patterns of human settlement. Moreover, using the same logic as in your argument, the only subjects we could talk about under the heading of the UK would be its administrative structures and governmental policies, for example. All the other items, related to culture and geography etc., would have to go somewhere else, because they are not political. TharkunColl (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll certainly participate, and I'm sure Tharky and others will do likewise. I think we've had this suggestion before but nothing came of it. Now is the time to try again. The volume of your edits was a problem, and led to frustration across the board. Your current approach of dicussion on the Talk pages is definitely less confrontational, though the discussions do drag on and on (frost fairs?) ... hence the need for some agreed guidelines. I do foresee a problem though; it will be difficult, if not impossible, to agree these guidelines, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. We must come at this with open minds and a clean slate, so Tharky's comments above (which you won't be surprised to know that I agree with) need to form part of the discussions. I'll watch your pages if you would like to start the ball rolling. CarterBar (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, and I would welcome Tharky too. These next two weeks will be a little patchy for me, but I'll put something together in a sandbox to frame the discussion and see how it goes. You mention frost fairs ... Question: What do *you* believe my point/objection is? I'm not sure people get it... --Bardcom (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152388.html

River Shannon

I've adjusted my preference from Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the geographics of the River; is it located entirely within Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for the geo info. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brtish Isles Terminology task force

I think you're away somewhere, but it looks the the 'noticeboard' idea may finally take off. See here: Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#British Isles Terminology Task force. What do you think of backing an admin-made 'rollback' of Tharkuncoll's BI insertion in the Shannon article, so we can more easily proceed? I think it would be a decent gesture of good faith, and means we can start from scratch (and without a locked article over all our heads). We can express that the rollback doesn't mean the term is not right for the Shannon, and that no precedent is being set). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, I'm possibly butting in unwanted, but its a good gesture and doesn't necessarily mean that anybody is conceding anything. It should be interpreted as removing any potential obstacles to getting the task force started. :-) And I know you're just dying to use that rollback tool :-) Nice one. --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I wont be doing is using that rollback tool! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if Doc Thark hadn't rolled it forward in the first we wouldn't have to roll it back now ;) Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, I'm glad to see the Task Force is taking off, and I'll certainly be contributing. I'll go and have a look. I'm sorry but I can't support the idea of rolling back the Shannon article. I just don't see the point, and it could imply that the current version is somehow wrong. The argument will rage on and on regardless, so let's just go from where we are. I'm not optimistic on this one. CarterBar (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the insertion of POV should be rolled back. This 100% Irish article is a classic example of the sort of article which shouldn't be contaminated by suggestions that Ireland is somehow "British". Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake! It is not POV. There is no such claim. Unfortunately you reject the notion of the British Isles in every respect, so we will never make progress here. CarterBar (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that as a gesture, its a good one. It's not necessary though for the Task Force to continue, and it would not imply that the current version is incorrect. CarterBar, I believe that you can be reasonable and be a voice of reason ahead. Everybody will at some stage ahead not agree with some of the Task Force decisions - pretty much guaranteed. Being willing to make gestures and compromise will be important. --HighKing (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might be construed as a good gesture, but in the present climate there's no doubt it would be taken advantage of. How would it be if the current version didn't include BI in the lead and there was a suggestion to roll back to a version that did? I'm favouring keeping it locked in the current, unendorsed version until finally we get agreement, then there'll be no more warring on this point. CarterBar (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You were asked, and that's your honest opinion. --HighKing (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Radio and other Radio Luxembourg articles

Hi CarterBar, the primary reference here makes it clear that Radio Luxembourg was targetted at Great Britain. There are no references that say that the signals were beamed at the British Isles. The only reference produced "History of International Broadcasting" (limited preview on Google books) says that there were 2 million listeners in the British Isles, and even then I suspect that the term is used incorrectly (as in British Isles = UK). Further on in the same book, it consistently uses the term Britain and refers to the BBC (not to RTE, the Irish broadcaster). On page 46 it states "1933 - From May onwards, Radio Luxembourg broadcasts 7 days a week; Mondays to Italy, Tuesdays Belgium, Wednesday the citizens of Luxembourg, Friday and Saturday for France, and Sundays reserved for British listeners (deliberately coinciding with with the BBC Sundays of religious programmes)." What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry HighKing, missed this one, what with the stuff below. I like the quote above from History of International Broadcasting because it puts into context just where the audience was. I believe their audience was English-speaking people, full stop; and they are very much in the BI. It's interesting that they list several countries. I doubt there was any intention to exclude Irish listeners, even though Ireland is not listed (in your extract). This boils down to the question "was there any intention on the part of Radio Luxembourg that people in Ireland should hear these broadcasts (or maybe that they shouldn't hear them?)". Or perhaps we could ask "Did they broadcast to political units or to geographical areas"? Radio stations try for the widest possible audience, so I suspect the latter. CarterBar (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles template

