Dear TharkunColl, As one of the users I come accross most frequently I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! Cameaeron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been reported for violating 3RR on the article British monarchy. I was the administrator who reviewed or case, and since the page was already protected, and given other mitigating circumstances I chose not to impose a block. However, you did violate 3RR through your involvement in an edit war. Please always try to discuss such issues rather than simply revert. Even if you believe that no consensus had been secured, or that the other version is worse, please try to discuss the issue and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution program or seek assistance from an administrator. Edit warring is considered extremely disruptive, and if you will engage in such actions in the future, you risk being blocked. Thanks, TSO1D ( talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments like this [1] are unacceptable personal attacks on other editors. This is a final warning; you will be blocked if you make another. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't predict the future Tharky, but I suspect (should you be punished) over your Wiki behaviour, you won't be banned. Banning generally occurs when an editor threatens other editors verbally or with legal actions. GoodDay ( talk) 02:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"How can a language have an "official" name in another language? "Irish Gaelic" is a much more common way of referring to it"
Seems like you're pushing a POV there. The Irish language is just called "Irish"; just as Manx is called "Manx" and Welsh is called "Welsh". I think you'll find that there is no confusion about the name of the Irish language in Ireland.
Anyway, the name of the Irish language in the UK article shall remain "Irish". All the best, mate. Wiki01916 ( talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as Tharky has been inactive for nearly a month; perhaps this page should be deleted? Or is there a time-limit on such things? GoodDay ( talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
He certainly shall! Merry Christmas everyone! TharkunColl ( talk) 16:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Starky's program concentrates on the monarchies, not the countries (or Parliaments). Unless you can proove that the UK is still the Kingdom of England, you've not the chance of making your proposed changes stick. Please, don't start reverting again tommorow - in otherwords discuss don't make a fuss. GoodDay ( talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember by claiming the UK is England - 1] the name 'England' would cover the whole island (which I'm sure the Scots will object to); 2] the name 'England' would cover Northern Ireland (which I'm sure the loyalist & rebels will both object to); 3] the article United Kingdom would have to be merged with England keeping the name England (which I'm sure Wikipedia in general will have a fit over). You must agree, a lot of people would be (shall we say) upset, with such changes. GoodDay ( talk) 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Scotland entered the union via an 'ear pulling', but calling it an English takeover is a bit strong. GoodDay ( talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically (what I'm harping about), the monarchs and the country(ies) can't be seperated from each other. You can't be King of X if the Kingdom of X doesn't exist. GoodDay ( talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you and David Starkey (I wonder if he's related to Ringo Starr? interesting) have got alot of selling to do on the English primacy thing. GoodDay ( talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Tharky (noting the Holy Roman Empire), but James I/VI to Anne (pre-1707) weren't monarchs of Great Britain as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until 1707. GoodDay ( talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The Scots only allowed the Act of Union in 1707 because they were assured that it wasn't an English takeover - they got M.P.s at Westminster, and I think other rights. If they hadn't been assured that it wasn't a 'takeover', but rather a 'union' (however unfair to them), civil war rather than grudging acquiescence would have been the likely result. To claim that the Scots had no part in the matter, or that representation at the national Parliament (which as an institution at both Westminster and Holyrood was becoming the important governing body of both kingdoms) meant nothing is to distort history. And in this situation, 'King of X' depends absolutely upon 'Kingdom of X' existing - the ruling monarchy makes no claims to be 'King/Queen of England', but rules legitimately over the successor kingdom to the 'Kingdom of England'. You're also being dishonest about English nationalism - what of the West Lothian question? I believe the Conservatives are strongly in favour of booting Scottish and Welsh M.P.s out of the Commons Chamber whenever anything is discussed regarding England which the Scots and Welsh have devolved power over. Furthermore, the fact that the English view their country as independant, and the Scots, Welsh and Irish view themselves as subjugated, doesn't change the fact that legally, the countries became administrative divisions of a larger state with the Acts of Union (and, for all that Devolution has occurred, it is only an internal division of the Kingdom, not a division of the crown). Michael Sanders 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back, Thark. Is this just a seasonal visit, to brighten these short Winter days - or ... dare I wish ... will you be round all year long?? -- sony-youth pléigh 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've often wundered: Did George's succession to the British throne (1714), bring about the saying By George, I think he's got it? GoodDay ( talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not how wikipedia works, my friend. You will need to provide actual reasoning. In lieu of psychic abilities, I have no reason to change my opinion. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you've shown an interest in this matter, would you like to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)? Michael Sanders 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fascinating man. Do you know The Regicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson? It's focus is John Cooke, but he has some fascinating insights on how English-speaking political tradition still won't own Cromwell. Yet, as you say, he abolished absolutism forever.-- Gazzster ( talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good for Britain, I'd agree (not having lived there, though my mum was British). Although isn't there a debate in Britain about a possible danger of parliamentary absolutism? I think it works in general because Britain has had centuries to work it out; you've had civil wars and revolutions, Runnymede, de Montfort, etc. In newer nations, like my own, only a written constitution can work.-- Gazzster ( talk) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please might I add my POV here, as the above really is a POV and little else and is largely not supported by pre-Second World War academics. It is well established that both the Bruces and the Stewards came to Scotland from England. It is just ludicrous to suggest they by-passed England and came directly from Normandy. Doubtless this is yet another rewriting of history by the ultra-pro-Scottish-nationalist brigade of writers but its pathetic. I can't be bothered arguing with the language issue. My family were well established in the Lowlands before the 14th century when English was well-established amongst virtually the entire population of the Lowlands with some Norman-French being spoken by the educated classes. All these attempts to turn established history on its head does Wikipedia no credit whatsoever. David Lauder ( talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear TharkunColl, you may without knowing have violated WP:3RR, and I have listed your actions on the appropriate page. I don't really care whether or not you have cross the 3RR line, but may I say that your confrontational approach to editing and unwillingness to discuss things is unacceptable in a co-operative consensus based project like wikipedia. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it alright now? Michael Sanders 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering you've been warned already about rude comments barely a month ago, I would suggest you stop commenting on this page altogether - you clearly don't have any interest in editing the page itself currently (you last edited a page related to the topic on 25 August 2007 ( [2]), and seem to be solely causing trouble. Comments such as [3], [4] and [5] are childish, baiting, and offensive. I have blocked you for 2 weeks to give you time to think about your future conduct. I was only going to block you for 24 hours before I noticed in your block log you have already been blocked for trolling Talk:Muhammad before ( [6]). As this clearly had no effect, a longer block may do the trick. Neıl ☎ 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
2 weeks is massively excessive considering I was called a hypocrite by another user and was merely responding to his attack, and also because the original block was only going to be for 24 hours.
Decline reason:
In view of your previous blocks, the block is not excessive.— Sandstein ( talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Is there a way to block specific editors from editing specific articles? Wouldn't that work best? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is impolite for User:G2bambino to come here and gloat at User:TharkunColl. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, mate. How could you resist commenting on the misfortune of your archenemy? I've seen you guys carry on. You goad him on as much as he does you.--
Gazzster (
talk)
07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Uncalled for. Sorry.-- Gazzster ( talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, welcome back Tharky.-- Gazzster ( talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest you reword your announcement, and especially the header. Pairadox ( talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have moved your subpage to Talk:Muhammad/images which was the established title we had been using until it got archived and redirected to Talk:Muhammad. I'm sure you can understand why "censorship requests" is not a helpful title although in many cases it would be accurate. In the cases where it is not accurate we should not be belittling our editors just because they wish to discuss the images and in the cases where it is accurate we would not create pages where users are specifically meant to discuss issues that go against Wikipedia policy. gren グレン 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove the sections that are active. Please remove only the sections that say nothing but "remove images" and created by unestablished users. Thanks -- Be happy!! ( talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop it - you were blocked for this previously, if you have nothing constructive to add on talkpages don't edit them. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
IMHO T.C., if you find dhimmitude to be offensive, just think of the Nordicist blanket you want to suffocate the British under, by boxing in their character as derived from foreign invaders who suppressed their way of life through paganist nonsense. You do no better than Sharia. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice to know that you will never give up your tendentious edit warring with everybody who comes your way, regardless of who they are, always on subjects related to the monarchy and muhammad. I await your permanent banning, mister know-it-all. Your zealotry is giving me an erection
because yours is always declaring war. Cockfighting can be bloody when tearing apart hymens. I'd like to see you sink your balls into the princess of Jordan and have a half sand nigger baby. That would make you proud. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how an Aussie monarchy is in British interests. My own personal beef is more that we are ruled by a person who's only claim to job is that she was born into it. It's a most undemocratic institution. But I have to say, until we get a national HoS, the monarch is just a symbol.-- Gazzster ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the UK Parliament can tell the other 15 Commonwealth realm Parliaments what to do, concerning their monarchies. GoodDay ( talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the Canadian Parliament could keep the SoW in its own Constitution. In any event, it would make for good theater. GoodDay ( talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not so. The Statute of Westminster enacted explicitly:
No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
In other words, no tinkering with the UK Act would affect what the other countries had subsequently enacted, including constitutional legislation in the other countries. - Bill Reid | Talk 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We have our head-ons, but you've got your head screwed on. And I enjoy discussing stuff with you. Can I ask you, about changing the succession: isn't there talk about B Palace changing male primogeniture to make it more in line with the more liberal monarchies on the Continent?-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And that stuff about the UK promoting its interests in Aus thru the monarchy? Elaborate on that please. Is that your own idea, or is it national policy?-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. I tend to agree with you about the dangers of amending the succession, from Britain's point of view. Revolutions tend to occur not when the Ancien Regime is intransient, but when it starts reforming itself. Old Louis lost his head because he couldn't reform fast enough. So why start in the first place?-- Gazzster ( talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Empire used to be Britain's raison detre, it's soul, so to speak. Bringing civilisation, prosperity, good governance and Christianity to the savages. And now I suppose its having trouble reassessing its place in the world? If it reformed the monarchy or even abolished it, it would not know itself. I don't mean to criticise your nation. Lots of nations in fact have this post-colonial identity crisis. Now that the Cold War is over, the USA doesnt know what to do with itself. Paradoxically it seems like the newly emancipated nations have a better idea of themselves, like Germany, the former Warsaw Pact countries, etc.-- Gazzster ( talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. How do you feel about nation or country being in that article's lead? There's a discussion going on about it, which I just about ready to depart (due to the fact, I value my sanity). GoodDay ( talk) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have informed the other user as I am informing you, you are going to break 3RR if you continue editing on this page. Please stop editing on the page for 24 hours or you might also be blocked. If the other editor breaks 3RR don't revert but inform the Admins of this event. If you try to revert or edit the page you might also be blocked. Please try to solve the problem of this page on the talk page. Thanks for the cease fire :-) -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No thanks - im quite happy maintaining reality in this specific instance for the moment :). siarach ( talk) 13:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. Don't forget to get a consensus on those articles 'talk pages' first. If you won't to 'merge' those pages. GoodDay ( talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I recommend leaving the 'fact tags' on the 'state offices' edits (until things are settled). Better to have the tags there, then having the state offices edits reverted. GoodDay ( talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure not suggesting any kind of censuring of comments at the discussion at List of British monarchs; but, calling Scotland 'crap'? may get you unwanted attention. Again, it's your choice. GoodDay ( talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The joke consisted of the fact that the statement has a double meaning, and can just as easily be interpreted as saying that England is pretty much crap as well. TharkunColl ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I took offence and I am "English" insofar as "English" exists. British would be correcter really -- Camaeron ( talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
You may be interested in this Talk:List of countries by formation dates#Where is England?. For once you might be on my side = )! -- Camaeron ( talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC) YOu may also want to vote at Talk:List of countries by formation dates#United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the vote...see you there = ) -- Camaeron ( talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Flag of Scotland. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Hello Tharky. I think you better check your home-page, it's being vandalized. GoodDay ( talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I'd suggest you have your 'followers' understand something. If they're planning to follow you around on the articles (for editing & discussions etc)? I fear they 'might' create the impression of sockpuppetry on your part. That's an impression, I don't want them to create. I'm hoping they're faithfull followers & that they're not trying to get you into trouble. GoodDay ( talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the image on your talk page, the crest of the so called Order of TharkunColl to be disgusting and racist. I will make it my personal crusade to have that image deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fletcher ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the "Mohammed" pictures on your userpage. That's really not a good idea. Black Kite 10:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TCORDER.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, TharkunColl. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What was it about your 'image', that AF found so racist? Which 'image' did he find offensive. Also, what happend to AF. I feel as though there was a riot & I missed it. GoodDay ( talk) 14:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not guilty of this offense and have not been using multiple accounts
Decline reason:
Checkuser says otherwise. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I assure you I am not ShieldDane or any of those others, and my IP address will prove it. What does checkuser say? How does it work?
Decline reason:
Wikipedia records your ip address every time you edit. Checkusers have access to this information and have proven that the ip address you're using is the same as the ones being used by ShieldDane and the others. Also please do not open another unblock request, if you have anything else to say just say it, I have this page on my watchlist — Chris 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I appear to have been blocked for an offence I did not commit. Can somebody explain to me what checkuser is, and how it works, because I am NOT ShieldDane or any of those others. Doesn't it check IP addresses? Oh, and for the record, I have made no racist comments whatsoever. TharkunColl ( talk) 07:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not ShieldDane or any of those others. How is it possible for them to have the same IP address as me? How was it checked? TharkunColl ( talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just e-mailed all the Wikipedia checkusers (listed here [8]) that had e-mail links on their user or talk pages. I would have simply left a message on their talk pages, but since I'm blocked I can't do that. I do not believe that anyone has actually checked the IP addresses yet, because if they had, they would know that this block is unjustified. TharkunColl ( talk) 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran a checkuser on you, checkuser found that through your IP, you were using multiple sockpuppets to abuse editing rights, if, by a wild coincidence, you have not been using sockpuppets, then you have been blocked for gross incivility, trolling, baiting and vandalism. Joshuarooney2008 ( talk) 09:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I don't complain about people who simply hold opinions that are different to mine - that's what's called freedom of speech. My complaint against Joshuarooney is that he lied about running a user check on me. TharkunColl ( talk) 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just letting people know that I have now been vindicated. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TharkunColl, where an official checkuser, having checked all the IP addresses, states: "Unrelated Users are in the US, Canada, GB, and Australia, and do not appear to be proxies." In short, I have no sockpuppets or multiple accounts. TharkunColl ( talk) 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly apologize, Tharkun. To be honest, I fucked up spectacularly. I had made the mistake of thinking that the CU had been run, given the way Joshua presented it, and had failed to dig any deeper to expose the lie. Sorry, and I hope that things work out better should we meet again. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's why we all speak Latin in Ireland. To be honest with you, I don't really care about your edits one way or the other. But on that same basis, the Irish conquered ancient Britain. Really I cannot see your points, but I'm not going to bother changing it again. I've better things to do, like go to bed, and have a good sleep for myself. 78.19.155.129 ( talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
|
The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar | |
Camaeron doth hereby award thee "The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar" for thine help to the article List of Irish monarchs and generally maintaining the quality of monarchy-related articles. We may not always see eye to eye but I appreciate your contributions and hold your opinion in high regard! Keep up the good work! -- Camaeron ( t/ c) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hello Tharky. WOW, did I ever get worked over at that article. I suggested there, that they change their map to show that Scotland was a part of the UK (the way it's done at England, Northern Ireland & Wales); my proposal didn't receive a good reception (nor did I). GoodDay ( talk) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome aboard, Tharky. GoodDay ( talk) 19:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You've resigned? I truly wish you'd reconsider. GoodDay ( talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello TharkunColl. Perhaps you are not a spelunker and/or haven't been to Ireland, but believe me, it is rather a nice place and not at all resembling a hellhole. [9]
That notwithstanding, using such invective language is only likely to inflame other editors. It is particularly inappropriate considering you had just noted that ArbCom has chastised Sarah for doing the same thing. I have archived that entire section and asked the others to take a step back at this point and let the AfD run its course. Please consider doing the same. Rockpocke t 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I had considered moving List of British monarchs to List of Monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom (though perhaps splitting it into List of Monarchs of Great Britain & List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom might be better). But in doing so, we'd have to change the English, Scottish, Welsh & Irish list to match (example: List of Monarchs of X) - and the Scots at List of Scottish monarchs won't go for it. PS: If you & Derek Ross, wish to speak to them (Scots)? that would help; my relations with them is currently distant. GoodDay ( talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just proposed split/rename at List of British monarchs, though I suspect it won't be accepted. GoodDay ( talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
someone deleted a valued and reputable Legion's talkpage? How random and rude. If we'd at least known, we could have moved the content. special, random, Merkinsmum 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask to what your name refers? A reference to the "Staff-man" perhaps?-- Cameron ( t/ c) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"My" narrow defintion??? It's a dictionary term, and if it's not clear anyway then it should surely be avoided. There's also a note on the article's talk page. I've actually been trying for months to get Scotland changed but have failed to obtain a consensus. Some edittors have been making the change on England and Wales (not Northen Ireland mind) to illustrate a point in favour of Scotland's current, and incorrect, phraseology.
