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)[reply]
Comments like this [1] are unacceptable personal attacks on other editors. This is a final warning; you will be blocked if you make another. ~Eliz81(C)01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't jump to conclusions, Tharky
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)[reply]
"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.
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)[reply]
Consensus can change, especially if new, cast-iron sources are provided. Please address this issue. And the same goes for your mate below. What's wrong with my reference? TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is only such when an editor attempts to sway wikipedia constitutional decisions, such as discussions or votes, by saying "You'll vote with me so come here!" If, on the other hand, an editor has been interfering with an accepted situation or vandalising or causing trouble, an editor is well within his rights to prevent the situation from escalating, or to fix the situation, by asking another editor for assistance in the matter, and to alert interested editors to the issue. MichaelSanders18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Starky
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)[reply]
And you have only strengthened my case, because the list in question is a list of monarchs, not countries. The UK is still the Kingdom of England in the same sense that Canada is still the Dominion of Canada - it may be bigger, and have a different name, but institutionally there is complete continuity. TharkunColl (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, I didn't say England was the UK, but rather that the English state (i.e. kingdom) became the UK. England is a country. The English state also included the country of Wales for quite a long time. What you appear to be saying is that a state cannot expand its territory or change its name. TharkunColl (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you are claiming that the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is actually the "Kingdom of England" in disguise (maybe it was hiding...). Despite the name, the peerage, the parliament, the governmental institutions covering (with the exception of devolved powers) the entire UK. A state can expand or change its name - but that's not what happened in 1707. It's true that a lot of English features were kept on in the new state, but the Scots objected as it was to English domination, do you think they'd have tolerated outright absorption into England? MichaelSanders18:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No of course they wouldn't have tolerated outright absorption into England, which is why the English had to wrap it up the way they did. But no one was under any illusions as to what was actually happening. It was an English takeover, pure and simple. To try and claim otherwise is to distort history. TharkunColl (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The English bullied and bribed the Scots into the union. It was what we would call a hostile takeover by a large corporation of a very small and bankrupt one. And I think you are still making too much of the "country" and "monarch" situation. The Holy Roman Empire was never a state, nor an empire (nor holy), but it still had a monarchy for a thousand years. TharkunColl (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to the SNP for example? The largest party in the Scottish parliament wants independence. No comparable English movement exists. Even the tiny and eccentric groups who favour English "independence" actually want a dissolution of the union so they can jettison the Scots who they see as a financial liability, not because they see England as an "oppressed" country. There is no movement for independence in England because no English person regards his country as not being independent (unless we're talking about the EU, but that's a different issue entirely). TharkunColl (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great Britain didn't exist until 1707? Then what was the name of the island that people had been living on all that time? How could James I call himself king of Great Britain in 1604 if Great Britain didn't exist? You are once again confusing a state with a place. Possibly, I may suggest, that's because in places like Canada there is no difference between a state and a country, but that is not how it works over here. You should not try and impose such views onto a situation where they don't fit. TharkunColl (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He said "the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until 1707". Which is true. It didn't. James I called himself "King of Great Britain" - but so what? He also called himself "King of France". Plenty of Iberian monarchs called themselves "King/Emperor of Spain/the Spains", it didn't make it true, or even a genuine title. In the case of England and Scotland, under the 'union of crowns', the states remained separate in laws, parliaments, peerages, governance, etc, until the Act of Union (with the exception of the Commonwealth, and the governance of Scotland under Charles II, both of which were abandoned). Then they were united by the Act of Union. (I'm British, by the way, so are you going to claim I don't understand the difference between states and countries?) MichaelSanders20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). MichaelSanders20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25 (I think that was the number) appointed Scottish MPs just turned up at Westminster in May 1707 and were admitted to the proceedings. Whatever the legal technicalities, the fact is that the Westminster parliament survived, with all its usages and traditions, and the Scottish one didn't. They didn't even bother holding a new general election, and the triennial act then in force was measured from the last English general election. This was not a union of equals. TharkunColl (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English Parlaiment survived: but it became the Parliament of the "Kingdom of Great Britain". It may not have been a union of equals (who said it was?), but it was a union nonetheless. Whatever the controversy over the survival of institutions (and there's plenty), it's undeniable that legally the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1707. MichaelSanders20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legally speaking the Soviet Union was a democracy. Law does not adequately describe reality, and not understanding this simple fact is a very serious fault with most Wikipedia editors. TharkunColl (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must also remember, you've brought up this argument twice before at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs; on both occassions the consensus was against you. Ya can't seperate the King/Queen from the Kingdom, if you make your changes at those article - you'd have to make similar changes to related articles (example: Kingdom of England would have to be described as still existing orJames I of England would have to be moved to James I of Great Britain). You change one article? you change them all. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of a difference. The Soviet Union was a state which claimed to be a democracy, but which did not uphold those claims. Whereas the claim that Scotland and England were united by the Act of Union was upheld - Scottish and English M.P.s sat together in the national Parliament (even if that Parliament was little different to the previous English parliament), newly created peers were members of a single peerage (even if previously created peerages continued), the monarchical title made no mention of England or Scotland, there was one united foreign policy, the kingdom had a single set of ambassadors, a single army, a single empire...I think the reality adequately reflects law. MichaelSanders23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, yes. The kingdom had a single set of ambassadors, foreign policy, office holders, etc. etc., all of whom had been the English ones. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But who all now owed allegiance to the "Kingdom of Great Britain". The English dominated the union (I'm not disputing that) but nonetheless it was a union, not a simple English takeover, either in law or in fact. Would you describe modern Russia as the Soviet Union? Or the Soviet Union as Russia? MichaelSanders23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia and the Soviet Union are a very good analogy. Russia existed and then it formed the Soviet Union in 1922, which it totally controlled. They were even interchangeable in common speech. TharkunColl (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And of which Russia was a constituant part as an SSR. It would be inaccurate to describe the Soviet Union as Russia. The fact that people did so in common usage doesn't make it appropriate here. MichaelSanders00:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above Tharky, if you make chages on these monarcs articles, you must make changes to the relating articles (there's no way around it). GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm signing out for the night. These discussions are very interesting (and fun). If you 'ever' get a consensus for your proposed changes, I won't revert them. Until tommorow. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list is truly awful, confusing, and confused. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present info simply and concisely, not befuddle the reader. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that article survived an AfD over a year ago (not sure). Remember, the British monarchs are equally successors to the English & Scottish monarchs. My goodness, the British monarchs have Scottish & English royal blood - they're combined genetically aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Genetically the British monarchs are mostly German. You keep asserting that the union is equal but you have not provided a shred of evidence. The English state dominated the union. Why is this obvious fact of history so difficult for you to grasp? What's the capital of the UK, London or Edinburgh? That is just one example of a myriad of similar questions I could ask. TharkunColl (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying there's an English primacy feel to the UK (Elizabeth II tends to be called 'Queen of England', but never 'Queen of Scotland'). As I've said earlier, if you can get a consensus for your proposed changes, I won't revert - but as it looks now, the consensus is 'leave lists alone'. Ya know, things would've been alot easier if Elizabeth I of England had married and bore children. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah we might never have got to take over Scotland then. Much better to trick them into thinking that their monarch becomes King of England, then a hundred years later boot out his descendants and bring in a bunch of Germans who can't even speak English and so are easy to control. TharkunColl (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna let others respond to your English takeover agrument, as we're not convincing each other. All we're doing is taking up 'talk page space' with our 'tug-of-war' discussion. It's only fair of me, as the consensus currently backs my argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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-youthpléigh18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not sure. It may be something to do with Saint George, patron saint of England since the Middle Ages. Anyway I'm off out now. Catch you later. TharkunColl (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE;
You appear to be outvoted, and have now reached your 3RR limit as well I'm afraid
Whatever the case, you can make no more reversions. Why don't you wait and see how it turns out? It's still under construction at the moment. TharkunColl (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't know that one. But yes, Cromwell deserves a better place in British, even world history. He was the first person ever to draw up a written constitution for a state, which is ironic since we are the only country that doesn't have one now - which I think is a very good thing, incidentally. TharkunColl (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've always felt that a written constitution inhibits democracy. Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it likes, but it is constrained from acting tyrannically by centuries of convention. When Ted Heath refused to resign as PM in 1974 after losing the general election and attempted to continue governing, he was literally laughed out of office by the media and threatened with the sack by the Queen. His attempt lasted mere days. TharkunColl (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Donald III was also a contemporary of William Rufus, King of England - or in his own language, Guillaume le Roux. Or how about the former English king, still very much alive in the 1090s, Eadgar Æþeling - or in modern form, Edgar the Atheling. Or does your policy only extend to speakers of Celtic languages? And if so, when does it become no longer appropriate? The Bruces and Stewarts were certainly not Celts (in fact they had mostly Norman ancestry and spoke English), yet you had Gaelic versions of their names. You even had a Gaelic version of the name of William of Orange! How is this possibly useful or justified? TharkunColl (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are confusing different issues. The Gaelic names of all Scottish kings, not put there by me (although I reformatted them), were there because Gaelic is and was a major language of the Scottish kingdom at all periods. That has nothing to do with this topic, and is a entirely different consideration from native names for the Gaelic kings of Alba, used by almost all historians who write about them today. As for the descent of the Bruces and Stewarts, if you take the kings and trace their actual ancestry, you'll realise your belief comes from cultural fallacy, that of Agnatic seniority. As for language, we don't know that they adopted English until the 14th century. All of this is not relevant to this discussion though. And blatant irrelevancies such as these, by diverting energy and distracting from issues, can only hamper progress here, as I've learn through experience on wiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaelic is not a major language of Scotland and hasn't been for many hundreds of years. Indeed it was never a majority language and only rose to promince because it was the language spoken by the early kings, after they had conquered the Picts. The Bruces and Stewarts were Norman by ancestry because they inherited Norman attitudes and culture. And since the 14th was when they came to power your assertion that that was when English became the language of the kings fits exactly. TharkunColl (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaelic is not a major language of modern Scotland, but it was a major language of the Scottish kingdom for all of its existence, the majority language language before the 15th cent, and the only major language before the 12th century. This is not relevant here though, as the issue you're pursuing concerns the Scottish monarchs page and isn't editorially related to this discussion.