This template is simply 'jumping the gun' (to say the least) and undermining the task force (which hasn't even got going yet - no thanks, alas, to Tharcuncoll trying to prejudice the neutral party we need to open it via a comment on the request). This template clearly should be in Tharcuncoll's sandbox (he refers to it as his own), but he won't budge - so i've put up a deletion request per GoodDay's sound advice here. I know Tharcuncoll favours using the term on Wikipedia, as you and I do too, but out of interest, you might want to look at his block log and some of the race-related areas he has worked and commented in. I'm not telling you what to think at all - you just might like a look. It's an open project after all. Purely as a side note: the template may well later become useful, but as someone who stands with you on the issue, I'm not entirely yet convinced it is needed myself. I actually need to debate this kind of thing. We've worked hard to get this task force going (and it's almost there) - we must try not to start it in such a prejudiced fashion. The 'other side' of the dispute has actually behaved comparatively well! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of being a racist, Matt Lewis? Does a dislike of human oppression (e.g. when committed by Islam) equate to racism? ðarkun coll 01:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unable not to accuse all Muslims of this 'human oppression' - using grossly inflammatory language too. And on several occasions. When I first saw them I felt ashamed that Wikipedia has been so lenient with you. If it was other races you had so deliberately insulted they would not have been so kind to you, I fear. There are a billion Muslims in this world: you have used totally inflammatory language to put them down. (people are probably even steering clear because of you - no one has yet come forward). But it's what you can do. You have done nothing but cause trouble over the creation of the British Isles task force. We don't need it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Mr Lewis, but Islam is not a race. Please stop accusing me of this sort of shit. It sounds very similar to a vendetta. ðarkun coll 01:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have attacked Muslims directly. They are as much a 'race' as Jews, or (name country) etc - so don't hide behind technicalities. You have been a bigot - and one with the classic excuse of "it's not really racism". But your actions here are what matters now: you are clearly being disruptive. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's had serious spars with TharkunColl in the past, I won't contest the point that he can be very inflammatory. However, he is right that Muslims are not a race; Islam is a religion. So, whether or not he's made bigoted statements, a racist I've yet to see him be. --G2bambino (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least 50% of 'racist' comments made worldwide are probably not technically racist - but it's simply the commonly-used term for race/culture/nation related bigotry. Especially for religious cultures like Muslims and Jews. People commonly call anti-Jewishness "ant-Semitism" (perhaps to provide it a 'racial' factor) - but Palestinians and a great many other Muslims (and even Christians) are actually 'Semitic' too in the racial sense, and a great many Jews actually aren't (whether it is defined as a language, culture or a race). There are more non-Jewish Semites than Jewish ones, when it is defined as a race. This proves how flexible the term 'racism' is. 'Racism' is a broad term, and unfortunately racism of the highest order can too-often get 'wormed out of' by people like Tharcuncoll on this technicality of 'real meaning' that you refer to.

The truly cowardly thing to me, is that the accusation of racism is easier to avoid when the slurs are regarding Muslims, than when other cultures are being attacked (compare anti-Jewishness for example - which is rightly heavily stamped down on, to anti-Islamism - which is often allowed to go by). Equating all Muslims with extremism is no more fair than blaming Israeli apartheid policies and a highly-critical take on the 'chosen people/gentile' dichotomy on every single Jew! And any other similar example would fit here too. I call it racism when people talk in that way - and most other people will see it as racism too.