If you want to obtain a consistency, I don't mind, but then of course, the UK becomes a nation, as does the US, Canada and other countries and states. -- Jza84 | Talk 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello TC, how are things? I have a vague memory that the period around the Norman conquest was one of your interests, is that right? Regards, Mr Stephen ( talk) 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in case your interested, these guys have been arguing for the same thing on the Scotland page for what seems like eons. Also they miraculously seem to turn up at an article at the same time, so if you have no one backing up your opinion your always up against it! -- Jack forbes ( talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in WP:Requests for comment/Bardcom. Tb ( talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
I actually support your idea; but I don't see where there's a consensus for it. I'm not disputing you, just being cautious. GoodDay ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK Tharky, I've reverted to your version. I'll leave it in your hands. GoodDay ( talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tharky, I notice you have changed this article again by reverting my edit, and removing the reference. Can you help me understand your underlying logic for your edit? The website (the reference you removed, although it was duplicated so that's OK) describes itself as "The Kingdom of Drachenwald is a regional branch for Europe, Middle East and Africa of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA)". Any reason why you've decided to explain it as "Its borders cover all of Europe including the British Isles and Iceland as well as Africa, and the Middle East. In a humorous twist, it achieved its independence from the East on the fourth of July."? Especially when the term Europe already included the British Isles? Thank you. Bardcom ( talk) 11:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[outdented]Hmmmm. I think you're just playing games. Unless you produce a reference or verifiable source for your edit, this edit will be reverted. Bardcom ( talk) 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Random House Unabridged, "Europe", says, "In British usage, Europe sometimes contrasts with England." Wordnet says, "the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles." Tb ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) You might want to look at the page on EMEA [10]. Europe, Middle East and Africa is an extremely common designation and includes the UK and Ireland. Wotapalaver ( talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I'm not certain; but I think Wikipedia frowns on mass removal of ones postings from a discussion. Why? Such removals disrupts the discussion's flow. GoodDay ( talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay ( talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you want to bow out? You've not been accused of anything. GoodDay ( talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, you meant to open up the Accession Council discussion at Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms, but accidently opened it up at Wikipedia: WikiProject Royalty; the 2 WikiProjects are similiar. I've made many a mistake like that on Wikipedia, before. GoodDay ( talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note - de jure reigns are mentioned in both WikiProjects; that too, could've confused you. GoodDay ( talk) 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind adding you interests to our "new" member list!? The link is here. Thanks so much! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've removed this again. It is clearly labelled on the map and the accompanying text under the map as a map of the spread of a nonexisting megalithic culture. A map of the locations of megalithic architecture to match the article's section on that would be great, but this map isn't one. Please don't restore it. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Capital D or small d with regards to what?-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Capital D is preferable.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge it is just a convention.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You say in " And did those feet in ancient time" quite correctly that not all independent schools are public schools. I was trying to word it so that it would universally understood. Wikipedia is used by non-Brits as well. The term "prestigious independent schools" does cover the public schools fairly well. The sentence, as I drafted, it isn't wrong and is clearer. JMcC ( talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your question about England is a separate question entirely and not entirely relevant. Your edit stated that people who believed that the term British Isles had political overtones were wrong. Since there is reference in the British Isles article that says that the guys who coined the term have been described as wrapping politics into their geography that would be a hard argument to win. In any case, things like "overtones" and people's feelings are hard to be definite about. Better to simply state facts rather than putting our own value judgements on top. Even on the England example, I seem to remember on the British Isles talk page that you've said governments and authorities can't legislate for language but that if a majority of people use a term then it's the term, no matter whether some people don't like it or not. Right? Haven't you said that? If, for instance, 80% of Americans, 75% of Europeans, 95% of Indians, etc., call the UK England, wouldn't your argument mean that England IS the right name for the UK? Most people in those places DO call the UK England. Even people in Ireland do. That means you should go to the UK article and advocate a renaming to England. You can't have it both ways. Wotapalaver ( talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) I came back here by accident but oh dear, you're desperate to change the subject away from your double standard by any means possible. First, your double standard could be merely lazy/sloppy thinking or downright hypocrisy. Since I don't know your motives I can't tell which it is, merely that it's a double standard. Second, I'm sure you can provide a reference which demonstrates that it's only a "tiny minority". If you can't then it's just your OR and is entirely worthless. Third, an accusation of sockpuppetry is pretty serious. So, who am I a sockpuppet of? Since you don't name names you're just trying to change the subject again away from your double standard. Wotapalaver ( talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I'll let others respond to your postings at that WikiProject, concerning the title Monarch of Great Britain. Since you're not convincing me? it's only fair to allow you the chance, to try and convince others. GoodDay ( talk) 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad. I've given up on trying to bring the England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland articles, in sync. GoodDay ( talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey buddy, you're getting into an edit war it seems. Might want to discuss stuff with the other editor first. :) Jmlk 1 7 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
From talk: Monarchy of the United Kingdom -- IMHO, Starkey is a smarty-pants fella, who doesn't cover enough things about pre-1707 Scotland. He also treats 1603-1707 Scotland as subordinate to England. Perhaps, I'm just being grumpy though. GoodDay ( talk) 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if he's got any plans for a Scotland monarchs only series. GoodDay ( talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There are some lovely discussions about this topic located here and here. I'm not going to change Great Britain, but you might be interested in participating in these pointless and tiresome arguements. Have fun! 86.29.138.224 ( talk) 14:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to be a stickybeak here, but I noticed that you removed 'II' from the title of Ethelred (etc.) II: the fact is, it is in current use, and if you're worried about what he was called in his own time, you would also remove 'the Unready', as that's not contemporary either. The enumeration distinguishes him usefully from his ancestor King Ethelred of Wessex. If you still feel you have good reason for this removal, would you please enlighten me before doing it again? Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so as you know, I've raised this issue on Ethelred's talk page. Nortonius ( talk) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Templi Kalendae article is still lacking any sources. This may indeed be a notable subject and a worthwhile article, and all the information may be accurate; as it stands there's no way for us to tell. This has been tagged as needing improvement for about a year and a half now; if no references are forthcoming I'm going to propose the article for deletion. See Talk:Templi Kalendae for more details. Cheers, Fuzzypeg ★ 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{dated prod}}
notice and leave a note regarding your intentions on the talk page. Otherwise the article will be deleted in about five days. Thanks, and sorry for stomping all over your hard work...
Fuzzypeg
★
23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Just thought I'd tell you a question was co-directed at you at the following page Talk:Lord#An_English_title.3F. regards -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Were you aware, that King Offa has been jettisoned from that article (again)? GoodDay ( talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tharky. I just don't wanna see you guys getting blocked, over these British vs Irish disputes. Believe me, my 'page protection requests' aren't calculated. GoodDay ( talk) 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there an article (other then BI), that this issue of BI usage on Wikipedia, could be worked out? GoodDay ( talk) 00:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend you guys jointly set up a Mediation concerning the British Isles usage on Wikipedia. PS- IMHO having 2-articles British Isles and Great Britain and Ireland is a headache. GoodDay ( talk) 13:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the writer has not taken the time or courtesy to inform you, I thought I would let you know there is a thread mentioning you here Wikipedia:ANI#Wikistalking Merkin's mum 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Let's start with your newest incident of blind reverting of 8 articles, with no comments or reasons as to why you have reverted my edits. This is vandalism. -- Bardcom ( talk) 11:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well said, Merkinsmum. I've added a proposed solution at User talk:Wotapalaver#vandalism which I think will be the way forward. -- John ( talk) 23:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
See here Wikipedia:ANI#Blind reversion of edits, despite earlier warnings for the latest thread. -- Bardcom ( talk) 11:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work on the british isles article. Wikigrrl21 ( talk) 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Thark. I see Bardcom is at it again. I've tried to disuss this matter with him but to no avail. You've been around here longer than me. Do you know what can be done to pursuade him to stop? Simply reverting his edits is no good. Is there some procedure that can be invoked? CarterBar ( talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You're right that Image:Arms-st-albans.jpg is ok for fair-use in Mercia. The reason the bot got upset was that on the image page it didn't mention Mercia, just Saint Albans. I've updated the image page, so there's nothing needs doing, so this is just for your info really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky, how are ya & where are ya? GoodDay ( talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm cool. GoodDay ( talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please address the issue by resolving it on the talk page of Muhammad article. It appears as an issue that distabilising the article, otherwise considered stable. You have to agree a solution without resorting to editwars and by providing WP:RS otherwise your comments will be dismissed. Wikidās - ॐ 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some reason for you revert of my work instead of just "Removed POV" as an edit note! Waht was the POV? In removing it all (including what we had) you just set up the IP to replace what we had. I found your response to my Talk on my edit a bit terse too - where do you actually stand on the issues? You responded to my 'suggestion' for the future - not at all to the actual text, which you then reverted entirely! I hope you appreciate that somebody is trying to work for the benefit of this article here. My name is now 3 times in the bloody edit list - that's a nightmare for me, and I just don't understand why you put me in that position. I just can't see any sense in it at all - I really can't. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My name is Iamzork, and I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case 2008-06-06 British Isles. I would like to strongly encourage you to take part in this informal, non-official mediation, and remind you that if you accept, you are free to disregard any results of it - I am an editor like you and have no "real" power whatsoever. Mediation will continue among other editors regardless of your consent, and you may choose to participate or not. Also, feel free to remove yourself from the list of "involved parties" on the case page if you wish. I and all of the other involved editors respect your decision, whatever it may be. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Iamzork ( talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?
The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.
Sincerely
JnW talk 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here about a possible expansion of Wikiproject Commonwealth realms to incorperate all the British Empire topics! Please take the time to comment = ). -- Cameron ( T| C) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky, we miss you. It's been 15-days, where are ya? GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Just caught your edit at Elizabeth II. Thought I'd say hi. Haven't seen u for a while.-- Gazzster ( talk) 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ireland. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. I notice that you are starting your,well discussed,
British Isles edits again on Irish pages. Please desist and discuss on the talk page before re-adding.
ww2censor (
talk)
16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
wow, sorry for this. Looks like I got caught up in the whole terminology dispute without meaning to. I've also explained my actions on the talk page but just to clarify completely: my problem is nothing to do with whether it's called the British Isles or Great Britain. It's to do with specifically a confusing sentence that I first rewrote, then, when I mis-read your revert of a previous edit regarding the BI/GB conflict as disagreeing with me, I instead decided to remove the sentence as a compromise over a non-existent conflict :) I've explained my exact problem with the sentence on the talk page. Hopefully we can sort out this mess sensibly. -- 86.164.119.62 ( talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you've restored British Isles to that article? Now, that's gutsy. GoodDay ( talk) 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, you've added British Isles there, too? Where's my football helmit. GoodDay ( talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tharky. If I were you, I'd report GH's block-evading IPs to the Administrators. By getting into any edit wars with him? you'd be playing right into his hands. He's in a position where he feels he's got nothing to loose. GoodDay ( talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tharky, you are reverting edits on 4 articles in particular - Furry Dance, Scottish Green Party, Salve Regina (where you inserted the term incorrectly and unnecessarily), and Porteous family. The criteria for any claim is that you can provide a reference. I've patiently waited and not edit-warred over any of the articles while waiting for references, but to date I've not seen any from you. After waiting a reasonable length of time with no response to requests, I change the article and you simply revery again. This is not how Wikipedia works. You have not provided references - and you don't seem either interested or capable of doing so. Neither have I seen any argument that makes any kind of sense, and reverting with comments such as "politically motivated decision" is a personal comment, which is untrue. I've warned you in the past - please do not make such comments in the future. They are (allegedly) not tolerated on wikipedia. So, simple question. Can you provide references to back up the claims? -- HighKing ( talk) 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Zomg! This sounds well good. Have you ever been? Sticky Parkin 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is your only warning.
The next time you make a
personal attack as you did at
User talk:Sarah, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Any more like that, and you will be blocked
DDStretch
(talk)
22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
When did you go to canada and how did you end up going there? Sticky Parkin 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There's not a snowball's chance in hell that these sort of pics can pass the critera for non-free content. All Anglo-Saxon coin images are replaceable either in the sense that you can go to a museum and photograph one, or in the sense that you can find freely licensable pictures of them. For Halfacanute, or whatever his name was, have a look here. There is a picture of one of his pennies on plate VI, image 184. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Like your new posting-name (partially in green, too); gives it an Irish feel. GoodDay ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky; I didn't know of that thingy, about the names following the river flow. Guess a fella learns something new everyday. GoodDay ( talk) 19:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Beats me. GoodDay ( talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I once heard that BP security wanted to fit some kind of maschine guns to the roof, which The Queen vehemently opposed. I can't find any info at all at the moment. I've often wanted to read up about it but security regulations mean so little info is released about security measures...The whole thing came up just after a security scare. I think it was a report on BBC, do you recall it?-- Cameron * 09:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone interested in forming one? Anyone is welcome as far as I'm concerned, whether pro or anti. ðarkun coll 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Given that I'm neither pro nor anti, but interested in accurate usage, I suppose this could be useful. Will the scope of the Wikiproject cover usage and if not, can I suggest that perhaps it does? Thank you. -- HighKing ( talk) 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What's spooky is that you'd think it spooky that someone who consistently opposes applying the offensive term "British" Isles to include Ireland would oppose a "WikiProject British Isles" that encompasses Ireland. You must think I've fallen asleep at the wheel! You mistake me for Bardcom I think! Sarah777 ( talk) 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There could be a lot of support for this. It was in discussion when Bardcom firt started his run of edits, simply as a way of making sense of things in a way that didn't involve following a single editor's tracks, and seeing if he had made a decent edit or not. It would have to be called "Wikiproject:British Isles", as it would be about the use of that term. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) My initial idea which I put to HighKing on his talk page was for a taskforce dealing specifically with the use of "British Isles". I think that would help prevent the problems of a single, and thus exposed, editor doing all the work alone, and thereby attracting quite unnecessary personal attacks, as well as having a built-in "quality control" by formal joint scrutiny of individual cases by many editors, to make sure all actions concerning the use and fate of occurrences of "British Isles" were the best ones that could be done. I still think that would be sufficient, and suggest it could be a joint taskforce or workgroup to the Ireland and the United Kingdom projects. What other issues might the proposed project deal with, apart from the use of "British Isles" which isn't already covered by other projects? DDStretch (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
e/c DDStretch has a point in that some won't like it, but the term is simply widely used, and the project can cover geographic issues, and list the pages that use it etc. It will also help keep the ever-scrolling (and repeating) debate off pages like British Isles talk, which ought to be focusing on the content more. I'm sure Sarah would come round if it handles the dispute element properly (and if she doesn't we have to realise she is just one person). I discussed a BI Wikiproject with CarterBar in May. I left the disscusion on my talk page, though ran out of resolve/confidence/general 'will to live' to start it (I would have 'been bold'). Interestingly, CarterBar first proposed a Noticeboard. Maybe that is more what DDstretch has in mind? -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the taskforce idea, who will decide what its policies are? How can you possibly do this without a debate beforehand - as in-depth as possible - unless it's by diktat? ðarkun coll 08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
One again, you are ignoring, the difference between debate and appropriate debate, which I have commented on before. I have not suggested that there would not be appropriate debate, but you choose for whatever reasons you may have, to ignore that fact again here. Now, I suggest that if your contributions on this matter represent the standard of debate or even "juicy debate" you wish to promote in this wikiproject you are suggesting, then it will not be a good move. I suggest you take a lesson from your previous blocks for baiting editors, and reform your behaviour. DDStretch (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not appreciate having my proposals belittled and misrepresented on my own talk page. Please desist. This is the second time you have falsely accused me of something (see User talk:TharkunColl#Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem). ðarkun coll 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've decided that the time has come to rewrite poor old Ned's biography. I suppose you have it watchlisted already? I'd be grateful if you'd scream if there's any of the changes don't make sense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the BI insertion on the Shannon being rolled-back? No precedence being set, or suggestion that it isn't right for the article - just an act of good faith? We can start then without the Shannon being locked, and the task force will have more support.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
By User:Ddstretch for 2 weeks simply for making a comment. He has no right to stop me from commenting, and he hasn't even bothered informing me of the block on my talkpage (thereby preventing me from appealing). This is a grotesque and flagrant abuse of his authority. ðarkun coll 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If you gave me the chance to place the block notice instead of posting the attacking message, resulting in edit conflicts that delayed the block notice, you will see that I was conforming with policy!