Gaelic is not a major language of modern Scotland, but it was a major language of the Scottish kingdom for all of its existence, the majority language language before the 15th cent, and the only major language before the 12th cent. Regarding the emergence of English as the language of the kingdom's elite, that's a complex historical topic. It's emergence in the 14th cent. probably owes more to the decline of French because of insularization and the decline of aristocratic links with French-speaking England, rather than the histories of those family. Scotland had acquired and integrated since the 11th cent. a large English-speaking region (known then as "Lothian"), and scores of pockets of English-speakers resided in enclaves throughout other parts of what became Lowland Scotland. Both the Stewarts and Bruces came to Scotland directly from France, and it's more likely in the Stewart case at least that they were characterised for the first two centuries by French-Gaelic bilingualism or French-Gaelic-English trilingualism, not English monolingualism. Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith, 3rd generation Stewart, used the Gaelic nickname Ballach ("the freckled) in letters to the Pope, and that part of Kyle (a totally Gaelic speaking area) ruled by Walter II was called (in an English-speaking (!) Latin source), "Walter Og's Kyle" ... Og meaning "the younger" or "little", distinguishing him from Walter I fitz Alan! In summary, the early Stewarts in Scotland seem to have been at least partially nativized (in Gaelic culture), the fate of Norman aristocratic settlers everywhere. And even in the fourteenth century, if you read anything about Robert II and his family, you'll realise that that monarch was as Gaelic as any other magnate whose lands were primarily based in the West Highlands and Firth of Clyde. While non-aristocratic church guys of burghess decent like Barbour and Wyntoun led the charge of English in late 14th century Scotland, Robert II was producing sons like Alasdair Mór mac an Rígh, the "Wolf of Badenoch", while Gaelic medicinal and superstitious tracts were being written in the margins of Stewart owned manuscripts. So it is not quite as simple as you seem to think. Anyways, this is all irrelevant to this discussion, and is distracting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
All Bruce links with England before Henry I's invasion of Normandy in 1106 have been debunked since the war. Since you didn't even believe Professor Archie Duncan on this, you'll never believe any one. As for the Stewarts, they demonstrably came to Britain in the same reign ... but so far as I know no proto-Stewart was ever invented to put them here earlier other than Fleance and Banquo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your (and Archie's) POV. The Bruces were firmly established with lordships and manors in England before one of them came north. When the countless dozens of pre-war historians, most of whom had strings of credentials, are proven to be national frauds then I (and everyone else) might sit up and look. In Scotland it is easy to get really good posts because the population is tiny. Archie might have had more difficulty elsewhere in landing his plum jobs. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't him that debunked it, he was just repeating and agreeing with it. No evidence for Bruce presence in Britain before Henry predates the 16th cent. ... and England in the 11th and 12th cent. has exhaustive records. Slagging off one of Britain's senior historians whom no modern historian disagrees with on this matter because of this matter really won't work. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "slag him off" just made a couple of pertinent points. Both Sir James Balfour Paul and Sir Thomas Innes were great scholars in their fields but countless people sl;ag them off. No academic is beyond question whatever his job. The College of Arms in London has copious MSS of the Bruces in Yorkshire prior to the Robert decamping for Scotland. I cannot recall the exact dates. I took notes. I suppose I could find them if I tried. There is not one single credible reason why anyone in France would go directly to Scotland at that time. Even Dalrymple said it was barbaric. I do not accept for one minute monstrous generalisations such as "no modern historian". Unless you can prove to every Wikipedian that you know them all personally. Hundreds (thousands?) of them. Please don't try and put others down with that kind of silly statement. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no Bruces in Britain before Henry I's invasion of Normandy; the train of events which brought them to Britain are well known - they were locals who helped Henry out in Normandy and were rewarded. It appears from modern reconstructions that Henry brought David to Normandy in his campaign ... David had some kind of lordship over the Cotentin peninsula, and the Bruces became senior in David's French following; David has no following which had spent more than a generation in England ... i.e. they were all new men. They were petty barons who came to Scotland when David did and received a lordship the size of an earldom (I think that would be more than enough to come to Scotland), and some smaller estates in England. Robert I fell out with David because of The Anarchy, was deprived on his "Scottish" possessions, which were given to his son; and you know the rest. No pre-Henrican Bruce existed until they were invented in the 16th cent. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know they came into Scotland with David. No-one is disputing that at all. The dispute is where a claim was made that they came directly from Normandy to Scotland, bypassing England. The Bruces were given lordships and built at least one castle (Skelton) in England prior to Robert going to Scotland and possibly that explains why most of them continued to be buried in England long after they acquired their Scottish possessions. It is also entirely debateable that the exact measurements of a possible grant of lands in Scotland was made by David to Robert de Brus prior to their arrival up here. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
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)[reply]
No, I didn't. I made an edit. Then I reverted 3 times after that. The first one was not a revert (I have myself in the past been informed that this is the rule when I tried to complain about someone else). TharkunColl (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
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.
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 also would have refused this unblock request. You have been doing the same thing at the Muhammad page for too long. The blocks will only get longer in the future. We require a civil editing environment to allow for the level of collaboration we need. 1 != 216:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a block is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, so if he promises to stay off the Muhammad page there should be no reason not to unblock him. I also don't see why he should be blocked for asking about Islam's view of paedo-ism, seeing as by our modern view of the issue, muuhammad married a woman far under the age where she could give full consent, or even be anywhere near physical maturity. Merkinsmum21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to cast any judgements on the severity of the block, but preventative is the operative word here. Thark has been a serial disruptor across numerous Wikipedia articles and/or talk pages; this example is just one of many. His self-induced "break" has obviously not been long enough for him to fully reflect on the consequenses of his actions. --G2bambino (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the block is to prevent TharkunCoil knowingly baiting Islamic editors on Talk:Muhammad. It will prevent him doing so for at least two weeks, and if he returns to doing so a longer block will be imposed to prevent him again. That is not punitive. Neıl☎13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware there is no specific way to block someone from an article. What has occured is people are banned from editing an article, usually by the arbcom. When this happens, any violations of the ban will usually result in a warning or perhaps a direct block regardless of whether or not the edit was constructive. This is AFAIK particular rare in talk pages of articles which is what this concerns (although it may have happened before). However the best solution here is for TharkunColl to either reform and contribute constructively to said articles, or if he/she is unable or unwilling to do so, he/she can go into self imposed exile from the article/s in question. Being blocked or banned is a serious thing and ideally we should not have to impose either Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gloat? Besides the obvious point that my words in no way show any reveling in your present circumstances, I was just recently blocked myself; why, then, would I gloat? To the contrary, I was pointing out, in contrast to your friend Merkinsmum's evaluation, that, in my experience, your approach to editing at Wikipedia has been, to put it lightly, almost consistently troublesome, despite a few glimmers of collegiality here and there. That's all. --G2bambino (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
the blocks will get looooooooonger and longer otherwise, and you'd have to use a computer in a library to come on with a new improved sockpuppet account solely for evil lol.:|) Merkinsmum18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say Tharky, are ya sure that's a good idea? going around the Muhammad page again? Anyways, there's discussions going on about possible moving of some monarch pages, take a pick. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look through and to be honest I have no strong opinions either way. My only suggestion would be to never give a monarch a number if he himself would not recognise that number. TharkunColl (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Talk:Muhammad
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)[reply]
Hey Tharky, my ahtiest comment & my notice of Lamest War nomination both got erased during the day. Things sure are nasty on that discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tharkun, one more baiting comment on the Muhammad talkpage or any related topic and I will block you for three months. Don't even try and claim dismissing him as any old "prophet" wasn't baiting. You know it was, I know it was. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - you don't like Islam, we get it - there are plenty of places you can go and express your dislike. This is not one of them. I hoped that the past block showed I was serious on this. I strongly suggest you don't post anything on any Islam-related subjects as it's pretty clear you're unable to control yourself. Neıl☎08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not everybody is Lord Loxley, just you. The style and length of your rants, and their incoherent, loony subject matter, gives you away a mile off. TharkunColl (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Friendship and trade would exist monarchy or not I suspect. Trade with Britain is not the thing it use to be, not for decades. As for friendship, our interests lie more with the USA.--Gazzster (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And by sending the Queen over there and promoting her sovereignty of Australia the British establishment hope to retard such developments as much as possible (inevitable though they are in the long run). Do Australians tend to feel they have more in common with the USA than the UK then? That's not how it's viewed here. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | Talk18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whenever Buckingham Palace have been questioned by journalists and others about any matter relating to the law of succession (for example, the suggestion that the Australian Mike Hastings has a better claim to the throne than the Windsors), they always say that the succession is a matter for Parliament to decide - Buckingham Palace certainly has no power to do it itself. On the issue of removing male primogenture and the anti-Catholic clauses, a number of private members bills have been submitted to the Commons over the years but none of them have so far succeeded. The idea is occasionally mentioned in the news but no one actually cares enough to bother doing anything about it.