The vast majority of Muslims are not the same 'race' as Tharcuncoll (that much is pretty clear) and there is a crude and ugly anger under his comments - and his casual quickness to 'tar' all Muslims with his extremist brush - that is actually indicative of an underlying racism in its purest form. But primarily, in my eyes, he is a clumsy bigot who cannot stand any opposing views and lifestyles. And it all comes out when he's angry and frustrated by people disagreeing with him. In his own eyes he's an 'anti-censorship hero' no-doubt. But such self-righteousness is no excuse at all for the amount of racist comments he has made, and the disruption (and sheer time wasting) that he can cause. Being a friend of many Muslims and a worker to a British Isles solution, is it surprising that his attitude is something I totally resent? If I saw him play fair I would leave this where the admins left it – in the past. But I wasn't going to let it go without some comment when he is behaving like this. People have a right to know in fact. Now how about that for 'anti-censorship'?--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand the subtleties of language, and how they can sometimes be confusing, or downright inaccurate. However, racism is a rather serious charge, and I just wanted it to be clear that Thark never criticised anyone - as far as I know - based on their genetic makeup, which is what racism actually is. He has made derogatory comments about Islam, I agree, but that shows bigotry, not racism. I just don't wish to see someone falsely accused, or even have an accusation that's so loosely worded as to allow for eventual breakdown in interpretation; in something like the telephone game phenomenon, "racism" in the form of anti-Islamic statements could, while you and I know what you're talking about, quickly turn into, via miscommunication, an accusation of actual racism. --G2bambino (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose instead of "race-related" I could have been more direct (I was actually trying not to be). It was just a message to CarterBar, I wasn't thinking at the time of what it looked like. For me the direct question of race and religion regarding Islam are entwined - but racism in the bigoted sense (damning an entire culture) was what I specifically meant here. On a side note, when I see the amount of 'collateral damage' in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan - the question I always ask is "could we/would we do this (or support this) if they were white?" Over a million Muslims have died since 9/11. There are a few reasons for our aggression - but the reason we have ultimately gotten away with killing so many innocent people (including countless kids) is down to race. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spout your bilious, self-righteous ignorance as much as you like. Criticism of Islam is no more racist than criticism of Nazism is anti-German. By your argument the latter would also be impossible, since most Nazis were Germanic, and any attack on them is therefore "obviously" racist. Islam, just like Nazism, is an ideology, and should never be made imune from criticism. ðarkun coll 12:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the way you do it. You attack Muslims in an inflammatory way. You are suggestive and rude. You need to hone your skills - and show some respect. You honestly think it's Tharkuncoll v's Censorship don't you? You are not preaching anything people haven't heard countless times before: you are no hero. Nobody is saying anything is "immune" from criticism - but you need some skill to criticise something properly. If you think Muslims are immune from criticism you must be living on the moon - they have to suffer people like you every bloody day. You have no subtlety, and seems to me no skill. And you are prepared to slur the majority for the work of a minority: it's just no on. If you do have any skill - why don't you show some?? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where I have "slurred the majority for the work of a minority"? ðarkun coll 15:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a foolish request. I certainly will rise to your 'challenge', but I won't rush this one: I'd like to take some time perusing all your past edits and give you good report. I'm off out soon - and for much of the weekend possibly. If anyone wants a tip, your block lock is a decent place to start: not the full picture, but a good start: at least one block leads to some 'juicy' (as you'd say) examples. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this lot then?! I think you guys need to call a truce - like immediately, and concentrate on the matter in hand; agreed?

Regarding the template - it was/is good: It looks good, and it's useful (I've already used it as a convenient grouping of material). Perhaps the timing of its development was unfortunate but that's no reason for deleting it. CarterBar (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think the timing was a bit more than unfortunate. There's been a lot of woopsadaisies recently - they don't look good at all. It needs to be put back in the sandbox - you can develop it there. I lost track of this being your page by the way - I'll keep the above discussion to Tharkuncolls talk. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, no problem. Carry on the debate here if you want to, but really you and Thark should leave it now and get to grips with more important issues. Ok about the template, but in due course I think it should be brought out of hibernation. It is genuinely a good product. CarterBar (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry; I too forgot that this was not Matt Lewis' talkpage. I too shall leave you in peace. --G2bambino (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh, River Shannon etc

Wow, that was a quick response (at River Shannon & Lough Neagh); Marshall Matt Dillon couldn't make a draw that fast. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry GoodDay :)), but I felt I just had to revert your change at Lough Neagh. It just propagates the aggro' without need. CarterBar (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]