DDStretch
(talk)
17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edits after the block notice was placed indicate that you are intent upon misrepresenting the state of affairs that came about by your own actions in producing edit conflicts. You do have a right of appeal, and the block notice was not in place because you were busy complaining about the block, this causing edit conflicts that prevented the block being placed in the first place. I suggest you alter the attacking notice to this section, as it may not appear to be a good sign to any reviewing admin. DDStretch (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I have broken no rule whatsoever! See here
Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#Task force - first task.... As far as I know, an admin does not have the right to request someone to shut up, and block him if he refuses. My comments were perfectly reasonable and inoffensive, and I have a perfect right to make them.}}
DDStretch, what exactly lead to this block? I am looking over his contribs and don't see anything worth a 2 week block. Am I missing something? Unless I can get an explanation that makes this block make sense, I will reverse it. This seems like a content issue. Chillum 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, DD was here just a moment ago when he blocked you. If he does not show up to explain this in another 5 minutes I am going to unblock you. Chillum 18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) TharkinColl has a history of being provocative that has led to previous blocks, the last one being for 2 weeks. In the context of this matter, his edits led to River Shannon being completely protected, overt the matter of including "British Isles" in the article, which is known to be inflammatory to Irish editors. Becasuse of the greater problems surrounding "British Isles", a taskforce was proposed. TharkunColl has argued that a lot of "juicy debate" is required when this will only inflame matters further, and people were in the process of giving their opinion about a carefully focussed taskforce to consider all articles which had "Britis Isles" added to them to see whether the term was justified or not and then what to do with it. This had to be handled sensitively, as the issues cause a lot of drama. TharkunColl has throughout this been provocative, and his latest contribution was to produce as a first task (which had not been agreed upon at all, and happened before all opinions had been gathered) a new template which would add "British Isles" to lots of islands. I took this to be imprpoer, given the sensitivity of the matter, and given his previous blocks for being inflammatory. So, I asked for ipinions, but asked him to not respond until others had commented, and he bluntly refused. I considered his actions to be provocative and having the effect of stalling the necessary taskforce before it began to work, and so I reviewed his past blocks, and decided to block him for the same amount of time that he was last blocked for. I am happy for this to be reviewed by any other administrators, but my onest opinion was that he was being unduly provocative, in line with his previous behaviour. DDStretch (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I may have beaten Ddstretch ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to the unblock request. Regardless, I read the brouhaha at WP:ANI, and I really can't support a two-week block with the reason of, "Failure to abide by a polite request". That's simply not an acceptable reason in accord with Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Blocks are to prevent disruption. In fact, blocking someone for participating in a discussion has a chilling effect and seems a lot more disruptive than the original request. Now, could all parties involved please try to get along? -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. ðarkun coll 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Tharcuncoll started the "Task force - first task" ( his words) before the poll for the 'British Isles Terminology Taskforce' was over. He signed up to it: and is clearly said a neutral member of the Geography Wikiproject must open it, followed by input by all. He started the ball rolling himself in a clearly provocative way, and in a way that could now jeopardise the Taskforce actually starting: and the template he made had NO prior discussion behind it. Are all the editors above suggesting this is acceptable behaviour? I'd like to hear their opinion one by one? I'm not judging on the block decision - just the lack of time people seem have taken to look at this case. No warning was given to Tharcuncoll, only an undermining of DDStretch. It looks to me like a green light to Tharcuncoll for more disruption? I would like to hear comments from all involved. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 18:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
As usual the drama around British Isles tends to occur while I'm signed-out. Some editors have all the fun. GoodDay ( talk) 19:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm on holiday so haven't been online much but if that block had been perpetuated I would have been very shocked. I 'voted' for DDStretch in their requst for adminship and strongly endorsed, so I hope to see them not making insultative comments to someone's talk page in future in violation of WP:CIVIL. Sorry if I've contributed indirectly to your distress. Sticky Parkin 11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume you disagree with the sandbox suggestion. Oh well, it was just a thought. GoodDay ( talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to be a stinker; Why do ya say, your articles? GoodDay ( talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahh but; once an article enters Wikipedia's public domain, it's everybodies article. Thus the reason I suggested you should transfer it to your sandbox (for now). GoodDay ( talk) 00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Islands of the British Isles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you want me to add you to WP:Empire? We could definitely do with your expertise there! Regards, -- Cameron * 17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit, and per Sarah777's comment on my talk page, I think she has a very fair point indeed here. From what she's saying she 1) proposed the merger some time ago and there was no dissent, then 2) put a ton of work into the merger and implemented it. This was then immediately reverted by you with the statement, "I oppose such a merger". Indeed, but the time to do that has largely passed and Sarah and the rest of the community deserve far more than a cursory statement like that and a revert, IMO. While I've no real opinion either way on the merger-or-not, what you did was curt and dismissive in the extreme. Now, I know there's already trouble and mayhem over the fabled " British Isles" term, and I'm loath to step into that water, but let's be fair here - Alison ❤ 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Just thinking; perhaps a compromise could be made concerning these two terms. If we hide/delete British Isles usage? then we unhide Republic of Ireland usage; or vise-versa. GoodDay ( talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Allowing British Isles shown on (for example) River Shannon & Lough Neagh, means allowing Republic of Ireland being hid on (for example) Dublin. Or visa-versa. GoodDay ( talk) 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, your edits are backed by 'common usage' & 'avoid censurship'. GoodDay ( talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, we get one amendment this morning which inserts a date without citation. I then amend that to a date range with an authoritative citation. A couple of rounds later I revert (properly) to the position overnight before the first amendment to allow a discussion on the talk page. That is as far as I know proper wiki procedure. I did not initiate this change, but used a citable correction. So please explain why you have not allowed the stable version to stand but instead threatened to start an edit war? -- Snowded TALK 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. You're a stranger around here (Wikipedia), where've you been? GoodDay ( talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Great to know you're still in Wiki-town. GoodDay ( talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop the revert war immediately. Further reverts will result in a block. Putting in an appearance on the talk page might be a good idea. Thanks, Waggers ( talk) 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Waggers, an interested user, has blocked British Isles. So far as I know, this is not allowed. He seems to be using his admin facilities to maintain POV in an article. Are there any sanctions here? 141.6.8.74 ( talk) 10:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
Talk:Glowworm: 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. It's been a while since I warned someone over personal attacks, and I actively try to avoid this course of action where possible, but in this case I'll make an exception. Please keep your comments directed at the content. You've been asked for a reference, you have not provided one. Your comment is a personal attack as it infers that my edits are not in good faith and are incorrect or wrong. Yet you fail to enter into a discussion or argument. This behavior is not tolerated on WP.
HighKing (
talk)
13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
How is that a personal attack !? -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I am almost certainly correct in assuming that half of this little comedy act is you editing as an IP, I'll say this now - any more, and I won't just block the IP next time. Give it a rest, please. Black Kite 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
Derry: 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. Your constant revertings of my edits, calling them "Political" is a personal attack. I've asked you several times to stop, yet you ignore my requests and continue. Please keep your comments directed at the content and not at the editor. I do not edit politically, I edit for accuracy. You claim that I am "going around removing the term "British Isles" from wikipedia, yet if you check the guidelines in
WP:BISLES and check my editing history, you will see that I am only interested in accuracy and a non-political usage (as per guidelines). If you continue ignoring these warnings, there is every chance that you will be blocked on behavioural grounds. This behavior is not tolerated on WP.
HighKing (
talk)
17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, which you did here:
Drovers' Road. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Reverting by calling by comments "Trolling" is a clear personal attack. This behaviour is not tolerated on Wikipedia.
HighKing (
talk)
15:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, let's try to work this out here - TharkunColl Wikiquette Alert. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)@Tharky, what is it to be then? Taskforce seems logical. Mediation will probably point us there anyway... -- HighKing ( talk) 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tharky. My patience with IP accounts on the British Isles & Republic of Ireland articles? have been worn out. GoodDay ( talk) 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
European_Green_Party: 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. Please refrain from incivility towards other editors. Edit summaries are not to be used for spurious comments
BMW
(drive)
21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Tharky please maintain some sense of proportion. Your insertion of BI in the St David article was OK, but cup and ring! This is becoming a disruptive crusade, making everything into a pro and anti BI dispute rather than a sensible use of a geographical term. The more you do this, the more it looks like you have a political agenda. -- Snowded TALK 09:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement section regarding your wars with HighKing. Please see [13]. SirFozzie ( talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion in one place. I have removed [14] your thread from WP:AN as forum shopping. Jehochman Talk 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Your complaint about HighKing at the Admis noticeboard has been deleted by User:Jehochman. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
How does letting HK know, your ANI report on him was cancelled as forum shopping, make me a HK supporter? GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I'm not upset, just curious. GoodDay ( talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry 'bout it. GoodDay ( talk) 19:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino. A user posted a link to this on my talk page because I had interacted with G2B in the past, and he thought I might like to take a look and may have an opinion. So I thought I'd let you know of it too, as someone who has edited alongside him in the past, so you can decide what you think and if you want to comment one way or another as you see fit- or not.:) Sticky Parkin 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tharky. Do ya think it's possible to persuade England to create its own devolved government? Oh well, just a thought. GoodDay ( talk) 17:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course the UK Parliament is a continuation of sorts of the England Parliament and the Scotland Parliament. Are we repeating ourselves? GoodDay ( talk) 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as the coins go, I read something, somewhere, just the other day that dismissed this. I'll have to see if I can find it again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read the latest comment on the talk page and decide whether you need to take action to remedy the seeming WP:3RR violation. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an RfC on Roux aka PrinceofCanada. Not sure if you're interested but thought I'd let you know.:) Sticky Parkin 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've often wondered what outwith meant. But, my past experiences on that article, made me decide not to mention it. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Sovereign Mercia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Nuttah (
talk)
18:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Mercia Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Nuttah (
talk)
18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Impatient little soul aren't you. Anyway, you seem fairly well acquainted with Wikipedia so I'm sure you're aware that you need to talk to an admin to get pages undeleted. As for the articles, establish their notability and I'll not re-nominate them. Nuttah ( talk) 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Mercia Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
andy (
talk)
20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Sovereign Mercia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
andy (
talk)
20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the other articles - I've included them in the debate. Pedro : Chat 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a recent changes patroller, and I came across this [http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShieldDane#Run_away.3F], I traced back a bit to a conflict you were involved in a few months ago, it may be the same person, I am going to report this to AN/I, and you might want to have a say on the matter. Shnitzled ( talk) 19:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer constituent country. But, we ain't gonna got through that, again. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the St. George cross is the flag that normally represents the English. However, if there is testimony from ancient Welsh sources that the Saxons used a white dragon flag, and there is confirmation from that website [15] that people are starting to use it again, then I don't see why it shouldn't be added to the Ethnic flag article. Also, I think it should be included because apparently it represents all of the Saxons rather than just subgroups of the Saxons (which are the flags you downloaded). I originally downloaded almost all the flags into the ethnic flag article in May and June of 2008. I was very happy to see all the English and German ethnic flags (and that Frisian flag) that you downloaded into the article a few days ago. I think they are a wonderful contribution to the article! Keraunos ( talk) 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Roflmao- from Nensha-
"many of Serios' thoughtographs were produced while Serios was drunk or drinking alcohol. According to Eisenbud, "Ted Serios exhibits a behavior pathology with many character disorders. He does not abide by the laws and customs of our society. He ignores social amenities and has been arrested many times. His psychopathic and sociopathic personality manifests itself in many other ways. He does not exhibit self-control and will blubber, wail and bang his head on the floor when things are not going his way." -us on new year's lol Sticky Parkin 00:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, definitely sounds like fun! ðarkun coll 13:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Think you could cope with it?:) Sticky Parkin 13:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello you asked a question about the succesion box error for charles vii bieng disputed with henry vi.henry vi was ordained by the law so was regognized as the legal king of france even though in principle or theroy he had possestion of france.since the start in 1420 charles vii usurped legal authorithy from charles vi by declaring himeself regent of the south this is obvoiusly not legal but in practice charles vii did rule the area. In 1421 he orderd the throne be passed to henry vi so this made henry vi a dauphine since he was the heir of the future king of france henry v and charles king of bourges was stripped of legal rights to be called a dauphine.On 21 of october henry vi was soveriegn legaly as the king of france and made charles a rebel as he was known to be rebel of both henry and charles vi.charles took up the title as king of france but was a gesture and an illigitimate claim since there was rumours of his mother havin affairs with the duke of orleons.henry vi was thus called henry ii of france but lost his throne in 1429 when charles vi became the official legal king in 1429 thanks to his corination in rheims.In 1431 henry vi was crowned but was as attempt to secure his legal possition as king it failed later whrn papacy showed support for charles vii in 1534.as henry vi was king of france from 1422 to 1429 this made john the duke of bedfords title as regent of france completely legal.1429 is a perfect date for charles vii to be the monarch of france in because it is all to do with the law.-- 89.101.101.68 ( talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
British Isles. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Canterbury Tail
talk
15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Jumpin' Junipers, a third Administrator hasn't been found yet. It's gotta be 'bout three weeks, now. GoodDay ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ya'll convinced me, I'll remain as semi-retired. GoodDay ( talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Tharky, since you're the other editor involved, it was pointed out to me that I inadvertantly deleted the term "British Isles" from Football in the United Kingdom. Feel free to revert my edit if you disagree with it, I won't revert. I hadn't event noticed the term - I think I got as far as Home Nations in the sentence... -- HighKing ( talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated FC de Rakt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. BigDunc Talk 14:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have asked WikiProject Football to have a look at the AfD on the womens football team. BigDunc Talk 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated FC de Rakt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you added some kings down the bottom of the list under fictional heading. These names mostly also appear at the top of the whole list. Is this your intention? (because those may not be fictional) Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello and Greetings.I think you saw my article and I dont think it should be deleted.You know the angevin empire was destroyed but we dont say it never actually existed and the same is with the double-monarchy.It is what historions state as I have gave sources in the article.It was formed under the Treaty of Troyes and Henry VI becme king of both kindoms.I am not pushing on any side on wether Henry or Charles VII was king of france but I had to start with Henry in order for the rticle to make sence.BTW this is my first article and I will later mention Charles VII and France during the time.I hope you still wont consider deleting the article.If you do no hard feelings but this is an important section as hundreds of Historions have written books about the inguaration of the french monarchy after Charles VI death to Henry VI.Looking forward to your rely.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 12:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
First Chapter.Sorry cant mention all the souces.P.S whats you point bieng if it was only regognized in English occupied regions+Burgundy+Brittiny+Gascony.The local french populace where also encouraged for there own personal oppinion as part of Bedfords propoganda tool and northen frenchmen were happy to have henry as there french king as narrated by R.A GRIFFITHS on the chapter of the dual Monarchy.You do know that there was a new minted coin for france in 1422 as Henry VI with three fleur de lys as a representation for the dual monarchy.The same is with the union of Burgundy and flanders in 1387.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You do know that your recent edit to the British Isles talk page will be reverted don't you? Not by me, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. This article is like a never ending game of pass the parcel. When we are all old and grey the same edits and arguments will still be going on. In saying that, after being involved in the Macedonia naming dispute this is like a breath of fresh air. Jack forbes ( talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your change has been reverted. MITH 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Rakt. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Stifle (
talk)
11:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you noticed? There is another Republican making obnoxious statements about the British Isles, comparing this term to "Nigger". I swear, that article is pure quicksand. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. ( talk) 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that rather than the sheepish kind, there is another type of shagger who has just made trouble for you, so I moved your edit to the image page, as the thing instructed. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. ( talk) 07:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
All you need to do, is check my edit history. They are tag-teaming me again.
Lutetia
Petuaria |
18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tharky, haven't seen you around too much lately, hope everything is OK. I've posted this on the British Isles Talk page:
Not sure but I think it was you that dug this out originally - is there a publically accessible link anywhere, or it a case of going to the British Museum to look at their copy? ;-) Thanks for any help. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw that. Couldn't let it go without a comment is all. ;-) -- HighKing ( talk) 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've noticed you furiously undoing my edits without any due justification on the talk page. I am assuming good faith in hoping you have good reasons for that. Lets discuss on the talk page before engaging in an edit war. Besides, the term 'founder' has been given to Muhammed (pbuh) by the non-Muslim world and is denounced completely by the Muslim one. Hoping to see you on the talk-page. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 09:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
ADB, when someone challenges an addition to an article it is best to go to the talk page of that article and seek consensus for including it. If you can accomplish that then those who object will need to respect the consensus. Chillum 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Those discussons remind me of a Blackadder Goes Forth episode. Blackadder questions Darling as to whether he's a German spy & Darling claims he's as British as Queen Victoria. Blackadder, growls back about Victoria German ancestry. GoodDay ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The more amusing irony!
Lutetia
Petuaria |
18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 8#Template:British monarchs.