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)[reply]
Britain's foreign policy is to cling on to as much influence as it possibly can, simply because it's in our best interests to do so. Our relationships with former colonies - the USA in particular but not excluding the others - has been the cornerstone of British policy ever since we had former colonies. The British monarchy is part of this, as is everything else. TharkunColl (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the UK promotes its interests abroad by sending the Queen on state tours is certainly not mine - it's been going on for years. And yes, it is definitely national policy. Each country uses the assets it has to promote itself, and the Queen is a truly massive asset in that she is a world famous and instantly recognisable figure. Shortly after Tony Blair left office and there was evidence of a cooling in relationship between the US and the UK, what happened? We sent the Queen over to dazzle them. When an Australian PM - Paul Keating - started to make noises about republicanism, we sent the Queen over to dazzle them. I remember that particular tour because Keating put his arm round the Queen at one point which was, of course, a huge breach of protocol and therefore seen as a deliberate snub to the British and was all over the news here for days and days. John Major told the Queen that he had nothing further to say to Keating and relations between the two PMs became very frosty indeed for a short while. It was the Queen herself who eventually brokered a reconciliation of sorts by telling Major something personal about Keating, namely that he was a big cricket fan. Since Major was too, that gave them something in common to talk about at the forthcoming visit of Keating to Britain. The point is though that the British establishment uses the monarchy as an instrument of its own policy and to promote its own interests round the world. And the monarchy is more than happy to play its part. Indeed, they no doubt see it as one of their essential functions - they are, after all, an integral part of that very same British establishment. TharkunColl (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the 'succession', my guess is the UK Parliament (with the 15 other Cr Parliaments following suit) may change it to 'first born regardless of gender', starting with Prince Williams' children. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They might eventually, but I suspect that the British establishment is afraid to bring the subject up in case the Commonwealth realms decide to just abolish the monarchy instead. Both eventualities would require lengthy constitutional amendment procedures in most of the realms so they might think it was a perfect opportunity to just go the whole hog and become republics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The queen visited US in early May 2007, Blair left almost 2 months later on 27th June. In any case these tours are in the planning for a very long time and can't react instantaneously to events ... and only take place by invitation. The British establishment uses the monarchy as an instrument of its own policy and to promote its own interests round the world. – by establishment, I assume you mean government; the two terms are not synonymous. Bill Reid | Talk19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have said that she went to the US in anticipation of Blair's stepping down, which was also in planning for a very long time. By British establishment I wasn't just referring to the government, but to the monarchy and all the other things that make it up. Occasionally the government is even at odds with the establishment (though not very often). TharkunColl (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How on earth can insising that the article consist of historical fact and objective, orthodox, mainstream reality (rather than subjective interpretations based upon abused references) be POV pushing? It cant and the POV pushing is entirely on your part. siarach (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ya gotta be careful though. I made a joke somewhere (can't remember) months ago, on one of the Irish articles. It took me a few days, to explain myself. It was a wiki-bruising experience. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
you've been here a while, you both know the rules. As it happens I agree with your position, but this is getting ridiculous. --Bazzargh (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your loyal pledge, Duke ShieldDane of the House of Dane, and let this be the glorious beginning of the Order of TharkunColl! Many others shall flock to my banner, but as the first you will forever be in my counsels, and you shall find me a wise and generous lord. TharkunColl (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We At the Order of TharkunColl remember when you G2Bambino were accused of gloating at the blocking of our beloved TharkunColl, for this accused Heresy we name you an enemy of the Tharkunhood! Which we do easily because of our pro-American Anti-Canada feelings (Except for Trynaa who discomfort-ably enough is from Canada) Your doom has been written! No Maple leaf will protect you now, nor handouts of citizenship to anyone who asks! Long live the Fenian RaidsShieldDane (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You only have so many Lumber Jacks to call upon, and with a large contingent of French speaking citizens, there can only be true outcome! And whilst your soldiers may get the benefit of free healthcare, us American cowboys know how to heal all wounds with a can of beans, a hot iron and Horse urine. So as you can see, your days are numbered! ShieldDane (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yup, that's a 3RR all right - actually, is it a 4RR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.Bardcom (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Thark, you only reverted the insertion once, making three reverts in all, so you most surely did not break 3rr. On the other hand: (a) you were edit-warring, and treading close to the line with respect to 3rr, which I would caution you against, for your sake, and ask you to avoid, for Wikipedia's sake. (b) if you had reverted the two things twice each, that would have been a 3rr breach -- 4 reverts in 24 hours. Bardcom is right insofar as that it does not matter, in relation to 3rr, whether the reverts are the same or different. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a powerful enemy
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've checked it out. IMHO, what you have on your personal page? is your bezz. As for the public articles? not so OK. PS- don't feel too bad, the Pope got into similiar trouble awhile back. As an atheist (of course), I find the whole 'image fight' at Muhammad? much-a-do about nothing. PS- Remember, I did advice you, to stay away from the Islam topics (for religious sensitivity reasons). Good luck, surviving this current storm. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused, sorry. I live..in America? We value freedom of..speech..and expression...maybe that's not how it is in..wiki-erica? Apparently saying "Islam Sucks" is raciest. I didn't even say it/show it to any islamic people, just my lord and liege TharkunColl. Was the 'sucks' word just too darn strong? Am I allowed to dislike Islam..? Or strongly be in difference of opinion with Islam? Or does that too fall in the category of racism. Perhaps I should have the Thought-Police teach me a seminar on what I am allowed to like and not allowed to like, so that I don't get in any more trouble. ShieldDane (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I really did think the image was funny; but, then, that was within the context of knowing Thark and what he's been up to in and around Wikipedia. It certainly wasn't "racist" - Islam is in no way a race. But, though one is allowed to disagree with the dogmas of a certain group, I don't think Wikipedia is a place meant specifically for one to project one's own personal opinions. Cold as it sounds, this project deals only with hard facts; and so making subjective remarks about things - whether in favour or against - isn't really kosher.
