User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/June

Anglo-Celtic Australian edit

Hi - had no issues with your refinement of the ancestry figures on the article Anglo-Celtic Australian. Why did you remove Scottish Australian from the See also section though? --Matilda ^talk 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - that was accidental. I've put it back in. --Bardcom (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - not a problem but I didn't want to put it back if there was some excellent reason I didn't understand. regards --Matilda ^talk 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

deleting of WebSphere Business Events

Hi Bardcom,

I see you have marked my entry on WebSphere Business Events for deletion. It is my understanding you beleive it adds no value. My intention is that anyone searching for "Websphere Business events" in Wikipedia may at least get an explination of what the software relates to (IE event processing). I work for the development team who produced the software, and so can provide more flesh to the document if this is what is required. I just wanted to avoid making it too much of an advertisment etc.

I have added a bit more info as to the parts of the product and what they let you do. I have now also added a graphic showing such a flow.

I'd be grateful if you could let me know the sorts of things you'd be looking for me to include so as to avoid deletion of the entry and my need to write it again from scratch

Incidentally I see quite a few other products in wikipedia which just define themselves with a couple of lines, then link to a more detailed description of the technology they implement - for example: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/IBM_WebSphere_ESB

Thanks

Jtq4u (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) --Bardcom (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind the gap

'Mind "the gap", doors are closing'

Well that is one that is going to go strait over the head of most admins involved in this dispute, I only hope Sarah has visited London. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how little phrases like this stick in the mind though, and immediately transport me back to one particular incident on a really hot day.... --Bardcom (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some advice

Hello Bardcom, I have come to you for some advice because you have had some discussions with Matt Lewis. He continually accuses me of pro-nationalist POV whenever I disagree with him and its really got to the point were I feel like walking away. It got to the point on his talk page where I confess I got a little frustrated with him and among other insults he told me to f***k off. I mentioned this to an admin who told me to avoid him for a week. Can this be right? Do I have to actually have to leave wikipedia in case I come across him (and I will, we seem to be interested in the same subjects) and he once again slanders me when I disagree with him? My question is, where do I go from here? Jack forbes (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Forbes - you have already gone a step too far here, really. Yesterday you went to two admins about me! What on earth do you think Bardcom can tell you that they cannot? Or are you just stirring things up here as you have seen I am in a disagreement with him? I hope you are not building something up here. One admin has already said that we have both been uncivil to each other - which is true. Please look over your own comments (on my Talk page, and before) - I think you are so offended by me that you are not properly considering yourself here: you have been no wallflower either. If you want to file a civility report, please ask an admin for help (I can't point you as I've never done it) - if you try to involve people I am curently in a disagreement with, with like Bardcom, it will surely stand against you, wouldn't it? Think about in terms of Wikipedia's broader policies, and see this as well-intentioned advice for a relatively new user. Another thing too - it probably took me about 6 months before I was fully appreciative of the scope of Wikipedia's guidelines and policy (and I never ignored them either). Without sounding patronising - maybe you should spend some more time 'brushing up'? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted a message on your own page, I am finished with you and with the whole thing, good luck with your future bullying! Jack forbes (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, it might seem strange to hear this, but Matt is a very passionate editor that believes he is being neutral and fair, and if he has any obvious faults, I would say it is his tendency to make personal comments. I sincerely believe that he occasionally comments in the rush of the moment - in a red mist - and perhaps on occasion even regrets some of the comments. Nonetheless, there is such a thing as ad hominen attacks, and these are not tolerated. You must also assume good faith WP:AGF. My advice for both of you would be to completely avoid any personal comments. At all times. You must also believe that there isn't any inherent badness in other editors - most editors are trying to be neutral and fair. Be aware that there will be disagreements. Have patience (this is the hardest) - there's loads of time (days, weeks) to make your point - this is not IM where responses are expected in seconds/minutes. If you believe a personal comment has been made, then leave a warning on the other users Talk page. There are templates available. After 3 warnings, there are processes and procedures that entitle you to bring it to the attention of an admin, who will more than likely issue a 24hour block initially, but the blocks will progressively get longer depending on how many times the editor continues to exhibit the same behaviour. Finally, sometimes you have to walk away for a period of time because discussions get too heated or the discussion doesn't make sense. If you have patience, you can always return to the discussion after a few weeks - believe me, it'll still be there. --Bardcom (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just a note to say how thoughtful I found your commentary on Sarah777's Talk page.