Hiya Tharky. I'm too lazy to check, who created & snuck this Template in under my nose? GoodDay ( talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There are currently two templates, as per the consensus in the recent AfD debate. One is for English & British monarchs, and the other for Pictish & Scottish monarchs. Both emphasise the essential continuity between their two respective lists. The pre-1603 Scottish kings don't appear on the English & British list. ðarkun coll 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If a Template: English monarchs is created? I'd easily accept an expanded Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. GoodDay ( talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It's gonna take a long while for me, to fix up these Templates. Jumpers, what a mess. GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Tharky. I'm just about ready to leave that Template (as I see it as pro-English PoV pushing). I'm sorry dude, but you're trying my patients & I don't won't to say anything un-polite. GoodDay ( talk) 22:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please remove that tag. This is a "troubles related" article and your intervention here may constitute edit warring. If you don't remove it I will have to ask an Administrator to do so. Sarah777 ( talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
England is not a devolved country, but is a country! Now you have removed the D word I am happy -- Snowded TALK 10:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You've seen the standard block notices before, so it's probably best put into plain language. You've been blocked for 24 hours, for edit warring at
British Isles in violation of the editing restriction imposed at
Talk:British_Isles#Protected_again_-_please_read_WP:BRD. I realise that you may be unaware of this restriction, but I was swayed by your edit comment which implies a presumption of bad faith. That said, I will gladly unblock you if you're willing to abide the the above-mentioned editing restriction (in a nutshell, not to revert a revert, but instead to discuss). Regards,
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll agree, that using James VI & I in the opening content & as the Infobox title, is a fair compromise (when considering the article title). GoodDay ( talk) 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you care to chip in on the talk page again? I realise you've probably argued the anti-Dee case a few times and are tired of it, but they're claiming consensus because there are too few people challenging the absurdity of the reference. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to revamp the lead sections of the Cornish people and (perhaps more importantly) English people. I have draft versions at User:Jza84/Sandbox5, but would welcome your input (I enjoyed the insight and balance you brought to the English folks' infobox image) very much. Any chance you could pop over, and perhaps fill in a few blanks and references? -- Jza84 | Talk 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've taken the liberty of updating the EU locator map showing internal member borders, but there seems to be ... resistance to exhibiting them. Having noticed that you were previously involved in a related discussion, I invite you to weigh in again. Thanks! Bosonic dressing ( talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm planning to split that template in-half. GoodDay ( talk) 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not going to be as easy, as I thought. GoodDay ( talk) 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As the creator of the article I am obliged to advise you that I have proposed British Isles naming dispute for deletion. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Say hello, to the new (and inclusive) Template. GoodDay ( talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to add the British monarchs to Template: English monarchs. Must we go through all this again? Like we did at the List of monarchs articles? GoodDay ( talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you catch this development, Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs? The old template for post-1707 monarchs got deleted in favour of a pc monstrosity. I've cross-posted this from Johnk's page. That neither of you have commented suggests you are unaware. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just anxious, that the fact is shown that the Scottish & English monarchies became the British monarchy (a poorly kept secret). Not the false claim, the English monarchy expanded & was re-named the British monarchy. GoodDay ( talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello TharkunColl,
If my memory and judgement serves me correct, I believe you may be something of a skeptic about certain things Cornwall or Cornish. Not really seeking an edit war, just trying to hunt a reliable source that counters claims of Cornish-Celtic ethnicity. I'm working on a revamp of the Cornish people article and so far everything really points to validating Celtic-Cornishness, which has prompted concern from other editors that its not reflecting alternative views about Cornish-Englishness (I'm indifferent - but want to make a stable, well rounded article). You wouldn't happen to know of anything that could help? -- Jza84 | Talk 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Tharky, I recall a while ago it was agreed between you and User:HighKing that there would be no more removals or additions of British Isles by either of you, and by implication, by other editors as well. Is that the gist of it? I ask because the issue has raised its ugly head again and there is presently a dialogue at User talk:HighKing/Archives/2009/September#British Isles removal concerning this matter, in which you may be interested. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sent to User:TharkunColl, User:HighKing, User:MidnightBlueMan.
I'll be clear here; the constant revert wars over these articles are disruptive. I have looked at some of the articles, and clearly in some cases one side is correct. For example, ( Greater White-fronted Goose should be "British Isles", or some construct that includes Ireland; it is easily sourceable that the species winters throughout the territory). Equally, Operation Herbstreise should clearly be "United Kingdom", because that's exactly what Operation Sealion was.
Regardless of who's "right" though, all this revert warring is disruptive. All parties have started checking other parties' edits and indulging in mass reverts. WP:BRD might only be an essay, but it's a core part of Wikipedia philosophy. So hear this, please; the next time I see any of these three editors taking part in mass reversion of another editor, I will block them, and such blocks will be of increasing time. Similarly, any persistent edit-warring on an article by multiple editors will risk blocking; it doesn't matter if you've breached 3RR or not. Any editor may notify me on my talkpage if they feel there is a problem.
There may be more editors that this needs to be sent to; I have aimed it at the main three protagonists. If other editors need to see this, please mention on my talkpage and I will include them as well. Thanks, Black Kite 10:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ethelred coin.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat ( talk)
Thanks for uploading File:Ethelbert coin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat ( talk) 15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Left him an explanatory note. Hopefully he will pay heed to it. Black Kite 16:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Tharky. If ya follow my contributions, they'll take you to the current discussion on where to & not to use British Isles on Wikipedia. GoodDay ( talk) 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you self revert the last edit you made to my talk page here. Personal attacks and incivility are not tolerated on Wikipedia, as you are aware. Also unblocking you was a courtesy, the other users where unaware of the edit restriction, you where fully aware of it having been blocked under it previously and agreeing to respect the restriction. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your work to remove inappropriate use of British Islands has been undone. I've corrected some of the reverts but - here we go again. Note that in at least one case the article originally used Isles, then HK changed it last year. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
British poetry - original HK change from Isles to Islands last year Dalby - ditto
Vesperinae - completely iditotic to use British Islands.
Other fauna articles appear to have used British Islands as a result of a mistranslation from Norwegian.
Others are now using British Islands in a totally inappropriate manner. Then again, Puerto Ricans in World War II should actually use UK, so I've corrected it. I'm reporting this here because of your corrective work on these matters and because I'm banned from HK's talk page. I guess he'll read this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [18]. Thanks, Black Kite 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite
11:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
All of my edits were to remove the patently incorrect British Islands. User:HighKing reverted them, and has reverted them again. So how come he wasn't blocked? He has caused untold disruption.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ahh go on, go on go on, ye will, ye will, ye will, Scruffy's in town, by the Crown. You know you want to! Sticky Parkin 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
File:KingAlfredStatueWantage.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:King Alfred Statue Wantage.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:King Alfred Statue Wantage.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have sorted out those article by removing any reference to BI at all using different sources. Most of them didn't need it. One of the articles only mentioned BI in a sentence that said "This beetle doesn't occur there"! Black Kite 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have my doubts whether commons:File:Ethelred coin.gif is really an "Æthelred I" penny. Grueber's Handbook of the coins of Great Britain and Ireland (not state of the art, but the best I can find) is available here. If you pick "Read online" and then jump to page "n347", you should be at plate IV. Image number 133 on that plate is a penny of "Æthelred I" with diademed bust. Not like yours! If you go to page "n351" and plate VI, which is "Æthelred II" at the top, those look much more like yours. I think you may have got the wrong Æthelred. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I was kicked out of chat twice: blocked for a day and then permabanned for saying the "wrong" thing.
Elsewhere now. Are you giving up on Sambo Whales? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 06:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Tharky. It's amazing that the news media, tabloids etc, still think the Queen decides the succession. GoodDay ( talk) 23:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thark, a question for you; what do you think of this reference [19] to support the text that HighKing has recently edited out of the above article? It's unclear whether Wikipedia, or this, or something else is the original - looks like it might be this reference but there could be some copyvio issues with the Wikipedia article. I ask you because HighKing rejects all references out of hand, and you are apparently knowledgeable in this area. What do you reckon - could we use this reference? Mister Flash ( talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
[20] The bloke's a real freak and questions why I removed his historical revision. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, let's us compromise. GoodDay ( talk) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a template, meant to help people navigate, not confuse them with multiple entries for the same person. ðarkun coll 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And will you do the research? ðarkun coll 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you make an exact copy of you proposed template at that talkpage. That way I could tweak it, to give an example of what I'm grumping about. GoodDay ( talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked administrator Rockpocket to revert the template to its previous version (while the discussion is on), as there was no consensus to change it. GoodDay ( talk) 17:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Almost Tharky, just a slight matter of Scottish regnal numbers & we've got it. GoodDay ( talk) 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no law against using /, it's less cumbersome & confusing (as far as William & Mary are concerned). GoodDay ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
He was indeed, though it seems he was never called that. Just like Edward I of England was really IV, and so on. Regnal numbers aren't ruled by logic or maths, you know. ðarkun coll 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
He was the second William to be king of Scotland, yes. But was he ever called that? That's the issue here. ðarkun coll 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confident the others will agree to our hard fought-compromise. GoodDay ( talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Serious questions:
How could folkishness be achieved without adequate documentation of a time preceding so many compromises and at what point could it be distinguished between a state and a people, between assimilation and individuality? Does not regionalism undermine tribalism? E.G. would it not be better for the cause of folkishness, to focus on Swedes, Northmen, Danes, Jutes (or perhaps Goths), Angles and Saxons rather than a statist Heptarchy kind of approach, despite the fact that these polities do have some documentation? How would it be possible to speak and believe in an "uncontaminated" manner, so that language and religion suffers no distortion, for as the Britons submitted to influence by the Gauls, so too have the Angles done with the Franks, thus showing the natural expression of geopolitical realities, much as the Scottish nation is tributary of the English? We have to be cognisant that it was our very own ancestors who willingly and even wilfully chose conversion or acclimation to new means and ways of life, that their incorporation was voluntary, as conquerors--it is also our freedom and pride which prevents us from throwing such changes away.
Would it not be a noble venture to free our cousins the Normans and Bretons from France, if our intent is to revive innate individualisms? Likewise, could not the Franks of France and Franconia reunite for their own sake? Even the Burgundians have a claim to Danish ancestry, so why stop there? All of the Germanic tribes are West Roman anyway, so what frees us to pretend that Britannia becomes changed to Germania, when the Gauls could not be entitled to convert Italy to Gallia? What is the right and actual fact by which we see or recognise the post-Migration Rome as having changed the provincial boundaries, rather than accept the obvious, that all had assimilated in their own way, to the new environments outside of Germania? Even Iceland was part of Britannia, as Thule. So then, what prevents the statist reality from confirming a community of the three major British islands, combined with folkishness, to include Armorica (which was originally Aquitainia), simply the continental coast of the Oceanus Britannicus? Considering this arrangement, what's to say that England does not have more of a simple commonality with Iceland than any part of old Germania? Those nations of the Continent should thus have a commonality without us. Therefore, why enjoin ourselves with those historically very closely related to us, whom have dropped their individuality and independence for homage to Frankishness, such as the Saxons, Normans and Bretons? To fall back to pre-Migration alignment, would entail that only Alba, Eire and Thule combine to a single British community and all Germanic offshoots throughout the West must come to similar terms, whether as we do in Britishness, or as Gauls, Spaniards, Italians, Africans, etc. Only pre-Migration Germania can thus, now also be Germania, despite any volkerwanderungs which occurred to the point of transforming some aspects of their new environments. I would vehemently disagree with the New World's qualities in respect of these arguments, simply for the precarious nature of colonialism juxtaposed with foreign immigrants colonising Europe. On the other hand, there might need be an expulsion of all foreigners with the exchange that colonists return, much like the Israeli law of return. Fair is fair...
Thanks mate! 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Another thing:
If there is the continual overthrow of Frankishness, then that undermines the very reconstruction of Europe in Germanic favour, thus reverting to the Latin predecessor. This is what happened in the Neoclassical era, although aided generally by republicanism throughout Western nations, yet it is interesting that the Corsican did not rename France to Gaul once again. Similarly, in the East, destruction of the Russians means that the Greek default would take precedence once again in Scythia. Do we simply accept the abolition of Migration Age Reconstruction of Europe, that the Franks and Russians had nothing worthy to contribute, in which case, derivative nations such as England and say, Poland also, should be considered forfeit accomplices of the West and East respectively? Did you know that John, when making England a papal fief like Germany, had his son Richard of Cornwall elected Emperor, this was the path by which England was almost made a candidate for leadership in Rome through the machinations of Henry III? Boohoo Magna Carta. We could simply pretend that Latin Britain and Frankish England don't exist, but then we'd be left with nothing and no recognition by the world, a state of self-denial, perfectly ripe for migrant conquest coming from overseas. The most realistic aspiration is provincialism within the larger scheme of things. I mean, how does a nation undo such things as the latin alphabet being the basis of one's entire communication, when Runes are Italic and probably Etruscan anyway? Could Cyrillic be deposed for its greek alphabetical origins? What would be the profit of returning to barbarism, especially after priding so much in the benefits of civilisation to the point of converting New World barbarians to our own influence, in whose present constitutions there is a blend of civilised and barbarian influences out of Europe through our works? What is purity?
Then again remains the thorny issue of religion. If Christianity is in the way, then how could it necessarily be alien, as the Goths pioneered Christianity in their own right, to pave the way for the Reformation? What's the essential difference of local heathen versions of Latin and Greek paganism in Germania and Scythia, versus "mainstream" Christianity of the Mediterranean and the Evangelical or Reformed types in the North? In each era of faith, one was generally subordinate in influence to the other, with some exchange making it interesting. In either case, Christianity as an institution could not be seen as irregular, for such cases as Judaism, Mithraism and other provincial expressions of Roman faith were freely worshiped in common throughout the empire, underneath the imperial cult. The difference is the special favour with which the imperium chose to ally with Judaism as adapted for and by Hellenism. (i.e. We still call the almighty father God/Woden or Deus/Zeus, with pagan roots to each, used in conjunction to Judaism, not in actual denial of either, only exclusion of one in this theological synbiosis becomes a problem.) Pagans and heathens themselves effected this transformation in the search for Wisdom, along the lines as Apollo and other searches for Truth. Truly, I don't see how we could have Adonis and not Elias, under the multicultural Roman basis that made a mishmash of everything, beliefs and bloods. It's not like Theodosius made circumcision an issue. If nativism on a provincial basis was to be stipulated for religious practice, then how do we account for the Galatians of Asia and the Vandals of Africa? These are almost certainly the predecessors of our Crusader ancestors and how could we not pride on them for their accomplishments? Why submit to the criticism of foreigners for our cultural inheritance as it has affected them? I really don't care how they feel. Historical precedent could argue for both pagan and Christian domination of Africa and Asia by Europeans of all stripes--even Russia has a claim in Scythopolis, but the Scythians generally were the bridge to India via them being part of Persia, Aryan homeland. Persia, being the very first tricontinental empire, with land in Asia, Europe, Africa, also extended as far south as the least navigable Nile Cataracts in Ethiopia. What then is our civilisation if we rip these symbols of historical progression from our inheritance? Simply convert the Muslims to Christianity rather than abandon Christianity to paganism as it has been allowing the Muslims Sharia law to replace Christianity, though our own efforts.
I'd appreciate your thoughts and let me know what's been going on. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you envision a corporate union of Angles and special rights to odal in Angeln, special preference for Yngvi-Freyr? How does Mercia feel about Eadric Streona? What of Æthelflæd? Danes and Saxons? I assume Mercia is proud of Penda and Offa equally for their successes. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Lox, you're using terms and names from Norse mythology. Remember that the Anglo-Saxons were not Norse. Eadric Streona was a turncoat, Æthelflæd was a great reconqueress, and yes, Mercians are very proud of both Penda and Offa. ðarkun coll 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it not correct that the Angles come from the north side of the Danevirke and that the majority of their kind in Britain come from northeast of Watling St? The Saxons alone (copied by the Normans) became absorbed within the Carolingian world and through their combined Christian alliance, subordinated the rest of the North under Rome. This was not the outlook of the Angles, who wavered in between, more or less. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is something striking about the Danevirke shutting the French out, which included the Saxons. Using the Eider would have been like using the Severn. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have often wondered that seeing as the Saxons were the dominant ethnic group over the Angles, Jutes, etc., why England derived it's name from the Angles? Also why is just Anglo-Saxon hyphenated rather than Saxon-Jute, Anglo-Saxon-Jute; or is it a case like the songwriting teams of Lennon-McCartney or Jagger-Richards, one provided the language while the other provided the genetic material?-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a pretty good chance that "Angle" and "Ingaevone" are etymologically connected, though the exact relationship has been obscured. The Ingaevones comprised the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, the four tribes that - under Angle leadership - invaded Britain. On the Continent, only the Frisians now survive as a distinct group. All the Angles migrated to Britain (according to Bede), and those Jutes and Saxons that didn't make the crossing were assimilated by the Danes and Germans respectively. ðarkun coll 10:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Low German a descendent of Saxon? You must be referring to the trinational folk of Friesland, but the same sort of argument could be used for any of the Germanic folks which span different countries. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, for asking this IP. But are you by any chance Lord Loxley/Catterick? I'm detecting similiarities. GoodDay ( talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Tharky, I'm planning to contact administrators about the IP-account. GoodDay ( talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear TharkunColl, As one of the users I come accross most frequently I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! Cameaeron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been reported for violating 3RR on the article British monarchy. I was the administrator who reviewed or case, and since the page was already protected, and given other mitigating circumstances I chose not to impose a block. However, you did violate 3RR through your involvement in an edit war. Please always try to discuss such issues rather than simply revert. Even if you believe that no consensus had been secured, or that the other version is worse, please try to discuss the issue and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution program or seek assistance from an administrator. Edit warring is considered extremely disruptive, and if you will engage in such actions in the future, you risk being blocked. Thanks, TSO1D ( talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments like this [1] are unacceptable personal attacks on other editors. This is a final warning; you will be blocked if you make another. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't predict the future Tharky, but I suspect (should you be punished) over your Wiki behaviour, you won't be banned. Banning generally occurs when an editor threatens other editors verbally or with legal actions. GoodDay ( talk) 02:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"How can a language have an "official" name in another language? "Irish Gaelic" is a much more common way of referring to it"
Seems like you're pushing a POV there. The Irish language is just called "Irish"; just as Manx is called "Manx" and Welsh is called "Welsh". I think you'll find that there is no confusion about the name of the Irish language in Ireland.