Yeah, some people are being over-sensitive and overreacting; living in PC Canada I can recognise that behaviour a mile away. But, though I in no way excuse others who themselves don't exercise discretion or tolerance when trying to have removed what they personally deem offensive, on the other hand, I think Thark needs to use a little discretion in a place where one has to work with others; another thing one learns when growing up in multi-cult Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people put what they like, and don't like on their User Pages, which seems to me to be a place for people 'personal opinions', since..most people put their personal opinions on them? What happened here was TharkunColl just doesn't like, something he isn't allowed not to like. ShieldDane (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... that's not completely true. They can only choose to put what they like and dislike within the limits of what Wikipedia allows. Nobody is permitted to put "Death to America!" on their user page, or "Serbians blow donkey cock!" or even something like "Jesus rules!" I even recall debates over the use of user boxes that stated what one was pro- or anti-. So, the "Islam sucks!" bit did push the limits, and the uber-sensitive did seem to make a tempest in a teacup out of it (your comments at ANI regarding the deathly silence around the cross through the Queen's British Arms reflect that point quite nicely). The link to the anti-Islam cartoons probably took it over the top, though. --G2bambino (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example SD: On my userpage, I point out that I'm an atheist. But, I also point out that I prefer not to badger religions. Thus I've done it in good-taste. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm offended by the knight's helmet at the top; my ancestors were enslaved by the Knights of the Round Table and made to clean the round table with their bottoms. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an adult?(Because I hope you took that threat seriously, I am a professional face deleter) Anyways, some self-righteous guy says he is gonna checkuser me, I've seen GoodDay mention it before. How does checkuser work? ShieldDane (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I contact a moderator or admin about a user who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than harass a new good faith editor of Wikipedia? ShieldDane (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who broke the record player? Your realize by just repeating yourself you are only setting yourself up for a bigger let down. Now are you going to help me find an admin to report you to, or not? Unlike some people I don't get on wikipedia just to harass others, the article of Asmund Berserkers-Slayer isn't going to write itself. ShieldDane (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
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 — Chris08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
End of story
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)[reply]
Are you a checkuser? You're not on the official list. And now you appear to be changing the goalposts, saying that even if I'm not using other accounts, my block was still justified. But that is not what my block was for. This is not justice, and I am not guilty of those offenses. TharkunColl (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've just noticed that you left a message here on my talkpage that was deleted before I saw it, as follows:[reply]
You'll remember that you used ShieldDane to say this bird just aint gonna fly, well guess what? This bird just relieved it's self all over your head.. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what possible way have I ever harmed Wikipedia or its users? And you still haven't answered by question - how come you're not on the official checkuser list, and if you checked me, why didn't you say so here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TharkunColl? Indeed, the only reason the block was imposed in the first place is because you gave someone the false impression that a user check had already been made, which in fact it had not. TharkunColl (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That list is comprised of people who do the checking, anyone can make a case, therefore, the case was done, just accept you have been blocked for ever, now, either you stop making comments by your own accord, or we can help you. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of doublespeak is that? If no one has checked it, then the case has not yet been determined. You are a liar, because you claimed to have run the check yourself, when in fact you can't. And what on earth is that "we can help you" thing? Some sort of threat? TharkunColl (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) For the record, as of now, there is no checkuser result yet, and TharkunColl has not been found to have been sockpuppeting. Joshuarooney, please stop talking about things you evidently do not understand. Now you are trolling. Fut.Perf.☼10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, is someone going to unblock me? No user check has been made, and Joshuarooney has lied about running such a check on me. To whom do I complain about this, and how can I do so if, whilst blocked, I am unable to post messages anywhere? TharkunColl (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will unblock you when a checkuser result is in that clarifies the situation. Until then, I guess leaving the block up for a short while is not too wrong, based on your disruptive soapboxing yesterday. To Joshuarooney: Last warning. Stop it. Fut.Perf.☼10:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's fair enough. Any guess as to how long it might take? After that, where's the appropriate place to complain about Joshuarooney? TharkunColl (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and unblocked you because the reason for the block was proven incorrect, and if a block for soapboxing was necessary you would have been blocked for soapboxing, which you where not. Also apologies about the confusion in the unblock request above --Chris10:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, you cannot really make a complaint against Joshuarooney, afterall, it is you with numerous warnings on your page, you who is hosting racist imagery on your page, OK, his methods are questionable, but they worked, you got found out and you cant accept that fact. Sacharin (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sacharin: I strongly refute any accusations of racism. It is not racist to express opinions about an ideology. Would someone who was anti-Communist be a racist, simply because the vast majority of self-described Communists in the world are probably - these days at least - Chinese? What I am against is any ideology that restricts human freedom of thought. TharkunColl (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The block was lifted, by Chris G (see above). There was still an autoblock around, which I've removed now. You should be able to edit now. Fut.Perf.☼11:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Welcome back from exile, Tharky. I was afraid your followers might create the sockpupperty impression (and I was correct). But, one's is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping my fingers crossed was worth it, you've survived the slanderings. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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^_^vDetarder)15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, no problem. Incidentally, how do I get rid of this thing at the bottom of the page that says "Temporary Wikipedian userpages"? TharkunColl (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Away at my dad's wedding yesterday and I missed all the sudden drama lol.:) I can't believe that Joshuathingy, pretending to be a checkuser/have evidence, I hope he keeps getting blocked on any other accounts he creates. The cheerleaders of TharkunColl are doing cartwheels, which, incidentally, shows their gymknickers lol:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum15:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a really fun day yesterday! Bring on the cheerleaders and they shall cartwheel for all they're worth, and let us see those gymknickers! TharkunColl (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
=P no one bothers to apologize to me, or my poor fellow Knights of the Order of TharkunColl, who also were blocked whilest innocent. ShieldDane (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Romans
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)[reply]
Award
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Rockpocket01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving titles
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)[reply]
I would rather keep it as it is to be honest. We also have Canadian and Australian lists using the same adjectival form. I certainly don't wish to split the list at 1801 - that would be unnecessarily confusing (Ireland, unlike Scotland, was not a sovereign state). TharkunColl (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, I went to bed, I didn't expect such a fast response! I'm doing fine. I'm asking about a matter of terminology. William's men put down the rebellion in Northumbria by various brutal means, then on their way south crossed the Pennines via Longdendale (the Etherow valley), wrecked the villages along the way, and caried on as before in Cheshire and maybe the Machester area (uncertain). The business in Northumbria is "The Harrying of the North"; are the events west of the Pennines part of The Harrying, or do they go by another name? Stuff in the west doesn't seem to be covered much by the reliable general histories. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. I knew he was in north Staffs, but not how far south he went. I don't want to be tippy-toing around the issue, but don't want to call it THOTN only for someone to appear and call me a dunderhead. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Headsup
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That was pretty much the consensus that was reached on the AfD page. Except by those who wanted to keep and improve it. But, needless to say, they haven't bothered to do anything to improve it. TharkunColl (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The term Europe also includes Iceland, but that too was listed separately because "Europe" is often perceived to be just the mainland, especially by English speakers. Inclusion of British Isles and Iceland here simply makes it more clear which parts of Europe are included. TharkunColl (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a reference for your claim that "Europe" is often perceived to be just the mainland? Is this a particularly British POV? If this is the case, why does the website for the kingdom of Drachenwald not use the same description - they appear happy to just use the term "Europe". Bardcom (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you heard the old joke - "Fog in Channel, Europe cut off"? Anyway, including British Isles and Iceland does not detract in any way and potentially makes things more clear. TharkunColl (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm....seems to me that you're editting the article to push a British POV. The joke certainly illustrates the same POV too. Seeming to push the term "British Isles" into the article in this almost gratuous fashion is partly why there is such controversy over the term in the first place. You have not produced any references to justify it's includion. The website for the kingdom of Drachenwald doesn't describe it in this way. The term "Europe" is perfectly accurate. It does detract from the article significantly as you appear to want to seperate the "British Isles" and "Iceland" from "Europe" for some reason. Can you please reconsider this edit? Bardcom (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I removed it because it wasn't necessary. You have put it back. "Because it was already there" is not a good reason to put it back. Bardcom (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[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)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion - unfortunately, you are not entitled to accuse me to playing political games without justification. Please be civil and deal with the content, not the person. Since my conduct is being examined with an RfC (which you endorsed), I think it is better if I withdraw from this discussion and article for now. I've posted this article for attention/discussion on the British Isles talk page. Bardcom (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't accuse you of being political. There is a difference. If you accuse me of being political, you cast doubt on all my editing as being politically motivated...therefore you don't assume good faith. Also, you have no basis to accuse me of playing political games. Please do not do this again in the future. I certainly won't make that assumption with you. Bardcom (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Grand. So you admit the view as being British, and that you are editing with a British POV. Since this is the English language wikipedia, and not the English (or British) wikipedia, can you please revert your British POV edit? Also keep this in mind for future editing to avoid similar incidents. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, including British Isles does no harm to those who see them as part of Europe, but helps avoid misunderstanding for those who see them separately. It's a win-win situation. TharkunColl (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. And, including "Ireland" explicitly does no hard to those who see it as part of the British Isles, and helps avoid misunderstanding for those who see it separately. Also a win-win situation. Easily solved. Tb (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "British Isles and Ireland" is a ridiculous abuse of the English language. The whole point of the term British Isles is a collective noun meaning Britain and Ireland (plus surrounding small islands). TharkunColl (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if I get it. "All of Europe" is as much a collective noun as British Isles, and explicitly includes the British Isles, but you include the term anyway. "British Isles" includes "Ireland", but you object. Same logic, different result. :-) Bardcom (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, personally, I shall grit my teeth and admit that the British Isles are part of Europe, even though I dislike the Europeans as much as I suspect you may dislike the British. TharkunColl (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tharky, again with the assumptions. As they say, some of my best friends are British. I have immediate family living throughout Britain. It might make it easier for you to categorize me in some way, but please, stop assuming or name calling in public. You know, if we met, we'd have a pint and get on just fine. Hate just isn't part of my makeup. Bardcom (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can have no problem with the people but still dislike the national policies of a country, past and present. I think that's more what I was getting at. You're right about the pub of course. TharkunColl (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. Overall though, I'm a nit-picker and I'm more driven by a need for neat, tidy and accurate than I am by a green-coloured shamrock-laden ancient-history POV. Perhaps it makes sense to ask this question again. The article has now evolved to say the following about the kingdom of Drachenwald. Its borders cover all of Europe (including the British Islands, Ireland, and Iceland) as well as Africa, and the Middle East. The website for the kingdom only states The Kingdom of Drachenwald is a regional branch for Europe, Middle East and Africa. Would you object to changing the text to match what the website itself says - as a primary source, it's the best source, and removes all fudging and POVs from the editing. Bardcom (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the website is a primary source, I have no further objection. It must be said, however, that the article was probably written by a SCA member, who would presumably have known what they were talking about. TharkunColl (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Mass removal of ones postings