Rather like the great Irishman Lord Palmerston said (of the Schleswig-Holstein question); there were three people who understood the question: one had gone mad; one had died; and he himself had forgotten. In my own case, I've found three Irish editors that I could actually talk to on Wikipedia - two have died, and the last one's got an indefinite block. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - I see. But I also see a pattern.... 2 out of 3 ..... hmmmmm.... --Bardcom (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of companies

I'm responding to the prod tag you left on Shenick Network Systems. The article has references which establish that the company has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore notable. In general, when you suspect that a company may not be notable, check the references. If they do not seem sufficient, do a search on Google and Google News to see if you can find better references. Only when you are sure that notability cannot be established should you tag an article for possible deletion. --Eastmain (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I disagree that the provided references assert notability. They report on funding rounds or commercial activity with the primary sources being the company (or spokesperson for the company) itself. Likewise, a google search also appears to use the company as the primary news source, with no 3rd party reporting on notability. Finally, what you regard as significant coverage is not evident - can you please provide references or citations? --Bardcom (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are valid secondary sources, assuming (as is the case here) that the newspapers are reliable ones. This is true even if the newspaper's reporter relied heavily on information supplied by the company. Once the information has been filtered or synthesized by what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, it becomes suitable for use as a reference. This is why I rely heavily on Google News searching when the notability of a company is in question. --Eastmain (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers are valid sources to report on the facts of a notable event. The articles report on the activities of raising funding and selling product. This is not enough to show that the company that is notable or significant - can you provide any other references or explanation? --Bardcom (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aldiscon

Maybe more notable to service providers than it is to the public. Check here http://www.aldiscon.com/ 93.107.128.92 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's for a different company. Notability isn't inherited or conferred. --Bardcom (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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:

Final Poll - Select/Reject/No Opinion (Use OK/X/=)

Irish Potato Famine	The Great Hunger	The Great Famine	Sign
OK	X	=	Bardcom (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
OK	X	OK	Joe Bloggs
X	OK	=	Jane Doe

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:

Results of First Poll

Titles	Selections
Great Famine (options 1,4)	0
Irish Potato Famine (options 2,5)	10
Great Hunger (options 3,6)	0
Great Irish Famine (option 7)	2
Great Famine (Ireland) (option 8)	3
Great Irish Famine (1845-1852) (option 9)	0

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:

Summary

Titles	Selections (Poll 1)	Selections (Poll 2)	Rejections (Poll 3)
Great Famine	0	8	3
Irish Potato Famine (options 2,5)	10	9	6
Great Hunger (options 3,6)	0	0	10
Great Irish Famine (option 7)	2	=	1
Great Famine (Ireland) (option 8)	3	=	1
Great Irish Famine (1845-1852) (option 9)	1	=	1

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 [1] 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[ed] 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,[2] 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,[3] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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,[6] 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.[7] Bardcom responded by asking editors to revisit his (re-jigged) poll instead.[8] 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:

Final Poll - Select/Reject/No Opinion (Use Support/Object/=)

Irish Potato Famine	The Great Hunger	Great Famine	Great Irish Famine	Great Famine (Ireland)	Great Irish Famine (1845-18xx)	Sign
Support	Object	Support	Support	=	=	Bardcom (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Support	Object	Support	Support	Object	Support	Joe Bloggs
Object	Support	Support	Support	Support	Object	Jane Doe
Object	=	Support	Support	Support	=	Sarah Doe-Bloggs

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 [was] 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!" [author's note: somebody did say that in the early hours of this morning; my point is still good] 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)

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[9]: 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 Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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)

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)

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 [10] --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)