Anyway, the name of the Irish language in the UK article shall remain "Irish". All the best, mate. Wiki01916 ( talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as Tharky has been inactive for nearly a month; perhaps this page should be deleted? Or is there a time-limit on such things? GoodDay ( talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
He certainly shall! Merry Christmas everyone! TharkunColl ( talk) 16:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Starky's program concentrates on the monarchies, not the countries (or Parliaments). Unless you can proove that the UK is still the Kingdom of England, you've not the chance of making your proposed changes stick. Please, don't start reverting again tommorow - in otherwords discuss don't make a fuss. GoodDay ( talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember by claiming the UK is England - 1] the name 'England' would cover the whole island (which I'm sure the Scots will object to); 2] the name 'England' would cover Northern Ireland (which I'm sure the loyalist & rebels will both object to); 3] the article United Kingdom would have to be merged with England keeping the name England (which I'm sure Wikipedia in general will have a fit over). You must agree, a lot of people would be (shall we say) upset, with such changes. GoodDay ( talk) 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Scotland entered the union via an 'ear pulling', but calling it an English takeover is a bit strong. GoodDay ( talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically (what I'm harping about), the monarchs and the country(ies) can't be seperated from each other. You can't be King of X if the Kingdom of X doesn't exist. GoodDay ( talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you and David Starkey (I wonder if he's related to Ringo Starr? interesting) have got alot of selling to do on the English primacy thing. GoodDay ( talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Tharky (noting the Holy Roman Empire), but James I/VI to Anne (pre-1707) weren't monarchs of Great Britain as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until 1707. GoodDay ( talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The Scots only allowed the Act of Union in 1707 because they were assured that it wasn't an English takeover - they got M.P.s at Westminster, and I think other rights. If they hadn't been assured that it wasn't a 'takeover', but rather a 'union' (however unfair to them), civil war rather than grudging acquiescence would have been the likely result. To claim that the Scots had no part in the matter, or that representation at the national Parliament (which as an institution at both Westminster and Holyrood was becoming the important governing body of both kingdoms) meant nothing is to distort history. And in this situation, 'King of X' depends absolutely upon 'Kingdom of X' existing - the ruling monarchy makes no claims to be 'King/Queen of England', but rules legitimately over the successor kingdom to the 'Kingdom of England'. You're also being dishonest about English nationalism - what of the West Lothian question? I believe the Conservatives are strongly in favour of booting Scottish and Welsh M.P.s out of the Commons Chamber whenever anything is discussed regarding England which the Scots and Welsh have devolved power over. Furthermore, the fact that the English view their country as independant, and the Scots, Welsh and Irish view themselves as subjugated, doesn't change the fact that legally, the countries became administrative divisions of a larger state with the Acts of Union (and, for all that Devolution has occurred, it is only an internal division of the Kingdom, not a division of the crown). Michael Sanders 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back, Thark. Is this just a seasonal visit, to brighten these short Winter days - or ... dare I wish ... will you be round all year long?? -- sony-youth pléigh 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've often wundered: Did George's succession to the British throne (1714), bring about the saying By George, I think he's got it? GoodDay ( talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not how wikipedia works, my friend. You will need to provide actual reasoning. In lieu of psychic abilities, I have no reason to change my opinion. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you've shown an interest in this matter, would you like to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)? Michael Sanders 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fascinating man. Do you know The Regicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson? It's focus is John Cooke, but he has some fascinating insights on how English-speaking political tradition still won't own Cromwell. Yet, as you say, he abolished absolutism forever.-- Gazzster ( talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good for Britain, I'd agree (not having lived there, though my mum was British). Although isn't there a debate in Britain about a possible danger of parliamentary absolutism? I think it works in general because Britain has had centuries to work it out; you've had civil wars and revolutions, Runnymede, de Montfort, etc. In newer nations, like my own, only a written constitution can work.-- Gazzster ( talk) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please might I add my POV here, as the above really is a POV and little else and is largely not supported by pre-Second World War academics. It is well established that both the Bruces and the Stewards came to Scotland from England. It is just ludicrous to suggest they by-passed England and came directly from Normandy. Doubtless this is yet another rewriting of history by the ultra-pro-Scottish-nationalist brigade of writers but its pathetic. I can't be bothered arguing with the language issue. My family were well established in the Lowlands before the 14th century when English was well-established amongst virtually the entire population of the Lowlands with some Norman-French being spoken by the educated classes. All these attempts to turn established history on its head does Wikipedia no credit whatsoever. David Lauder ( talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear TharkunColl, you may without knowing have violated WP:3RR, and I have listed your actions on the appropriate page. I don't really care whether or not you have cross the 3RR line, but may I say that your confrontational approach to editing and unwillingness to discuss things is unacceptable in a co-operative consensus based project like wikipedia. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it alright now? Michael Sanders 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering you've been warned already about rude comments barely a month ago, I would suggest you stop commenting on this page altogether - you clearly don't have any interest in editing the page itself currently (you last edited a page related to the topic on 25 August 2007 ( [2]), and seem to be solely causing trouble. Comments such as [3], [4] and [5] are childish, baiting, and offensive. I have blocked you for 2 weeks to give you time to think about your future conduct. I was only going to block you for 24 hours before I noticed in your block log you have already been blocked for trolling Talk:Muhammad before ( [6]). As this clearly had no effect, a longer block may do the trick. Neıl ☎ 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
2 weeks is massively excessive considering I was called a hypocrite by another user and was merely responding to his attack, and also because the original block was only going to be for 24 hours.
Decline reason:
In view of your previous blocks, the block is not excessive.— Sandstein ( talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Is there a way to block specific editors from editing specific articles? Wouldn't that work best? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is impolite for User:G2bambino to come here and gloat at User:TharkunColl. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, mate. How could you resist commenting on the misfortune of your archenemy? I've seen you guys carry on. You goad him on as much as he does you.--
Gazzster (
talk)
07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Uncalled for. Sorry.-- Gazzster ( talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, welcome back Tharky.-- Gazzster ( talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest you reword your announcement, and especially the header. Pairadox ( talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have moved your subpage to Talk:Muhammad/images which was the established title we had been using until it got archived and redirected to Talk:Muhammad. I'm sure you can understand why "censorship requests" is not a helpful title although in many cases it would be accurate. In the cases where it is not accurate we should not be belittling our editors just because they wish to discuss the images and in the cases where it is accurate we would not create pages where users are specifically meant to discuss issues that go against Wikipedia policy. gren グレン 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove the sections that are active. Please remove only the sections that say nothing but "remove images" and created by unestablished users. Thanks -- Be happy!! ( talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop it - you were blocked for this previously, if you have nothing constructive to add on talkpages don't edit them. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
IMHO T.C., if you find dhimmitude to be offensive, just think of the Nordicist blanket you want to suffocate the British under, by boxing in their character as derived from foreign invaders who suppressed their way of life through paganist nonsense. You do no better than Sharia. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice to know that you will never give up your tendentious edit warring with everybody who comes your way, regardless of who they are, always on subjects related to the monarchy and muhammad. I await your permanent banning, mister know-it-all. Your zealotry is giving me an erection
because yours is always declaring war. Cockfighting can be bloody when tearing apart hymens. I'd like to see you sink your balls into the princess of Jordan and have a half sand nigger baby. That would make you proud. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how an Aussie monarchy is in British interests. My own personal beef is more that we are ruled by a person who's only claim to job is that she was born into it. It's a most undemocratic institution. But I have to say, until we get a national HoS, the monarch is just a symbol.-- Gazzster ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the UK Parliament can tell the other 15 Commonwealth realm Parliaments what to do, concerning their monarchies. GoodDay ( talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the Canadian Parliament could keep the SoW in its own Constitution. In any event, it would make for good theater. GoodDay ( talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not so. The Statute of Westminster enacted explicitly:
No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
In other words, no tinkering with the UK Act would affect what the other countries had subsequently enacted, including constitutional legislation in the other countries. - Bill Reid | Talk 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We have our head-ons, but you've got your head screwed on. And I enjoy discussing stuff with you. Can I ask you, about changing the succession: isn't there talk about B Palace changing male primogeniture to make it more in line with the more liberal monarchies on the Continent?-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And that stuff about the UK promoting its interests in Aus thru the monarchy? Elaborate on that please. Is that your own idea, or is it national policy?-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. I tend to agree with you about the dangers of amending the succession, from Britain's point of view. Revolutions tend to occur not when the Ancien Regime is intransient, but when it starts reforming itself. Old Louis lost his head because he couldn't reform fast enough. So why start in the first place?-- Gazzster ( talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Empire used to be Britain's raison detre, it's soul, so to speak. Bringing civilisation, prosperity, good governance and Christianity to the savages. And now I suppose its having trouble reassessing its place in the world? If it reformed the monarchy or even abolished it, it would not know itself. I don't mean to criticise your nation. Lots of nations in fact have this post-colonial identity crisis. Now that the Cold War is over, the USA doesnt know what to do with itself. Paradoxically it seems like the newly emancipated nations have a better idea of themselves, like Germany, the former Warsaw Pact countries, etc.-- Gazzster ( talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. How do you feel about nation or country being in that article's lead? There's a discussion going on about it, which I just about ready to depart (due to the fact, I value my sanity). GoodDay ( talk) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have informed the other user as I am informing you, you are going to break 3RR if you continue editing on this page. Please stop editing on the page for 24 hours or you might also be blocked. If the other editor breaks 3RR don't revert but inform the Admins of this event. If you try to revert or edit the page you might also be blocked. Please try to solve the problem of this page on the talk page. Thanks for the cease fire :-) -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No thanks - im quite happy maintaining reality in this specific instance for the moment :). siarach ( talk) 13:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. Don't forget to get a consensus on those articles 'talk pages' first. If you won't to 'merge' those pages. GoodDay ( talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I recommend leaving the 'fact tags' on the 'state offices' edits (until things are settled). Better to have the tags there, then having the state offices edits reverted. GoodDay ( talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure not suggesting any kind of censuring of comments at the discussion at List of British monarchs; but, calling Scotland 'crap'? may get you unwanted attention. Again, it's your choice. GoodDay ( talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The joke consisted of the fact that the statement has a double meaning, and can just as easily be interpreted as saying that England is pretty much crap as well. TharkunColl ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I took offence and I am "English" insofar as "English" exists. British would be correcter really -- Camaeron ( talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
You may be interested in this Talk:List of countries by formation dates#Where is England?. For once you might be on my side = )! -- Camaeron ( talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC) YOu may also want to vote at Talk:List of countries by formation dates#United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the vote...see you there = ) -- Camaeron ( talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Flag of Scotland. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Hello Tharky. I think you better check your home-page, it's being vandalized. GoodDay ( talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I'd suggest you have your 'followers' understand something. If they're planning to follow you around on the articles (for editing & discussions etc)? I fear they 'might' create the impression of sockpuppetry on your part. That's an impression, I don't want them to create. I'm hoping they're faithfull followers & that they're not trying to get you into trouble. GoodDay ( talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the image on your talk page, the crest of the so called Order of TharkunColl to be disgusting and racist. I will make it my personal crusade to have that image deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fletcher ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the "Mohammed" pictures on your userpage. That's really not a good idea. Black Kite 10:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TCORDER.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, TharkunColl. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What was it about your 'image', that AF found so racist? Which 'image' did he find offensive. Also, what happend to AF. I feel as though there was a riot & I missed it. GoodDay ( talk) 14:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not guilty of this offense and have not been using multiple accounts
Decline reason:
Checkuser says otherwise. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I assure you I am not ShieldDane or any of those others, and my IP address will prove it. What does checkuser say? How does it work?
Decline reason:
Wikipedia records your ip address every time you edit. Checkusers have access to this information and have proven that the ip address you're using is the same as the ones being used by ShieldDane and the others. Also please do not open another unblock request, if you have anything else to say just say it, I have this page on my watchlist — Chris 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I appear to have been blocked for an offence I did not commit. Can somebody explain to me what checkuser is, and how it works, because I am NOT ShieldDane or any of those others. Doesn't it check IP addresses? Oh, and for the record, I have made no racist comments whatsoever. TharkunColl ( talk) 07:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not ShieldDane or any of those others. How is it possible for them to have the same IP address as me? How was it checked? TharkunColl ( talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just e-mailed all the Wikipedia checkusers (listed here [8]) that had e-mail links on their user or talk pages. I would have simply left a message on their talk pages, but since I'm blocked I can't do that. I do not believe that anyone has actually checked the IP addresses yet, because if they had, they would know that this block is unjustified. TharkunColl ( talk) 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran a checkuser on you, checkuser found that through your IP, you were using multiple sockpuppets to abuse editing rights, if, by a wild coincidence, you have not been using sockpuppets, then you have been blocked for gross incivility, trolling, baiting and vandalism. Joshuarooney2008 ( talk) 09:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I don't complain about people who simply hold opinions that are different to mine - that's what's called freedom of speech. My complaint against Joshuarooney is that he lied about running a user check on me. TharkunColl ( talk) 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just letting people know that I have now been vindicated. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TharkunColl, where an official checkuser, having checked all the IP addresses, states: "Unrelated Users are in the US, Canada, GB, and Australia, and do not appear to be proxies." In short, I have no sockpuppets or multiple accounts. TharkunColl ( talk) 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly apologize, Tharkun. To be honest, I fucked up spectacularly. I had made the mistake of thinking that the CU had been run, given the way Joshua presented it, and had failed to dig any deeper to expose the lie. Sorry, and I hope that things work out better should we meet again. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's why we all speak Latin in Ireland. To be honest with you, I don't really care about your edits one way or the other. But on that same basis, the Irish conquered ancient Britain. Really I cannot see your points, but I'm not going to bother changing it again. I've better things to do, like go to bed, and have a good sleep for myself. 78.19.155.129 ( talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
|
The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar | |
Camaeron doth hereby award thee "The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar" for thine help to the article List of Irish monarchs and generally maintaining the quality of monarchy-related articles. We may not always see eye to eye but I appreciate your contributions and hold your opinion in high regard! Keep up the good work! -- Camaeron ( t/ c) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hello Tharky. WOW, did I ever get worked over at that article. I suggested there, that they change their map to show that Scotland was a part of the UK (the way it's done at England, Northern Ireland & Wales); my proposal didn't receive a good reception (nor did I). GoodDay ( talk) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome aboard, Tharky. GoodDay ( talk) 19:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You've resigned? I truly wish you'd reconsider. GoodDay ( talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello TharkunColl. Perhaps you are not a spelunker and/or haven't been to Ireland, but believe me, it is rather a nice place and not at all resembling a hellhole. [9]
That notwithstanding, using such invective language is only likely to inflame other editors. It is particularly inappropriate considering you had just noted that ArbCom has chastised Sarah for doing the same thing. I have archived that entire section and asked the others to take a step back at this point and let the AfD run its course. Please consider doing the same. Rockpocke t 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I had considered moving List of British monarchs to List of Monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom (though perhaps splitting it into List of Monarchs of Great Britain & List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom might be better). But in doing so, we'd have to change the English, Scottish, Welsh & Irish list to match (example: List of Monarchs of X) - and the Scots at List of Scottish monarchs won't go for it. PS: If you & Derek Ross, wish to speak to them (Scots)? that would help; my relations with them is currently distant. GoodDay ( talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just proposed split/rename at List of British monarchs, though I suspect it won't be accepted. GoodDay ( talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
someone deleted a valued and reputable Legion's talkpage? How random and rude. If we'd at least known, we could have moved the content. special, random, Merkinsmum 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask to what your name refers? A reference to the "Staff-man" perhaps?-- Cameron ( t/ c) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"My" narrow defintion??? It's a dictionary term, and if it's not clear anyway then it should surely be avoided. There's also a note on the article's talk page. I've actually been trying for months to get Scotland changed but have failed to obtain a consensus. Some edittors have been making the change on England and Wales (not Northen Ireland mind) to illustrate a point in favour of Scotland's current, and incorrect, phraseology.