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I still think the source is far too old to be a reliable source, so have raised the issue here: [11] -- letting you know so you can take part in any discussion (and correct me if I've written anything incorrect).Doug Weller (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm confused now. "public" and "private" w.r.t schools have opposite meanings between UK & USA, and I'm not sure where "independent" fits in in the USA. I think some common terminology would help. "Non-state-funded" doesn't help either because of the different meaning of "state". Can you tell it's late where I am? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was sung at all independent schools and so your third reversal is puzzling. You are right that the convention is to use British spelling on British subjects, but there is also a strong tradition of clarity. Incidentally, why do you think "Public Schools" deserves capital letters? JMcC (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who put public schools there in the first place, so please convert it to lower case if you wish. They have their own article which is linked to. To call them simply independent schools blurs an important distinction, in that the song is specifically associated with public schools, but not others. And your latest revision gives even less information. TharkunColl (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erroneous
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)[reply]
The British Isles were named by the Ancient Greeks, who had no political motivations. To play down or ignore this fact is itself a poltical POV. TharkunColl (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate question entirely. It's also not exactly the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth either. Besides, the Greeks called anyone non-Greek Barbarians. You won't make yourself popular if you wander into Harrods and start calling people barbarians to their face. Saying "your kind were named barbarians by the Ancient Greeks" won't be taken as much of an excuse. On the main point, I'll take it that you do want to have it both ways. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, my point has always been very simple. You cannot legislate for language, and if the majority of people who speak a language call a place something, then that's its name. In the case of the British Isles, the majority is overwhelming (15 to 1 in the isles themselves, plus almost all other English speakers worldwide). Your barbarian analogy is false, because very few non-Greeks self identify as barbarians. TharkunColl (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the same argument the UK is called England. Most people who speak English call the UK England. I look forward to seeing you editing that onto the UK page. If some people object then they should be ignored. As for my barbarian analogy, it has nothing to do with self-identification. It has to do with basing discussions today on what people may have said 2500 years ago, or not. Your wriggling can't evade your double standard. Bye now. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the fact that a tiny minority of people in the British Isles apparently don't like the term is amply, indeed lavishly discussed on not only the British Isles page but two others as well. Are you accusing me of hyprocrisy? Then I accuse you of sockpuppetry. Bye now. TharkunColl (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I doubt if I'll succeed. The problem is that Wikipedia editors seem only to willing to impose modern concepts, such as statehood, onto entities that existed in the past. That's why there are always so many arguments about when kingdoms were founded, because the truth is that in most cases there is no answer - the question itself is meaningless and wildly different answers can be produced depending on the criteria used. TharkunColl (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
England being systematically removed from wikipedia
You may wish to leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Lord the last section. It seems the mention of English (as in England) is being systematically removed just because this is the English (as in the language) wikipedia. Thanks for you time...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buddy, you're getting into an edit war it seems. Might want to discuss stuff with the other editor first. :) Jmlk1700:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it was a history of England (becoming that of the UK), and Scotland in the 17th century was subordinate to England in many ways. His purpose was to trace the evolution of the English monarchy and its associated institutions, such as parliament. TharkunColl (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ethelred II
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)[reply]
Sorry, what do you mean about the three Edwards? The 'II' is neither incorrect nor superfluous for Ethelred: see my comment above and, for example, Stafford, P., Unification and Conquest, Edward Arnold, 1989, index. I'm not going to break the three-revert rule over this, nor get into an edit war with you, because it's simply not worth it; but I seriously think you should re-consider your actions here. Having gone ahead and re-instated your removal of 'II' twice in the last few hours, you're now removing information that is considered useful in the real world, without trying first to build any consensus. If you're basing this removal on some policy, then fine, please indicate it. Otherwise, please leave it. Nortonius (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you choose to give this spurious number to Ethelred, then you must also give similarly spurious numbers to Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor. But this will lead to the ridiculous situation of England having two kings named Edward I, two kings named Edward II, and two kings named Edward III. The fact is that no English kings were numbered until after the Conquest. TharkunColl (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. See my previous comment. I would add that, since 'II' appears to have been on Ethelred's page since the beginning, the consensus appears already to be against you. Nortonius (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, I'd say that's a relief. But this doesn't belong here: I note that you (71.10.88.69) have recently been banned for vandalism, so I would suggest that this element of the conversation should be moved to your talk page. But this isn't my talk page, so I'll leave it alone. Nortonius (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've proposed the article for deletion. I still think this could be interesting and valuable information, if it were referenced in some way. If you have any desire to improve the article then we could halt the deletion; the simplest way to halt it is to remove the {{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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was that stuff about John Dee - it's been there ages, but I hadn't checked the references. I should have done, because they simply don't support the assertions made in the article. TharkunColl (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your campaign of tendentious edits. Going through every single article that mentions the British Isles and arbitrarily removing it is not helpful to Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF, and if you have a comment about my edits, I'm happy to discuss. You have provided no justification for your reverts other than your assertion that I am on a campaign of tendentious edits. This is not true, and I have explained my edits many times. But blindly reverting edits, without comment, is most definitely not helpful to Wikipedia. --Bardcom (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but it's actually becoming quite serious. This is a deliberate political campaign to remove a specific phrase from Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second warning to WP:AGF. I have no political campaign. You have now reverted 6 articles for the 3rd time, and in the process you have removed edits by other editors beware of 3RR. You started yesterday by reverting 13 articles, so 7 articles that you blindly reverted have since been shown to be good edits. But you still have not given any explanation for any of the others. This is vandalism. Please do not blindly revert again - I am more than happy to discuss my edits wherever you like. --Bardcom (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would mediation be of any use, in the long run? What about new editors who come later? You're absolutely right about the ridiculousness of having a separate article called Great Britain and Ireland, especially as in its very first paragraph it says that the article is not actually about Britain and Ireland, but all the surrounding islands as well. So why call it that then? TharkunColl (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to point out the conversation I and others have been having at User talk:Wotapalaver#vandalism, in which you were mentioned. I noticed that you'd been having a bit of a spat at Talk:British Isles and I thought I would offer my help to calm things down. I'm suggesting to both of you that you shake hands, make up, try to avoid each other for a week or so, and we can all get on with other better things. What do you say? --John (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
No, Bardcom, this is emphatically not vandalism. Vandalism is when someone adds "poop" to the page. This is a content dispute. It needs to go to a central venue to attract a consensus of uninvolved people. Tharkun, thanks for saying you want to solve this. Please don't make any more reverts in the meantime. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Can you ask Bardcom to similarly remove no more instances of British Isles from articles in the meantime? As for the central venue, you're right of course, but since each article should be judged on its own merits this is going to be very difficult indeed to address. TharkunColl (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only proper place is the talkpage of the article he wishes to change, so that it is seen by the regular editors of that page. In other words, treat each case on its own merits. TharkunColl (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. This a matter which affects many articles and thus needs a wider input. Either a project discussion or a content RfC would seem like the way to go. --John (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen if I suddently developed an eversion to the word "pink"? Whilst grudgingly admitting that it exists in all dictionaries, I might nevertheless strenuously argue that it has to such an extent been taken over by and therefore forever identified with certain political positions that it was no longer an acceptable term for the colour itself. And, as a result of this belief, I trawled through Wikipedia changing all instances of "pink" either to "light red" or some other such verbal circumlocution, often of a highly contrived nature? If I did this, would I be guilty of any offense within the rules of Wikipedia? Why not simply sanction me or something, rather than grant my position a legitimacy it doesn't deserve by suggesting some sort of arbitration? TharkunColl (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent attempt at an analogy, Tharky, but it's flawed. Let's follow this through. Let's say that you go around making all those changes. What would happen? Your changes would be reverted unless you've got some pretty good reasons. If a pattern of failed attempts to make these changes came to the attention of another editor, and RfC would ensue, and you would be warned. And so on. Similarly, John, this is not a "matter which affects many articles" unless you try to question my behaviour first, and my edits second (which is an ad hominen attack). Until you or someone else can point out, to me, that my edits are incorrect, then this is all an ad hominen attack. --Bardcom (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying this is necessarily what anyone is doing, anyway, but a question or doubt about someone's behaviour is not necessarily an ad hominem attack. I could say "oh it's really annoying, the behaviour of Merkinsmum, going round changing words" but that's not an adhominem attack such as saying "That Merkinsmum is a mentally defective, f***-witted b***h :) Merkin'smum20:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For everybody (except perhaps John), please maintain the discussion on the ANI board. My talk is not an appropriate forum. If nothing else, Bardcom's issues with TharkunColl's behaviour are separate to mine. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3rd ANI thread in 3 days - are you going for the record?
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)[reply]
Some of his changes are probably justified (e.g. those that pipe "British" to "British Isles", which is certainly incorrect). Perhaps it's best just to let the regular editors of those pages decide if any particular change is warranted or not. TharkunColl (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only one voice. Proof of that? See Scotland. Barryrob even suggested I was bordering on trolling. Ya see, I don't win them all; not even close. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least some of the same Scotch nationalists who prevent a presentation of the true nature of the British state (i.e. that it's a continuation of the English one) yet belie their assertions by craving independence for Scotland. They can't have it both ways. TharkunColl (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly frustrating, to say the least. But, I'm gonna continue to stay away from the Scotland article. They don't appreciate my 'consistancy' efforts. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your discussion
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-ॐ16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you reverted me without looking at the contents of the edit. I actually didn't undo your change (which is what I had intended) - the passage I did remove was done on the basis that it was extraneous to the lead. I don't know if you replaced it just because it had the word 'founder' in it. ITAQALLAH17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So, is what you're saying, in effect, that unless I take time to regurgitate my arguments on the talk page over such a long time, my arguments will be disregarded? Please clarify. TharkunColl (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
could you please do me a favor?
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?
I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.
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.
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)[reply]
Hi Thark. I see most of your recent edits have all been reverted by User:93.107.68.59. You don't suppose this is a Bardcom sockpuppet do you? The IP is from Ireland, and various other IPs in the range have been involved in contentious BI-related and Troubles-related edits. I'm not accusing Bardcom here, but it's certainly someone watching his edits. CarterBar (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
big misunderstanding on article "British Iron Age"
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's nothing one can do. He keeps popping up with slightly different IP addresses. What's the point of complaining? By the time the process is finished, he'll be back under a different address. TharkunColl (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Many references have been provided, but they all turn out to be not good enough for you. In any case, in a choice between Britain and Ireland, and British Isles, the latter is always to be preferred on the grounds of simple logic - unless one is specifically talking about the two main islands of the archipelago. TharkunColl (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tharky, you know the policies as well as anyone on Wikipedia, and you are aware that the references provided for Furry Dance are not good enough. There are no references for the other articles. Your editing is disruptive and in breach of policy. I've politely asked for references and waited to see what you produce. You simply ignore the requests while the article is left in the state you want, or enter an edit war over articles that aren't. This is bad faith editing and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. --HighKing (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are now in breach of WP:AGF. It is your editing that's disruptive - you just have one single agenda and you mow through the whole project trying to achieve it. TharkunColl (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported at WP:ANIhere You have consistently edit warred, and consistently refused to *ever* provide a reference. And yes, I no longer assume good faith on your part - you have demonstrated that you are not willing to provide reasonable discussions and explanations for your edits, you are inserting the term British Isles into articles incorrectly and without references, you continue to make personal comments, and you believe that by claiming that a campaign exists that it absolves the requirement for references (it doesn't). --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did he mean hiking- what he may end up being ask to do from wikipedia? Why "Bardcom" anyway, at least I can understand what he means by his new name, perhaps. StickyParkin18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm assuming you mean User talk:Sarah777, I still don't know which of my comments would be classed as a personal attack on her. Can you point it out please, so that I can avoid doing so in future? TharkunColl (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, I made a mistake, and so this warning is withdrawn immediately. If you want to, just remove it from your talk page, and I hope you will accept my apologies. DDStretch (talk)22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'll have to look into it later. Whoever removed those pictures from the list, which was quite some time ago, didn't even bother to write "no image", and just left it blank. ðarkuncoll23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it was very fiddly indeed trying to get it right, and even now, for some reason, on my own talk page the "coll" bit comes out green as well, and in bold. I like the green, though I originally wanted it yellow and blue, for Mercia, but the yellow was either too faint or didn't look yellow. ðarkuncoll14:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it looks way cool too. Makes me want to design a little sig myself. If it turns out like yours, it's not that I nicked it, it's cos I was inspired... --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We could say it rises in the UK and flows mainly through the RoI - but is this really the best way of conveying the information? ðarkuncoll20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Gotta say I like your sense of humour Tharky! If you call it WikiProject Britain and Ireland I might consider it. If "WikiProject British Isles" is taken to include Ireland, put me down as opposing it every inch of the way. Sarah777 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe, I was thinking about that (if anybody would object to the WikiProject's name); but figured I shouldn't mention it? Spooky, eh? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
To be honest, the name doesn't really bother me. If it will mean bringing more people in, I'm willing to consider anything. ðarkuncoll18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Nah personally I think the task force idea is a bit cack - it's just single issue. This project will include everything, geography, history, etc., and we can thrash out all the arguments in it and maybe even reach a conclusion. ðarkuncoll23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I said, what aspects of what you say could be covered are not already adequately covered by existing projects? You haven't addressed that at all. Additionally, the issues surrounding the continued use of "British Isles" in articles across the board on wikipedia seem to be of a rather different status than the kind of geographical and historical issues you are mentioning concerning the objects which have been labelled by the term "British Isles". I think the needs suggest a taskforce or workgroup is of a greater importance, and is better done in a more focussed manner that a taskforce or workgroup would have. DDStretch (talk)23:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Those who really like a good juicy debate, come and join. By the way, the "objects" that have been labelled British Isles are merely what the dictionary does (hint: I do not respond well to political correctness. However, I for one would never describe Ireland as an "object"). ðarkuncoll23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the problem isn;t it? Whether one wants what you call a "juicy debate" or whether one wants to do primarily productive and focussed work on improving existing articles on wikipedia. I do not think starting a project which, by its very name, alienates editors who have legitimate concerns about "British Isles" usage, and also have the potential to contribute good quality material to resolve the "British Isles" matter is the best way to proceed. The fact is that a joint taskforce or workgroup, run jointly by the Irish and United Kingdom projects will adequately deal with the matter of "British Isles" as well as make a public demonstration of well-intentioned editors wanting to work together to resolve a matter that some editors have real issues about. Of course, if your intentions do not match this, then your desire for a "juicy debate" may be solved by the new project, especially if it has a contentious name in whatever language you feel may best obscure it whilst still keeping its problematic nature, thus helping ensure any problems are perpetuated rather than be being solved. I am not being politically correct, by the way, (which is often a bankrupt objection of little real value) I am merely trying to be as neutral as possible in describing the matter, as I, for one, do not want a "juicy debate" over and above solving this matter of dispute. DDStretch (talk)23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think you are seriously misguided. The juicy debate has been going on on the British Isles talk page for ages, and has even managed to advance human knowledge. My own small contribution, for example, is discovering a reference to the term from John Dee that predated the OED's by 50 years - which they have now included in their new edition. Criticise debate as much as you like, but it has ever been the way human knowledge advances. ðarkuncoll23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make such laughably stupid comments. I make that statement advisedly, as if you look at my user page, you will see that I am hardly going to criticise debate as used in the bald and misleading way you suggest. The issue is the appropriate use of debate, and I strongly suspect you know that, given the nature of some of your other comments. As far as I am concerned, there seems little evidence that this suggestion of a "British Isles Project" is designed to solve the immediate problem of the use of the term, as opposed to primarily being a forum for "juicy debate", which is not what wikiepdia is supposed to have as its prime aim. DDStretch (talk)00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free not to join, if you so wish. In my opinion, the "problem" (as you call it) of the use of the term will never be resolved until all parties are given free reign to vent as much as they like. I shall not be censoring anything. ðarkuncoll00:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well I hope Sarah comes round, and everyone else who has been a player in these debates. My primary concern is with censorship - I have a congenital aversion to being told what I can and cannot say - and this philosophy will be applied to any debating forum over which I have even a modicum of influence. ðarkuncoll00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c reply to Matt Lewis) Not really, I was definitely thinking of a Taskforce or Workgroup, though it may well have as its prime central resource a Noticeboard. The problem with the "juicy debate" proposal is that it opens matters up to all kinds of baiting and inflammatory tactics used against other users, and with which I think some discussing the proposal here have had prior experience, if various block logs are perused. That is why I am sceptical of real change having occurred and thus am sceptical in a reasoned manner of motivations given what I have additionally read here. Additionally, I would just like to state that nowhere have I mentioned or implied censorship, and so I am not sure what the purpose of mentioning it here is. DDStretch (talk)