If you want to obtain a consistency, I don't mind, but then of course, the UK becomes a nation, as does the US, Canada and other countries and states. -- Jza84 | Talk 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello TC, how are things? I have a vague memory that the period around the Norman conquest was one of your interests, is that right? Regards, Mr Stephen ( talk) 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in case your interested, these guys have been arguing for the same thing on the Scotland page for what seems like eons. Also they miraculously seem to turn up at an article at the same time, so if you have no one backing up your opinion your always up against it! -- Jack forbes ( talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in WP:Requests for comment/Bardcom. Tb ( talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
I actually support your idea; but I don't see where there's a consensus for it. I'm not disputing you, just being cautious. GoodDay ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK Tharky, I've reverted to your version. I'll leave it in your hands. GoodDay ( talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tharky, I notice you have changed this article again by reverting my edit, and removing the reference. Can you help me understand your underlying logic for your edit? The website (the reference you removed, although it was duplicated so that's OK) describes itself as "The Kingdom of Drachenwald is a regional branch for Europe, Middle East and Africa of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA)". Any reason why you've decided to explain it as "Its borders cover all of Europe including the British Isles and Iceland as well as Africa, and the Middle East. In a humorous twist, it achieved its independence from the East on the fourth of July."? Especially when the term Europe already included the British Isles? Thank you. Bardcom ( talk) 11:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[outdented]Hmmmm. I think you're just playing games. Unless you produce a reference or verifiable source for your edit, this edit will be reverted. Bardcom ( talk) 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Random House Unabridged, "Europe", says, "In British usage, Europe sometimes contrasts with England." Wordnet says, "the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles." Tb ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) You might want to look at the page on EMEA [10]. Europe, Middle East and Africa is an extremely common designation and includes the UK and Ireland. Wotapalaver ( talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I'm not certain; but I think Wikipedia frowns on mass removal of ones postings from a discussion. Why? Such removals disrupts the discussion's flow. GoodDay ( talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay ( talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you want to bow out? You've not been accused of anything. GoodDay ( talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, you meant to open up the Accession Council discussion at Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms, but accidently opened it up at Wikipedia: WikiProject Royalty; the 2 WikiProjects are similiar. I've made many a mistake like that on Wikipedia, before. GoodDay ( talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note - de jure reigns are mentioned in both WikiProjects; that too, could've confused you. GoodDay ( talk) 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind adding you interests to our "new" member list!? The link is here. Thanks so much! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've removed this again. It is clearly labelled on the map and the accompanying text under the map as a map of the spread of a nonexisting megalithic culture. A map of the locations of megalithic architecture to match the article's section on that would be great, but this map isn't one. Please don't restore it. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Capital D or small d with regards to what?-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Capital D is preferable.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge it is just a convention.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You say in " And did those feet in ancient time" quite correctly that not all independent schools are public schools. I was trying to word it so that it would universally understood. Wikipedia is used by non-Brits as well. The term "prestigious independent schools" does cover the public schools fairly well. The sentence, as I drafted, it isn't wrong and is clearer. JMcC ( talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your question about England is a separate question entirely and not entirely relevant. Your edit stated that people who believed that the term British Isles had political overtones were wrong. Since there is reference in the British Isles article that says that the guys who coined the term have been described as wrapping politics into their geography that would be a hard argument to win. In any case, things like "overtones" and people's feelings are hard to be definite about. Better to simply state facts rather than putting our own value judgements on top. Even on the England example, I seem to remember on the British Isles talk page that you've said governments and authorities can't legislate for language but that if a majority of people use a term then it's the term, no matter whether some people don't like it or not. Right? Haven't you said that? If, for instance, 80% of Americans, 75% of Europeans, 95% of Indians, etc., call the UK England, wouldn't your argument mean that England IS the right name for the UK? Most people in those places DO call the UK England. Even people in Ireland do. That means you should go to the UK article and advocate a renaming to England. You can't have it both ways. Wotapalaver ( talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) I came back here by accident but oh dear, you're desperate to change the subject away from your double standard by any means possible. First, your double standard could be merely lazy/sloppy thinking or downright hypocrisy. Since I don't know your motives I can't tell which it is, merely that it's a double standard. Second, I'm sure you can provide a reference which demonstrates that it's only a "tiny minority". If you can't then it's just your OR and is entirely worthless. Third, an accusation of sockpuppetry is pretty serious. So, who am I a sockpuppet of? Since you don't name names you're just trying to change the subject again away from your double standard. Wotapalaver ( talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. I'll let others respond to your postings at that WikiProject, concerning the title Monarch of Great Britain. Since you're not convincing me? it's only fair to allow you the chance, to try and convince others. GoodDay ( talk) 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad. I've given up on trying to bring the England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland articles, in sync. GoodDay ( talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey buddy, you're getting into an edit war it seems. Might want to discuss stuff with the other editor first. :) Jmlk 1 7 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
From talk: Monarchy of the United Kingdom -- IMHO, Starkey is a smarty-pants fella, who doesn't cover enough things about pre-1707 Scotland. He also treats 1603-1707 Scotland as subordinate to England. Perhaps, I'm just being grumpy though. GoodDay ( talk) 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if he's got any plans for a Scotland monarchs only series. GoodDay ( talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There are some lovely discussions about this topic located here and here. I'm not going to change Great Britain, but you might be interested in participating in these pointless and tiresome arguements. Have fun! 86.29.138.224 ( talk) 14:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to be a stickybeak here, but I noticed that you removed 'II' from the title of Ethelred (etc.) II: the fact is, it is in current use, and if you're worried about what he was called in his own time, you would also remove 'the Unready', as that's not contemporary either. The enumeration distinguishes him usefully from his ancestor King Ethelred of Wessex. If you still feel you have good reason for this removal, would you please enlighten me before doing it again? Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so as you know, I've raised this issue on Ethelred's talk page. Nortonius ( talk) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Templi Kalendae article is still lacking any sources. This may indeed be a notable subject and a worthwhile article, and all the information may be accurate; as it stands there's no way for us to tell. This has been tagged as needing improvement for about a year and a half now; if no references are forthcoming I'm going to propose the article for deletion. See Talk:Templi Kalendae for more details. Cheers, Fuzzypeg ★ 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{dated prod}}
notice and leave a note regarding your intentions on the talk page. Otherwise the article will be deleted in about five days. Thanks, and sorry for stomping all over your hard work...
Fuzzypeg
★
23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Just thought I'd tell you a question was co-directed at you at the following page Talk:Lord#An_English_title.3F. regards -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Were you aware, that King Offa has been jettisoned from that article (again)? GoodDay ( talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tharky. I just don't wanna see you guys getting blocked, over these British vs Irish disputes. Believe me, my 'page protection requests' aren't calculated. GoodDay ( talk) 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there an article (other then BI), that this issue of BI usage on Wikipedia, could be worked out? GoodDay ( talk) 00:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend you guys jointly set up a Mediation concerning the British Isles usage on Wikipedia. PS- IMHO having 2-articles British Isles and Great Britain and Ireland is a headache. GoodDay ( talk) 13:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the writer has not taken the time or courtesy to inform you, I thought I would let you know there is a thread mentioning you here Wikipedia:ANI#Wikistalking Merkin's mum 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Let's start with your newest incident of blind reverting of 8 articles, with no comments or reasons as to why you have reverted my edits. This is vandalism. -- Bardcom ( talk) 11:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well said, Merkinsmum. I've added a proposed solution at User talk:Wotapalaver#vandalism which I think will be the way forward. -- John ( talk) 23:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
See here Wikipedia:ANI#Blind reversion of edits, despite earlier warnings for the latest thread. -- Bardcom ( talk) 11:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work on the british isles article. Wikigrrl21 ( talk) 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Thark. I see Bardcom is at it again. I've tried to disuss this matter with him but to no avail. You've been around here longer than me. Do you know what can be done to pursuade him to stop? Simply reverting his edits is no good. Is there some procedure that can be invoked? CarterBar ( talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You're right that Image:Arms-st-albans.jpg is ok for fair-use in Mercia. The reason the bot got upset was that on the image page it didn't mention Mercia, just Saint Albans. I've updated the image page, so there's nothing needs doing, so this is just for your info really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky, how are ya & where are ya? GoodDay ( talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm cool. GoodDay ( talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please address the issue by resolving it on the talk page of Muhammad article. It appears as an issue that distabilising the article, otherwise considered stable. You have to agree a solution without resorting to editwars and by providing WP:RS otherwise your comments will be dismissed. Wikidās - ॐ 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some reason for you revert of my work instead of just "Removed POV" as an edit note! Waht was the POV? In removing it all (including what we had) you just set up the IP to replace what we had. I found your response to my Talk on my edit a bit terse too - where do you actually stand on the issues? You responded to my 'suggestion' for the future - not at all to the actual text, which you then reverted entirely! I hope you appreciate that somebody is trying to work for the benefit of this article here. My name is now 3 times in the bloody edit list - that's a nightmare for me, and I just don't understand why you put me in that position. I just can't see any sense in it at all - I really can't. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My name is Iamzork, and I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case 2008-06-06 British Isles. I would like to strongly encourage you to take part in this informal, non-official mediation, and remind you that if you accept, you are free to disregard any results of it - I am an editor like you and have no "real" power whatsoever. Mediation will continue among other editors regardless of your consent, and you may choose to participate or not. Also, feel free to remove yourself from the list of "involved parties" on the case page if you wish. I and all of the other involved editors respect your decision, whatever it may be. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Iamzork ( talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?
The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.
Sincerely
JnW talk 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here about a possible expansion of Wikiproject Commonwealth realms to incorperate all the British Empire topics! Please take the time to comment = ). -- Cameron ( T| C) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky, we miss you. It's been 15-days, where are ya? GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Just caught your edit at Elizabeth II. Thought I'd say hi. Haven't seen u for a while.-- Gazzster ( talk) 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ireland. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. I notice that you are starting your,well discussed,
British Isles edits again on Irish pages. Please desist and discuss on the talk page before re-adding.
ww2censor (
talk)
16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
wow, sorry for this. Looks like I got caught up in the whole terminology dispute without meaning to. I've also explained my actions on the talk page but just to clarify completely: my problem is nothing to do with whether it's called the British Isles or Great Britain. It's to do with specifically a confusing sentence that I first rewrote, then, when I mis-read your revert of a previous edit regarding the BI/GB conflict as disagreeing with me, I instead decided to remove the sentence as a compromise over a non-existent conflict :) I've explained my exact problem with the sentence on the talk page. Hopefully we can sort out this mess sensibly. -- 86.164.119.62 ( talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you've restored British Isles to that article? Now, that's gutsy. GoodDay ( talk) 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, you've added British Isles there, too? Where's my football helmit. GoodDay ( talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tharky. If I were you, I'd report GH's block-evading IPs to the Administrators. By getting into any edit wars with him? you'd be playing right into his hands. He's in a position where he feels he's got nothing to loose. GoodDay ( talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tharky, you are reverting edits on 4 articles in particular - Furry Dance, Scottish Green Party, Salve Regina (where you inserted the term incorrectly and unnecessarily), and Porteous family. The criteria for any claim is that you can provide a reference. I've patiently waited and not edit-warred over any of the articles while waiting for references, but to date I've not seen any from you. After waiting a reasonable length of time with no response to requests, I change the article and you simply revery again. This is not how Wikipedia works. You have not provided references - and you don't seem either interested or capable of doing so. Neither have I seen any argument that makes any kind of sense, and reverting with comments such as "politically motivated decision" is a personal comment, which is untrue. I've warned you in the past - please do not make such comments in the future. They are (allegedly) not tolerated on wikipedia. So, simple question. Can you provide references to back up the claims? -- HighKing ( talk) 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Zomg! This sounds well good. Have you ever been? Sticky Parkin 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is your only warning.
The next time you make a
personal attack as you did at
User talk:Sarah, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Any more like that, and you will be blocked
DDStretch
(talk)
22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
When did you go to canada and how did you end up going there? Sticky Parkin 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There's not a snowball's chance in hell that these sort of pics can pass the critera for non-free content. All Anglo-Saxon coin images are replaceable either in the sense that you can go to a museum and photograph one, or in the sense that you can find freely licensable pictures of them. For Halfacanute, or whatever his name was, have a look here. There is a picture of one of his pennies on plate VI, image 184. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Like your new posting-name (partially in green, too); gives it an Irish feel. GoodDay ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky; I didn't know of that thingy, about the names following the river flow. Guess a fella learns something new everyday. GoodDay ( talk) 19:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Beats me. GoodDay ( talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I once heard that BP security wanted to fit some kind of maschine guns to the roof, which The Queen vehemently opposed. I can't find any info at all at the moment. I've often wanted to read up about it but security regulations mean so little info is released about security measures...The whole thing came up just after a security scare. I think it was a report on BBC, do you recall it?-- Cameron * 09:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone interested in forming one? Anyone is welcome as far as I'm concerned, whether pro or anti. ðarkun coll 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Given that I'm neither pro nor anti, but interested in accurate usage, I suppose this could be useful. Will the scope of the Wikiproject cover usage and if not, can I suggest that perhaps it does? Thank you. -- HighKing ( talk) 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What's spooky is that you'd think it spooky that someone who consistently opposes applying the offensive term "British" Isles to include Ireland would oppose a "WikiProject British Isles" that encompasses Ireland. You must think I've fallen asleep at the wheel! You mistake me for Bardcom I think! Sarah777 ( talk) 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There could be a lot of support for this. It was in discussion when Bardcom firt started his run of edits, simply as a way of making sense of things in a way that didn't involve following a single editor's tracks, and seeing if he had made a decent edit or not. It would have to be called "Wikiproject:British Isles", as it would be about the use of that term. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) My initial idea which I put to HighKing on his talk page was for a taskforce dealing specifically with the use of "British Isles". I think that would help prevent the problems of a single, and thus exposed, editor doing all the work alone, and thereby attracting quite unnecessary personal attacks, as well as having a built-in "quality control" by formal joint scrutiny of individual cases by many editors, to make sure all actions concerning the use and fate of occurrences of "British Isles" were the best ones that could be done. I still think that would be sufficient, and suggest it could be a joint taskforce or workgroup to the Ireland and the United Kingdom projects. What other issues might the proposed project deal with, apart from the use of "British Isles" which isn't already covered by other projects? DDStretch (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
e/c DDStretch has a point in that some won't like it, but the term is simply widely used, and the project can cover geographic issues, and list the pages that use it etc. It will also help keep the ever-scrolling (and repeating) debate off pages like British Isles talk, which ought to be focusing on the content more. I'm sure Sarah would come round if it handles the dispute element properly (and if she doesn't we have to realise she is just one person). I discussed a BI Wikiproject with CarterBar in May. I left the disscusion on my talk page, though ran out of resolve/confidence/general 'will to live' to start it (I would have 'been bold'). Interestingly, CarterBar first proposed a Noticeboard. Maybe that is more what DDstretch has in mind? -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the taskforce idea, who will decide what its policies are? How can you possibly do this without a debate beforehand - as in-depth as possible - unless it's by diktat? ðarkun coll 08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
One again, you are ignoring, the difference between debate and appropriate debate, which I have commented on before. I have not suggested that there would not be appropriate debate, but you choose for whatever reasons you may have, to ignore that fact again here. Now, I suggest that if your contributions on this matter represent the standard of debate or even "juicy debate" you wish to promote in this wikiproject you are suggesting, then it will not be a good move. I suggest you take a lesson from your previous blocks for baiting editors, and reform your behaviour. DDStretch (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not appreciate having my proposals belittled and misrepresented on my own talk page. Please desist. This is the second time you have falsely accused me of something (see User talk:TharkunColl#Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem). ðarkun coll 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've decided that the time has come to rewrite poor old Ned's biography. I suppose you have it watchlisted already? I'd be grateful if you'd scream if there's any of the changes don't make sense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the BI insertion on the Shannon being rolled-back? No precedence being set, or suggestion that it isn't right for the article - just an act of good faith? We can start then without the Shannon being locked, and the task force will have more support.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
By User:Ddstretch for 2 weeks simply for making a comment. He has no right to stop me from commenting, and he hasn't even bothered informing me of the block on my talkpage (thereby preventing me from appealing). This is a grotesque and flagrant abuse of his authority. ðarkun coll 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If you gave me the chance to place the block notice instead of posting the attacking message, resulting in edit conflicts that delayed the block notice, you will see that I was conforming with policy!