Tharcuncoll's just expressing how he likes to debate, I think. Looking at how he's phrased some of his past commnets mind you, it that's free speech, I'm well into censorship! I've had a 48 hour block (for my first and only block) over BI - just for trying to help - it's one of the reasons I never went through with the initial Wikiproject idea we were discussing beforehand. I even retired from WP over it, in a roundabout way (though just for a month). I couldn't remove the project discussion from my talk page though, because I felt there was still something in it. Looking at the River Shannon debate at the moment, I'm convinced we quickly need something where we can work something universal out. The Shannon article is currently locked. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to you, Matt. I agree that something quick yet yet thorough is needed, and a single-purpose taskforce, uncluttered by editors who primarily want "juicy debate", is the best way of getting there at this time. The advantages of the joint nature (shared with the Irish and the United Kingdom projects) will help, I think. DDStretch (talk)00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read up on taskforces and workgroups - to be honest I'm not too aware of the workings of either. Right now I'll split the table on the 'countries of' page as promised, then retire to bed. (I'll close the poll tomorrow maybe btw - we'll have to discuss that). --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have made your proposal, and I have made mine. I think mine's better, but we shall have and see who signs up for it. ðarkuncoll00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? ðarkuncoll08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is you who have chosen to interpret my phrase "juicy debate" in a negative light, and have kept repeating it ad nauseam. By "juicy debate" I meant debate in its fullest possible sense, with all issues being looked at. And those of us who like knowledge, actually enjoy this process. I don't believe I've been baiting you in any way - quite the opposite in fact. ðarkuncoll08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really almost cannot help yourself, can you? The comment you now make "those of us who like knowledge, actually enjoy this process", which suggests that anyone who has a differing position to yours (in context, this means myself) doesn't like knowledge. I tink we have had enough of this baiting here. Now, either stop immediately, or further action will be considered. DDStretch (talk)08:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For which I apologised and you accepted itas a simple mistake. However, that does not excuse me from pointing out inflammatory messages and misrepresentation, for which you have numerous previous blocks, nor does it mean that you are not now engaging in misrepresntation of views, and making highly misleading assumptions about my motivations (such as not being in favour of debate, or of not liking knowledge.) DDStretch (talk)09:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the whole point, because I made no such assumptions about your motivations. I was merely describing my own motivations, but you appear to have taken them as personal criticism. ðarkuncoll10:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eadweard Ælfrēdes sunu
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why? In making such a proposal you would seem to be implying that my edit was somehow wrong. It's not a question of good faith - which I have always attempted to display - but of factual accuracy. ðarkuncoll17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its equally factually accurate to use Ireland and Matt is right to say that it would be seen as a gesture of good faith - you must have know what would happen when you edited it.--SnowdedTALK19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said we should not say Ireland. In order to inform our readers, we also need to say the larger geographical entity. ðarkuncoll22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not essential (I think the task force has to go ahead) - but it could be a good idea. It would be made clear from the outset that there are no implications to the gesture at all - no precedence being made, or suggestion that the term is not right for the Shannon: just a lift on the article-lock so people can edit it, while we can look at how best to (or not to) insert the term. I've never personally been happy when articles are completely locked. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why bother? It gives out the message that the term is somehow wrong. This is not horse trading. If the tastforce is to mean anything, it must only deal in facts. ðarkuncoll22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been blocked
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. ðarkuncoll17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for For ignoring a request to avoid being provocative, being unduly argumentative, and this fits in with a prior history of being uneccessarily provocative on oter articles, such as River Shannon. The greater context is that you have a prior history of baiting and provocative comments.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. DDStretch (talk)17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your edits are continuing to cause side-effects from edit conflicts. I have edited the subject-line back to the innocuous form that I suggest it should stay as. The inaccurate form seems to have been put back in as an unintended consequence of another edit conflict, though I don't know ow it happened. DDStretch (talk)17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{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. Chillum17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Chillum18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You called it the "first task" fully knowing that the poll was still underway, and that Sarah777 hadn't voted yet. You knew it was about joint input, and you knew a neutral Geogrpahy member was supposed to open it - though that could have been bypassed when the vote was concluded. We do not yet have a taskforce page - just your 'first task'. It was seriously provocative by you.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Matt. I thought the block was harsh and appreciate that Ddstretch agrees and reverted it himself. I certainly thought Thark's move was potentially very provocative if he pressed it as he suggested; and said so on the page. If DD had blocked for a few hours rather than two weeks this might have passed; but most observers were a bit taken aback by the severity. I don't accept DD was undermined but was perhaps unwise to make requests not supported by policy. Such requests might (I'm not sure) have been the basis of a very short block, but not two weeks. However I think the best thing now is to close the book on this before you turn a small drama into a large crisis! Sarah777 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want the drama, but unfortunately the (half-asleep here) admins have made things worse. Tharcuncoll HAS to have a warning here at least: and this seriously undermined DDstretch in my eyes (which is enough for me). I've personally been waiting for your vote on the poll, btw. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, G'Day - it really just wasn't the same without your little one-liners popping up all over the place. But hang around; there is bound to be another row soon! Sarah777 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I missed all the fun as well driving up the M1. I do think however that it would make a lot of sense to allow someone NEUTRAL to drive the task force and it would be a good gesture for you to do that now. --SnowdedTALK22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thank goodness for that
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. StickyParkin11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, though your comment about lack of civility needs some comment. You must mean by your comments about incivility the message you posted to WP:AN/Ihere, which, although it was listed as being from you, was apparently signed by TharkunCoill, as this message I'm replying to originally was. In it you objected to the sentence "Don't make such laughably stupid comments" I wrote because it was an example of incivility. However, it is not, as we all make stupid comments from time to time, some laughably so, for a variety of reasons, and it is a good idea to have them pointed out so one can learn from the incidents. It wasn't a personal attack, either, since it was directed at comments rather than TharkunColl himself. I would never say that TharkunColl was laughably stupid, by the way, he is clearly in possession of some skill, considering his contributions to Wikipedia. In this particualr case, however, a quick check of my user page and my contributions would show that his comment was so erroneous a one to make it really did result in laughter on my part, and on other's who know me who commented privately to me about it, since it suggested that I was criticising debate and suggested that I was not in favour of it. The exact quote I replied to is "Criticise debate as much as you like, but it has ever been the way human knowledge advances.", when, as I said, a simple check would have revealed that I could not hold to that position at all, and, indeed, I pointed out the error he made in inferring what my opinions were on the matter, which had the effect of implying I was against debate (and later on that I did not like "knowledge", etc) Of course I have learned a lot from this incident, and people who aren't prepared to make mistakes usually find it very difficult to learn, but I have learned more than I expected. DDStretch (talk)23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear it, though your comment seemed to be made in a straightforward way at the time, rather than being some sort of subtle metadebate or something. Yes I wanted to get Tharky's sig in the colours he wanted, but forgot to change it back due to abuse of cornish cider lol, sorry.:) StickyParkin11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The straightfoward way of interpreting it is to interpret exactly as it is written, which was what I intended: that it is a comment about the statement and not TharkunColl himself. If I wanted to attack TharkunColl, I would have done that in a straightfoward way, but I did not, nor did I intend to do so. No need to invoke such ideas as "metadebates", the straightfoward meaning (rather than some kind of inferred intention behind the statement) applied. DDStretch (talk)11:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox - that's a good idea, GoodDay. I urge you to use a sandbox, Tharcuncoll. Six editors have now suggested the template is provoking. (DDStretch, Sarah777, myself, Snowded, and GoodDay - and someone else came in too). It is a clear middle finger to the task force as far as I'm concerned. If the template ever comes in (and as a 'BI user' myself, I'm not even sure myself it's needed), the term itself clearly has to be sorted out first! You are acting like you are going to have entirely your own way already. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed - that is 3 whole times now Tahrcuncoll has talked about the template as entirely his own work (and nothing to do with me etc). I suggest he makes it a sanbox item before I report this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I'm signing-out for the night. I hope things work out at the Template (as I don't want to see anybody blocked). GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd just like to acho Alison's point here, as I was asked to comment on this by Sarah77 in a message on my talk page. I really do think what you have done here is a bit much given that there was plenty of time to object to the proposal, and your actions and overly-short explanation does little other than stir up the potential for increasing the dispute about "British Isles" still further. I think you are going against the established decision here, long past the time when it would have been appropriate. DDStretch (talk)09:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles & Republic of Ireland
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)[reply]
Just coming into this from the outside (Tharkun flashed up on my watchlist just now!), I understood there was a naming convention stating we pipelink ROI to Ireland in all cases apart from those that mention Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland. So "Dublin is in Ireland", "Belfast is in Northern Ireland", but "Dublin and Belfast are the largest cities on the island of Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively".