DDStretch
(talk)
17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edits after the block notice was placed indicate that you are intent upon misrepresenting the state of affairs that came about by your own actions in producing edit conflicts. You do have a right of appeal, and the block notice was not in place because you were busy complaining about the block, this causing edit conflicts that prevented the block being placed in the first place. I suggest you alter the attacking notice to this section, as it may not appear to be a good sign to any reviewing admin. DDStretch (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I have broken no rule whatsoever! See here
Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#Task force - first task.... As far as I know, an admin does not have the right to request someone to shut up, and block him if he refuses. My comments were perfectly reasonable and inoffensive, and I have a perfect right to make them.}}
DDStretch, what exactly lead to this block? I am looking over his contribs and don't see anything worth a 2 week block. Am I missing something? Unless I can get an explanation that makes this block make sense, I will reverse it. This seems like a content issue. Chillum 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, DD was here just a moment ago when he blocked you. If he does not show up to explain this in another 5 minutes I am going to unblock you. Chillum 18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) TharkinColl has a history of being provocative that has led to previous blocks, the last one being for 2 weeks. In the context of this matter, his edits led to River Shannon being completely protected, overt the matter of including "British Isles" in the article, which is known to be inflammatory to Irish editors. Becasuse of the greater problems surrounding "British Isles", a taskforce was proposed. TharkunColl has argued that a lot of "juicy debate" is required when this will only inflame matters further, and people were in the process of giving their opinion about a carefully focussed taskforce to consider all articles which had "Britis Isles" added to them to see whether the term was justified or not and then what to do with it. This had to be handled sensitively, as the issues cause a lot of drama. TharkunColl has throughout this been provocative, and his latest contribution was to produce as a first task (which had not been agreed upon at all, and happened before all opinions had been gathered) a new template which would add "British Isles" to lots of islands. I took this to be imprpoer, given the sensitivity of the matter, and given his previous blocks for being inflammatory. So, I asked for ipinions, but asked him to not respond until others had commented, and he bluntly refused. I considered his actions to be provocative and having the effect of stalling the necessary taskforce before it began to work, and so I reviewed his past blocks, and decided to block him for the same amount of time that he was last blocked for. I am happy for this to be reviewed by any other administrators, but my onest opinion was that he was being unduly provocative, in line with his previous behaviour. DDStretch (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I may have beaten Ddstretch ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to the unblock request. Regardless, I read the brouhaha at WP:ANI, and I really can't support a two-week block with the reason of, "Failure to abide by a polite request". That's simply not an acceptable reason in accord with Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Blocks are to prevent disruption. In fact, blocking someone for participating in a discussion has a chilling effect and seems a lot more disruptive than the original request. Now, could all parties involved please try to get along? -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. ðarkun coll 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Tharcuncoll started the "Task force - first task" ( his words) before the poll for the 'British Isles Terminology Taskforce' was over. He signed up to it: and is clearly said a neutral member of the Geography Wikiproject must open it, followed by input by all. He started the ball rolling himself in a clearly provocative way, and in a way that could now jeopardise the Taskforce actually starting: and the template he made had NO prior discussion behind it. Are all the editors above suggesting this is acceptable behaviour? I'd like to hear their opinion one by one? I'm not judging on the block decision - just the lack of time people seem have taken to look at this case. No warning was given to Tharcuncoll, only an undermining of DDStretch. It looks to me like a green light to Tharcuncoll for more disruption? I would like to hear comments from all involved. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 18:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
As usual the drama around British Isles tends to occur while I'm signed-out. Some editors have all the fun. GoodDay ( talk) 19:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm on holiday so haven't been online much but if that block had been perpetuated I would have been very shocked. I 'voted' for DDStretch in their requst for adminship and strongly endorsed, so I hope to see them not making insultative comments to someone's talk page in future in violation of WP:CIVIL. Sorry if I've contributed indirectly to your distress. Sticky Parkin 11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume you disagree with the sandbox suggestion. Oh well, it was just a thought. GoodDay ( talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to be a stinker; Why do ya say, your articles? GoodDay ( talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahh but; once an article enters Wikipedia's public domain, it's everybodies article. Thus the reason I suggested you should transfer it to your sandbox (for now). GoodDay ( talk) 00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Islands of the British Isles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you want me to add you to WP:Empire? We could definitely do with your expertise there! Regards, -- Cameron * 17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit, and per Sarah777's comment on my talk page, I think she has a very fair point indeed here. From what she's saying she 1) proposed the merger some time ago and there was no dissent, then 2) put a ton of work into the merger and implemented it. This was then immediately reverted by you with the statement, "I oppose such a merger". Indeed, but the time to do that has largely passed and Sarah and the rest of the community deserve far more than a cursory statement like that and a revert, IMO. While I've no real opinion either way on the merger-or-not, what you did was curt and dismissive in the extreme. Now, I know there's already trouble and mayhem over the fabled " British Isles" term, and I'm loath to step into that water, but let's be fair here - Alison ❤ 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Just thinking; perhaps a compromise could be made concerning these two terms. If we hide/delete British Isles usage? then we unhide Republic of Ireland usage; or vise-versa. GoodDay ( talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Allowing British Isles shown on (for example) River Shannon & Lough Neagh, means allowing Republic of Ireland being hid on (for example) Dublin. Or visa-versa. GoodDay ( talk) 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, your edits are backed by 'common usage' & 'avoid censurship'. GoodDay ( talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, we get one amendment this morning which inserts a date without citation. I then amend that to a date range with an authoritative citation. A couple of rounds later I revert (properly) to the position overnight before the first amendment to allow a discussion on the talk page. That is as far as I know proper wiki procedure. I did not initiate this change, but used a citable correction. So please explain why you have not allowed the stable version to stand but instead threatened to start an edit war? -- Snowded TALK 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tharky. You're a stranger around here (Wikipedia), where've you been? GoodDay ( talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Great to know you're still in Wiki-town. GoodDay ( talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop the revert war immediately. Further reverts will result in a block. Putting in an appearance on the talk page might be a good idea. Thanks, Waggers ( talk) 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Waggers, an interested user, has blocked British Isles. So far as I know, this is not allowed. He seems to be using his admin facilities to maintain POV in an article. Are there any sanctions here? 141.6.8.74 ( talk) 10:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
Talk:Glowworm: 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. It's been a while since I warned someone over personal attacks, and I actively try to avoid this course of action where possible, but in this case I'll make an exception. Please keep your comments directed at the content. You've been asked for a reference, you have not provided one. Your comment is a personal attack as it infers that my edits are not in good faith and are incorrect or wrong. Yet you fail to enter into a discussion or argument. This behavior is not tolerated on WP.
HighKing (
talk)
13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
How is that a personal attack !? -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I am almost certainly correct in assuming that half of this little comedy act is you editing as an IP, I'll say this now - any more, and I won't just block the IP next time. Give it a rest, please. Black Kite 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
Derry: 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. Your constant revertings of my edits, calling them "Political" is a personal attack. I've asked you several times to stop, yet you ignore my requests and continue. Please keep your comments directed at the content and not at the editor. I do not edit politically, I edit for accuracy. You claim that I am "going around removing the term "British Isles" from wikipedia, yet if you check the guidelines in
WP:BISLES and check my editing history, you will see that I am only interested in accuracy and a non-political usage (as per guidelines). If you continue ignoring these warnings, there is every chance that you will be blocked on behavioural grounds. This behavior is not tolerated on WP.
HighKing (
talk)
17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, which you did here:
Drovers' Road. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Reverting by calling by comments "Trolling" is a clear personal attack. This behaviour is not tolerated on Wikipedia.
HighKing (
talk)
15:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, let's try to work this out here - TharkunColl Wikiquette Alert. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)@Tharky, what is it to be then? Taskforce seems logical. Mediation will probably point us there anyway... -- HighKing ( talk) 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tharky. My patience with IP accounts on the British Isles & Republic of Ireland articles? have been worn out. GoodDay ( talk) 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
European_Green_Party: 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. Please refrain from incivility towards other editors. Edit summaries are not to be used for spurious comments
BMW
(drive)
21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Tharky please maintain some sense of proportion. Your insertion of BI in the St David article was OK, but cup and ring! This is becoming a disruptive crusade, making everything into a pro and anti BI dispute rather than a sensible use of a geographical term. The more you do this, the more it looks like you have a political agenda. -- Snowded TALK 09:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement section regarding your wars with HighKing. Please see [13]. SirFozzie ( talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion in one place. I have removed [14] your thread from WP:AN as forum shopping. Jehochman Talk 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Your complaint about HighKing at the Admis noticeboard has been deleted by User:Jehochman. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
How does letting HK know, your ANI report on him was cancelled as forum shopping, make me a HK supporter? GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I'm not upset, just curious. GoodDay ( talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry 'bout it. GoodDay ( talk) 19:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino. A user posted a link to this on my talk page because I had interacted with G2B in the past, and he thought I might like to take a look and may have an opinion. So I thought I'd let you know of it too, as someone who has edited alongside him in the past, so you can decide what you think and if you want to comment one way or another as you see fit- or not.:) Sticky Parkin 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tharky. Do ya think it's possible to persuade England to create its own devolved government? Oh well, just a thought. GoodDay ( talk) 17:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course the UK Parliament is a continuation of sorts of the England Parliament and the Scotland Parliament. Are we repeating ourselves? GoodDay ( talk) 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as the coins go, I read something, somewhere, just the other day that dismissed this. I'll have to see if I can find it again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read the latest comment on the talk page and decide whether you need to take action to remedy the seeming WP:3RR violation. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an RfC on Roux aka PrinceofCanada. Not sure if you're interested but thought I'd let you know.:) Sticky Parkin 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've often wondered what outwith meant. But, my past experiences on that article, made me decide not to mention it. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Sovereign Mercia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Nuttah (
talk)
18:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Mercia Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Nuttah (
talk)
18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Impatient little soul aren't you. Anyway, you seem fairly well acquainted with Wikipedia so I'm sure you're aware that you need to talk to an admin to get pages undeleted. As for the articles, establish their notability and I'll not re-nominate them. Nuttah ( talk) 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Mercia Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
andy (
talk)
20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Sovereign Mercia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
andy (
talk)
20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the other articles - I've included them in the debate. Pedro : Chat 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a recent changes patroller, and I came across this [http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShieldDane#Run_away.3F], I traced back a bit to a conflict you were involved in a few months ago, it may be the same person, I am going to report this to AN/I, and you might want to have a say on the matter. Shnitzled ( talk) 19:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer constituent country. But, we ain't gonna got through that, again. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the St. George cross is the flag that normally represents the English. However, if there is testimony from ancient Welsh sources that the Saxons used a white dragon flag, and there is confirmation from that website [15] that people are starting to use it again, then I don't see why it shouldn't be added to the Ethnic flag article. Also, I think it should be included because apparently it represents all of the Saxons rather than just subgroups of the Saxons (which are the flags you downloaded). I originally downloaded almost all the flags into the ethnic flag article in May and June of 2008. I was very happy to see all the English and German ethnic flags (and that Frisian flag) that you downloaded into the article a few days ago. I think they are a wonderful contribution to the article! Keraunos ( talk) 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Roflmao- from Nensha-
"many of Serios' thoughtographs were produced while Serios was drunk or drinking alcohol. According to Eisenbud, "Ted Serios exhibits a behavior pathology with many character disorders. He does not abide by the laws and customs of our society. He ignores social amenities and has been arrested many times. His psychopathic and sociopathic personality manifests itself in many other ways. He does not exhibit self-control and will blubber, wail and bang his head on the floor when things are not going his way." -us on new year's lol Sticky Parkin 00:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, definitely sounds like fun! ðarkun coll 13:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Think you could cope with it?:) Sticky Parkin 13:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello you asked a question about the succesion box error for charles vii bieng disputed with henry vi.henry vi was ordained by the law so was regognized as the legal king of france even though in principle or theroy he had possestion of france.since the start in 1420 charles vii usurped legal authorithy from charles vi by declaring himeself regent of the south this is obvoiusly not legal but in practice charles vii did rule the area. In 1421 he orderd the throne be passed to henry vi so this made henry vi a dauphine since he was the heir of the future king of france henry v and charles king of bourges was stripped of legal rights to be called a dauphine.On 21 of october henry vi was soveriegn legaly as the king of france and made charles a rebel as he was known to be rebel of both henry and charles vi.charles took up the title as king of france but was a gesture and an illigitimate claim since there was rumours of his mother havin affairs with the duke of orleons.henry vi was thus called henry ii of france but lost his throne in 1429 when charles vi became the official legal king in 1429 thanks to his corination in rheims.In 1431 henry vi was crowned but was as attempt to secure his legal possition as king it failed later whrn papacy showed support for charles vii in 1534.as henry vi was king of france from 1422 to 1429 this made john the duke of bedfords title as regent of france completely legal.1429 is a perfect date for charles vii to be the monarch of france in because it is all to do with the law.-- 89.101.101.68 ( talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
British Isles. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Canterbury Tail
talk
15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Jumpin' Junipers, a third Administrator hasn't been found yet. It's gotta be 'bout three weeks, now. GoodDay ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ya'll convinced me, I'll remain as semi-retired. GoodDay ( talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Tharky, since you're the other editor involved, it was pointed out to me that I inadvertantly deleted the term "British Isles" from Football in the United Kingdom. Feel free to revert my edit if you disagree with it, I won't revert. I hadn't event noticed the term - I think I got as far as Home Nations in the sentence... -- HighKing ( talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated FC de Rakt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. BigDunc Talk 14:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have asked WikiProject Football to have a look at the AfD on the womens football team. BigDunc Talk 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated FC de Rakt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you added some kings down the bottom of the list under fictional heading. These names mostly also appear at the top of the whole list. Is this your intention? (because those may not be fictional) Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello and Greetings.I think you saw my article and I dont think it should be deleted.You know the angevin empire was destroyed but we dont say it never actually existed and the same is with the double-monarchy.It is what historions state as I have gave sources in the article.It was formed under the Treaty of Troyes and Henry VI becme king of both kindoms.I am not pushing on any side on wether Henry or Charles VII was king of france but I had to start with Henry in order for the rticle to make sence.BTW this is my first article and I will later mention Charles VII and France during the time.I hope you still wont consider deleting the article.If you do no hard feelings but this is an important section as hundreds of Historions have written books about the inguaration of the french monarchy after Charles VI death to Henry VI.Looking forward to your rely.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 12:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
First Chapter.Sorry cant mention all the souces.P.S whats you point bieng if it was only regognized in English occupied regions+Burgundy+Brittiny+Gascony.The local french populace where also encouraged for there own personal oppinion as part of Bedfords propoganda tool and northen frenchmen were happy to have henry as there french king as narrated by R.A GRIFFITHS on the chapter of the dual Monarchy.You do know that there was a new minted coin for france in 1422 as Henry VI with three fleur de lys as a representation for the dual monarchy.The same is with the union of Burgundy and flanders in 1387.-- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You do know that your recent edit to the British Isles talk page will be reverted don't you? Not by me, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. This article is like a never ending game of pass the parcel. When we are all old and grey the same edits and arguments will still be going on. In saying that, after being involved in the Macedonia naming dispute this is like a breath of fresh air. Jack forbes ( talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your change has been reverted. MITH 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Rakt. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Stifle (
talk)
11:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you noticed? There is another Republican making obnoxious statements about the British Isles, comparing this term to "Nigger". I swear, that article is pure quicksand. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. ( talk) 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that rather than the sheepish kind, there is another type of shagger who has just made trouble for you, so I moved your edit to the image page, as the thing instructed. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. ( talk) 07:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
All you need to do, is check my edit history. They are tag-teaming me again.
Lutetia
Petuaria |
18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tharky, haven't seen you around too much lately, hope everything is OK. I've posted this on the British Isles Talk page:
Not sure but I think it was you that dug this out originally - is there a publically accessible link anywhere, or it a case of going to the British Museum to look at their copy? ;-) Thanks for any help. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw that. Couldn't let it go without a comment is all. ;-) -- HighKing ( talk) 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've noticed you furiously undoing my edits without any due justification on the talk page. I am assuming good faith in hoping you have good reasons for that. Lets discuss on the talk page before engaging in an edit war. Besides, the term 'founder' has been given to Muhammed (pbuh) by the non-Muslim world and is denounced completely by the Muslim one. Hoping to see you on the talk-page. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 09:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
ADB, when someone challenges an addition to an article it is best to go to the talk page of that article and seek consensus for including it. If you can accomplish that then those who object will need to respect the consensus. Chillum 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Those discussons remind me of a Blackadder Goes Forth episode. Blackadder questions Darling as to whether he's a German spy & Darling claims he's as British as Queen Victoria. Blackadder, growls back about Victoria German ancestry. GoodDay ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The more amusing irony!
Lutetia
Petuaria |
18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 8#Template:British monarchs.
Hiya Tharky. I'm too lazy to check, who created & snuck this Template in under my nose? GoodDay ( talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There are currently two templates, as per the consensus in the recent AfD debate. One is for English & British monarchs, and the other for Pictish & Scottish monarchs. Both emphasise the essential continuity between their two respective lists. The pre-1603 Scottish kings don't appear on the English & British list. ðarkun coll 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If a Template: English monarchs is created? I'd easily accept an expanded Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. GoodDay ( talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It's gonna take a long while for me, to fix up these Templates. Jumpers, what a mess. GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Tharky. I'm just about ready to leave that Template (as I see it as pro-English PoV pushing). I'm sorry dude, but you're trying my patients & I don't won't to say anything un-polite. GoodDay ( talk) 22:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please remove that tag. This is a "troubles related" article and your intervention here may constitute edit warring. If you don't remove it I will have to ask an Administrator to do so. Sarah777 ( talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
England is not a devolved country, but is a country! Now you have removed the D word I am happy -- Snowded TALK 10:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You've seen the standard block notices before, so it's probably best put into plain language. You've been blocked for 24 hours, for edit warring at
British Isles in violation of the editing restriction imposed at
Talk:British_Isles#Protected_again_-_please_read_WP:BRD. I realise that you may be unaware of this restriction, but I was swayed by your edit comment which implies a presumption of bad faith. That said, I will gladly unblock you if you're willing to abide the the above-mentioned editing restriction (in a nutshell, not to revert a revert, but instead to discuss). Regards,
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll agree, that using James VI & I in the opening content & as the Infobox title, is a fair compromise (when considering the article title). GoodDay ( talk) 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you care to chip in on the talk page again? I realise you've probably argued the anti-Dee case a few times and are tired of it, but they're claiming consensus because there are too few people challenging the absurdity of the reference. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to revamp the lead sections of the Cornish people and (perhaps more importantly) English people. I have draft versions at User:Jza84/Sandbox5, but would welcome your input (I enjoyed the insight and balance you brought to the English folks' infobox image) very much. Any chance you could pop over, and perhaps fill in a few blanks and references? -- Jza84 | Talk 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've taken the liberty of updating the EU locator map showing internal member borders, but there seems to be ... resistance to exhibiting them. Having noticed that you were previously involved in a related discussion, I invite you to weigh in again. Thanks! Bosonic dressing ( talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm planning to split that template in-half. GoodDay ( talk) 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not going to be as easy, as I thought. GoodDay ( talk) 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As the creator of the article I am obliged to advise you that I have proposed British Isles naming dispute for deletion. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Say hello, to the new (and inclusive) Template. GoodDay ( talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to add the British monarchs to Template: English monarchs. Must we go through all this again? Like we did at the List of monarchs articles? GoodDay ( talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you catch this development, Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs? The old template for post-1707 monarchs got deleted in favour of a pc monstrosity. I've cross-posted this from Johnk's page. That neither of you have commented suggests you are unaware. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just anxious, that the fact is shown that the Scottish & English monarchies became the British monarchy (a poorly kept secret). Not the false claim, the English monarchy expanded & was re-named the British monarchy. GoodDay ( talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello TharkunColl,
If my memory and judgement serves me correct, I believe you may be something of a skeptic about certain things Cornwall or Cornish. Not really seeking an edit war, just trying to hunt a reliable source that counters claims of Cornish-Celtic ethnicity. I'm working on a revamp of the Cornish people article and so far everything really points to validating Celtic-Cornishness, which has prompted concern from other editors that its not reflecting alternative views about Cornish-Englishness (I'm indifferent - but want to make a stable, well rounded article). You wouldn't happen to know of anything that could help? -- Jza84 | Talk 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Tharky, I recall a while ago it was agreed between you and User:HighKing that there would be no more removals or additions of British Isles by either of you, and by implication, by other editors as well. Is that the gist of it? I ask because the issue has raised its ugly head again and there is presently a dialogue at User talk:HighKing/Archives/2009/September#British Isles removal concerning this matter, in which you may be interested. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sent to User:TharkunColl, User:HighKing, User:MidnightBlueMan.
I'll be clear here; the constant revert wars over these articles are disruptive. I have looked at some of the articles, and clearly in some cases one side is correct. For example, ( Greater White-fronted Goose should be "British Isles", or some construct that includes Ireland; it is easily sourceable that the species winters throughout the territory). Equally, Operation Herbstreise should clearly be "United Kingdom", because that's exactly what Operation Sealion was.
Regardless of who's "right" though, all this revert warring is disruptive. All parties have started checking other parties' edits and indulging in mass reverts. WP:BRD might only be an essay, but it's a core part of Wikipedia philosophy. So hear this, please; the next time I see any of these three editors taking part in mass reversion of another editor, I will block them, and such blocks will be of increasing time. Similarly, any persistent edit-warring on an article by multiple editors will risk blocking; it doesn't matter if you've breached 3RR or not. Any editor may notify me on my talkpage if they feel there is a problem.
There may be more editors that this needs to be sent to; I have aimed it at the main three protagonists. If other editors need to see this, please mention on my talkpage and I will include them as well. Thanks, Black Kite 10:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ethelred coin.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat ( talk)
Thanks for uploading File:Ethelbert coin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat ( talk) 15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Left him an explanatory note. Hopefully he will pay heed to it. Black Kite 16:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Tharky. If ya follow my contributions, they'll take you to the current discussion on where to & not to use British Isles on Wikipedia. GoodDay ( talk) 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you self revert the last edit you made to my talk page here. Personal attacks and incivility are not tolerated on Wikipedia, as you are aware. Also unblocking you was a courtesy, the other users where unaware of the edit restriction, you where fully aware of it having been blocked under it previously and agreeing to respect the restriction. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your work to remove inappropriate use of British Islands has been undone. I've corrected some of the reverts but - here we go again. Note that in at least one case the article originally used Isles, then HK changed it last year. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
British poetry - original HK change from Isles to Islands last year Dalby - ditto
Vesperinae - completely iditotic to use British Islands.
Other fauna articles appear to have used British Islands as a result of a mistranslation from Norwegian.
Others are now using British Islands in a totally inappropriate manner. Then again, Puerto Ricans in World War II should actually use UK, so I've corrected it. I'm reporting this here because of your corrective work on these matters and because I'm banned from HK's talk page. I guess he'll read this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [18]. Thanks, Black Kite 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite
11:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)TharkunColl ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
All of my edits were to remove the patently incorrect British Islands. User:HighKing reverted them, and has reverted them again. So how come he wasn't blocked? He has caused untold disruption.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ahh go on, go on go on, ye will, ye will, ye will, Scruffy's in town, by the Crown. You know you want to! Sticky Parkin 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
File:KingAlfredStatueWantage.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:King Alfred Statue Wantage.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:King Alfred Statue Wantage.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have sorted out those article by removing any reference to BI at all using different sources. Most of them didn't need it. One of the articles only mentioned BI in a sentence that said "This beetle doesn't occur there"! Black Kite 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have my doubts whether commons:File:Ethelred coin.gif is really an "Æthelred I" penny. Grueber's Handbook of the coins of Great Britain and Ireland (not state of the art, but the best I can find) is available here. If you pick "Read online" and then jump to page "n347", you should be at plate IV. Image number 133 on that plate is a penny of "Æthelred I" with diademed bust. Not like yours! If you go to page "n351" and plate VI, which is "Æthelred II" at the top, those look much more like yours. I think you may have got the wrong Æthelred. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I was kicked out of chat twice: blocked for a day and then permabanned for saying the "wrong" thing.
Elsewhere now. Are you giving up on Sambo Whales? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 06:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Tharky. It's amazing that the news media, tabloids etc, still think the Queen decides the succession. GoodDay ( talk) 23:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thark, a question for you; what do you think of this reference [19] to support the text that HighKing has recently edited out of the above article? It's unclear whether Wikipedia, or this, or something else is the original - looks like it might be this reference but there could be some copyvio issues with the Wikipedia article. I ask you because HighKing rejects all references out of hand, and you are apparently knowledgeable in this area. What do you reckon - could we use this reference? Mister Flash ( talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
[20] The bloke's a real freak and questions why I removed his historical revision. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, let's us compromise. GoodDay ( talk) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a template, meant to help people navigate, not confuse them with multiple entries for the same person. ðarkun coll 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And will you do the research? ðarkun coll 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you make an exact copy of you proposed template at that talkpage. That way I could tweak it, to give an example of what I'm grumping about. GoodDay ( talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked administrator Rockpocket to revert the template to its previous version (while the discussion is on), as there was no consensus to change it. GoodDay ( talk) 17:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Almost Tharky, just a slight matter of Scottish regnal numbers & we've got it. GoodDay ( talk) 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no law against using /, it's less cumbersome & confusing (as far as William & Mary are concerned). GoodDay ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
He was indeed, though it seems he was never called that. Just like Edward I of England was really IV, and so on. Regnal numbers aren't ruled by logic or maths, you know. ðarkun coll 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
He was the second William to be king of Scotland, yes. But was he ever called that? That's the issue here. ðarkun coll 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm confident the others will agree to our hard fought-compromise. GoodDay ( talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Serious questions:
How could folkishness be achieved without adequate documentation of a time preceding so many compromises and at what point could it be distinguished between a state and a people, between assimilation and individuality? Does not regionalism undermine tribalism? E.G. would it not be better for the cause of folkishness, to focus on Swedes, Northmen, Danes, Jutes (or perhaps Goths), Angles and Saxons rather than a statist Heptarchy kind of approach, despite the fact that these polities do have some documentation? How would it be possible to speak and believe in an "uncontaminated" manner, so that language and religion suffers no distortion, for as the Britons submitted to influence by the Gauls, so too have the Angles done with the Franks, thus showing the natural expression of geopolitical realities, much as the Scottish nation is tributary of the English? We have to be cognisant that it was our very own ancestors who willingly and even wilfully chose conversion or acclimation to new means and ways of life, that their incorporation was voluntary, as conquerors--it is also our freedom and pride which prevents us from throwing such changes away.
Would it not be a noble venture to free our cousins the Normans and Bretons from France, if our intent is to revive innate individualisms? Likewise, could not the Franks of France and Franconia reunite for their own sake? Even the Burgundians have a claim to Danish ancestry, so why stop there? All of the Germanic tribes are West Roman anyway, so what frees us to pretend that Britannia becomes changed to Germania, when the Gauls could not be entitled to convert Italy to Gallia? What is the right and actual fact by which we see or recognise the post-Migration Rome as having changed the provincial boundaries, rather than accept the obvious, that all had assimilated in their own way, to the new environments outside of Germania? Even Iceland was part of Britannia, as Thule. So then, what prevents the statist reality from confirming a community of the three major British islands, combined with folkishness, to include Armorica (which was originally Aquitainia), simply the continental coast of the Oceanus Britannicus? Considering this arrangement, what's to say that England does not have more of a simple commonality with Iceland than any part of old Germania? Those nations of the Continent should thus have a commonality without us. Therefore, why enjoin ourselves with those historically very closely related to us, whom have dropped their individuality and independence for homage to Frankishness, such as the Saxons, Normans and Bretons? To fall back to pre-Migration alignment, would entail that only Alba, Eire and Thule combine to a single British community and all Germanic offshoots throughout the West must come to similar terms, whether as we do in Britishness, or as Gauls, Spaniards, Italians, Africans, etc. Only pre-Migration Germania can thus, now also be Germania, despite any volkerwanderungs which occurred to the point of transforming some aspects of their new environments. I would vehemently disagree with the New World's qualities in respect of these arguments, simply for the precarious nature of colonialism juxtaposed with foreign immigrants colonising Europe. On the other hand, there might need be an expulsion of all foreigners with the exchange that colonists return, much like the Israeli law of return. Fair is fair...
Thanks mate! 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Another thing:
If there is the continual overthrow of Frankishness, then that undermines the very reconstruction of Europe in Germanic favour, thus reverting to the Latin predecessor. This is what happened in the Neoclassical era, although aided generally by republicanism throughout Western nations, yet it is interesting that the Corsican did not rename France to Gaul once again. Similarly, in the East, destruction of the Russians means that the Greek default would take precedence once again in Scythia. Do we simply accept the abolition of Migration Age Reconstruction of Europe, that the Franks and Russians had nothing worthy to contribute, in which case, derivative nations such as England and say, Poland also, should be considered forfeit accomplices of the West and East respectively? Did you know that John, when making England a papal fief like Germany, had his son Richard of Cornwall elected Emperor, this was the path by which England was almost made a candidate for leadership in Rome through the machinations of Henry III? Boohoo Magna Carta. We could simply pretend that Latin Britain and Frankish England don't exist, but then we'd be left with nothing and no recognition by the world, a state of self-denial, perfectly ripe for migrant conquest coming from overseas. The most realistic aspiration is provincialism within the larger scheme of things. I mean, how does a nation undo such things as the latin alphabet being the basis of one's entire communication, when Runes are Italic and probably Etruscan anyway? Could Cyrillic be deposed for its greek alphabetical origins? What would be the profit of returning to barbarism, especially after priding so much in the benefits of civilisation to the point of converting New World barbarians to our own influence, in whose present constitutions there is a blend of civilised and barbarian influences out of Europe through our works? What is purity?
Then again remains the thorny issue of religion. If Christianity is in the way, then how could it necessarily be alien, as the Goths pioneered Christianity in their own right, to pave the way for the Reformation? What's the essential difference of local heathen versions of Latin and Greek paganism in Germania and Scythia, versus "mainstream" Christianity of the Mediterranean and the Evangelical or Reformed types in the North? In each era of faith, one was generally subordinate in influence to the other, with some exchange making it interesting. In either case, Christianity as an institution could not be seen as irregular, for such cases as Judaism, Mithraism and other provincial expressions of Roman faith were freely worshiped in common throughout the empire, underneath the imperial cult. The difference is the special favour with which the imperium chose to ally with Judaism as adapted for and by Hellenism. (i.e. We still call the almighty father God/Woden or Deus/Zeus, with pagan roots to each, used in conjunction to Judaism, not in actual denial of either, only exclusion of one in this theological synbiosis becomes a problem.) Pagans and heathens themselves effected this transformation in the search for Wisdom, along the lines as Apollo and other searches for Truth. Truly, I don't see how we could have Adonis and not Elias, under the multicultural Roman basis that made a mishmash of everything, beliefs and bloods. It's not like Theodosius made circumcision an issue. If nativism on a provincial basis was to be stipulated for religious practice, then how do we account for the Galatians of Asia and the Vandals of Africa? These are almost certainly the predecessors of our Crusader ancestors and how could we not pride on them for their accomplishments? Why submit to the criticism of foreigners for our cultural inheritance as it has affected them? I really don't care how they feel. Historical precedent could argue for both pagan and Christian domination of Africa and Asia by Europeans of all stripes--even Russia has a claim in Scythopolis, but the Scythians generally were the bridge to India via them being part of Persia, Aryan homeland. Persia, being the very first tricontinental empire, with land in Asia, Europe, Africa, also extended as far south as the least navigable Nile Cataracts in Ethiopia. What then is our civilisation if we rip these symbols of historical progression from our inheritance? Simply convert the Muslims to Christianity rather than abandon Christianity to paganism as it has been allowing the Muslims Sharia law to replace Christianity, though our own efforts.
I'd appreciate your thoughts and let me know what's been going on. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you envision a corporate union of Angles and special rights to odal in Angeln, special preference for Yngvi-Freyr? How does Mercia feel about Eadric Streona? What of Æthelflæd? Danes and Saxons? I assume Mercia is proud of Penda and Offa equally for their successes. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Lox, you're using terms and names from Norse mythology. Remember that the Anglo-Saxons were not Norse. Eadric Streona was a turncoat, Æthelflæd was a great reconqueress, and yes, Mercians are very proud of both Penda and Offa. ðarkun coll 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it not correct that the Angles come from the north side of the Danevirke and that the majority of their kind in Britain come from northeast of Watling St? The Saxons alone (copied by the Normans) became absorbed within the Carolingian world and through their combined Christian alliance, subordinated the rest of the North under Rome. This was not the outlook of the Angles, who wavered in between, more or less. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is something striking about the Danevirke shutting the French out, which included the Saxons. Using the Eider would have been like using the Severn. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have often wondered that seeing as the Saxons were the dominant ethnic group over the Angles, Jutes, etc., why England derived it's name from the Angles? Also why is just Anglo-Saxon hyphenated rather than Saxon-Jute, Anglo-Saxon-Jute; or is it a case like the songwriting teams of Lennon-McCartney or Jagger-Richards, one provided the language while the other provided the genetic material?-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a pretty good chance that "Angle" and "Ingaevone" are etymologically connected, though the exact relationship has been obscured. The Ingaevones comprised the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, the four tribes that - under Angle leadership - invaded Britain. On the Continent, only the Frisians now survive as a distinct group. All the Angles migrated to Britain (according to Bede), and those Jutes and Saxons that didn't make the crossing were assimilated by the Danes and Germans respectively. ðarkun coll 10:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Low German a descendent of Saxon? You must be referring to the trinational folk of Friesland, but the same sort of argument could be used for any of the Germanic folks which span different countries. 70.171.236.188 ( talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, for asking this IP. But are you by any chance Lord Loxley/Catterick? I'm detecting similiarities. GoodDay ( talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Tharky, I'm planning to contact administrators about the IP-account. GoodDay ( talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)