That's the phrase they use, then they carry on to show the weather all down Ireland along with anyone else's, without any other comment about RoI. Maybe they don't do that for versions broadcast in your area/Ireland? StickyParkin22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the British Broadcasting Corporation feel they don't have to cover the Irish Republic, because while it's part of the geographic British Isles, it's not part of Great Britian and Northern Ireland the Country. This is a subtle distinction I know. I come from a Republican family, I'm even named afer a famous IRA man and have no issues with the term. :) Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - the weather map of Ireland is blank except for the northeastern corner, so clearly the BBC regards the British Isles as referring to the UK and the various bits and bobs, excluding Free Ireland. Tux, glad to hear you've no issues with your famous IRA name - I imagine you are probably rather proud of it :) Sarah777 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely include all of Ireland. It has clouds and various other symbols above it and the presenter often sweeps his hand over it. ðarkuncoll09:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The symbols are only over NI; the hand sweeping is irrelevant as the presenter can't see the map - he sweeps his hand over Northern Frnace - is that now part of the British Isles?? Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can see it, albeit faintly - it's projected onto the back of the blue screen. It's not just his hand, they actually put symbols on Ireland, such as clouds and sunshine. Since the BBC receives no funding from the RoI and yet is readily available there, this is actually quite generous of them. ðarkuncoll10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of that please?:) Like I said, if you're in Ireland maybe what they broadcast is different. The weatherman bloke must know what to communicate, which would match what is on the map, even if he only knows what to say or do due to having a script. If the glyphs and his words and actions didn't match, it would just look funny.StickyParkin21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Short of posting a forecast on YouTube and linking it (against Wiki policy) how do I provide evidence? As you must WP:AGF I shall allow you to take my word for it.Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland
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? --SnowdedTALK11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are avoiding the question. Having no date is a bad idea, agreed. However we can have a precise date or a range. See the talk page. By point was that I played fair and reverted to the prior position (including reverting my own edits) to allow that discussion to take place. That is normal process. On what basis did you revert twice to one position? --SnowdedTALK11:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen admins, for instance, decide to keep it at what they personally consider to be the 'wrong' version, then discuss. In that way you're not reverting the other person and thence making a revert and risking escalating a war. StickyParkin22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's an edit war going on and the usual response would be for me to protect the article. I'm trying to avoid that, and the only way to do so and to stop the edit war is to block those users involved in it - no matter how many times they've actually reverted. You've now been warned and have acknowledged the warning, so a block for further participation in the edit war would be justified. Waggers (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Kite22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to have that IP checked out against mine. I never make edits under an IP account, unlike a lot of people (or in fact, just a few people) who wish to impose their political POV on this issue. ðarkuncoll23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the issues here. Even if those IPs aren't yours, the "give it a rest" refers to the edit-warring under your username, too. Black Kite23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm interested in stopping lame edit-warring, from both pro and anti "British Isles" editors, because it's disruptive and pointless. I could just block you anyway (and HighKing for that matter), because three reverts in less than 24 hours is edit-warring by anyone's standards.Black Kite23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
October 2008
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)[reply]
From Wikiquette case. Tharky, ya gotta adjust your approach to HK's edits concerning British Isles. Less reverting & more discussion is preferred. PS- If you're still annoyed with HK's edits, seek an RfC or a Med Cabal, etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried it in the past, and discussion doesn't work either. To all intents and purposes he is a single-issue account, and seeks to delete useful and perfectly legitimate information from Wikipedia for reasons he refuses to divulge (though about which, of course, one can easily form an opinion). The only disputes that arise are through his actions. Something needs to be done, but I'll have to leave that to those more knowledgeable about what courses of action are possible. ðarkuncoll15:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? In reverting an edit I'm doing nothing wrong - and have already undertaken to refrain from attributing motivation in my edit summary. It's also worth pointing out that a number of other editors clearly feel as I do, so HK is already going against consensus. ðarkuncoll16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Rfc is a possibility aswell. Ya'll need somewhere to work this BI usage thing out (the Taskforce is an idea). Anything is better then the current situation. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tharky, what do you say to working this out on the Taskforce? I'm happy to close off all current issues if you're happy to resolve the issue through the taskforce, and support the taskforce in it's efforts. --HighKing (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what there actually is to work out. An editor has suggested that a moratorium be placed on British Isles-related changes. I would go along with that, but you (HighKing) apparently won't - or would you give it some thought? MidnightBlue(Talk)16:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MB, in practice, a moratorium doesn't solve anything and would in effect be a form of censorship. It would result in leaving "British Isles" in place in articles where it is not accurate, with no mechanism to address this. Perhaps we can attempt to first of all address usage in the Task Force? --HighKing (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to HK) In principle, I'm not opposed to the idea. In practice, however, the taskforce has simply become another forum for endless debate and argument. ðarkuncoll16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Tharky, we've got to start somewhere don't you think? Where else? Mediation? An arb ruling like The Troubles? I'm open to whatever suggestions you have. --HighKing (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a colaborative project, things can't be that simple. That's why we must get along & compromise. Shall I bring up my diacritics example again? GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that HK's activities have become something of a lightning rod, and I'm not the only editor who thinks this way. Okay then, what about this as a compromise - in any given article, he should open a discussion on the talk page before removing BI, and only do so if consensus is in favour. This is surely reasonable. ðarkuncoll16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you (in any given article) would open a discussion on the talk page before restoring BI, and only do so if consensus is in favour. PS- you've both gotta get this settled. AE maybe be watching. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the Mediation Cmte (if you not the Taskforce). Trust me, you guys don't want Arbitration Enforcement getting involved. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how it goes - open a new section there. If it gets bogged down in arguments, however, then it'll do no good at all. I'm off out soon, anyway, so it'll have to wait. ðarkuncoll17:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off out myself shortly. I'll open a new section to help resolve the content issue. Still going to also want to resolve my issues with your behaviour though - I see them as seperate. --HighKing (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd like nothing better that to see a ban on anon IP accounts making more than 10 entries without forcing them to create a login. Or something like that at least. --HighKing (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think telling them to create an account will work. I don't mean to be critical, but it may even make them more determined not to. Is there somewhere it can be brought up and discussed by the community? Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 commentsBMW(drive)21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles
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. --SnowdedTALK09:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cup and ring marks are particularly common in the British Isles. There is no justification for removing the term. And how could I have a "political agenda" when the term British Isles itself is non-political? ðarkuncoll09:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they are also common elsewhere Tharky, get a sense of proportion, you are teetering on the edge of disruptive editing and you are making the term British Isles political by your actions. --SnowdedTALK09:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a good point about cup and ring marks being common to Europe so I'll leave that one. But it is others who have politicised the term, not me. I shall continue to use it non-politically and shall edit articles accordingly. ðarkuncoll10:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That includes restoring it if I feel it's been removed for political or other gratuitous reasons, not connected with actually making the article more informative. ðarkuncoll10:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will also ensure that any removal for political reasons will be reverted. Gratuitous is more difficult to pin down though - it's clear in WP:BISLES that references are required so it should make it simple to reach a decision. What about also implementing a WP:BRD on articles too? One revert followed by discussion, etc, and relying on references for deciding what the article text should be? --HighKing (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about you just stop removing British Isles in the first place? Just let the informed editors of each article deal it. So if British Isles happens to crop up in Complex Event Processing feel free to deal with it, but in other articles where you might be less of an authority why not let others decide? MidnightBlue(Talk)15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:BISLES is work in progress. You can't yet use it to support your edits. Nice one though! Try to get it so that a reference is required for each mention of British Isles. That will no doubt reduce the instance of the term dramatically. You wouldn't be trying to do that - would you? MidnightBlue(Talk)15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. Let's not have any baiting on this page. Everybody needs to calm down and respect each other, and then try to work together. JehochmanTalk19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I didn't think any baiting was going on. My point was this - HighKing is a vandal, and I've been reverting him. Why are you apparently giving him credibility by talking to him? ðarkuncoll19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think HighKing is a vandal. Vandals do things like insert the word "penis" into irrelevant articles. You and he seem to disagree about content. You should try to work together to get a decision that will be acceptable to all Wikipedians. Think of this as an opportunity to resolve a controversy. You'll never win by fighting. JehochmanTalk19:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a gross mischaracterization of the events you are mentioning: that editor included damaging personal information about a living person on a school article twice, the second time after it was removed as inappropriate. The nature of it must have been known to be damaging at the time. If he had stopped after it had been added once, that would have been the end of it, but the re-adding of it was disruptive. The immediate warning was appropriate. I suggest that MidnightBlueMan considers their own actions on the British Isles matter rather than going round trying to criticise other edtors for their actions on totally unrelated issues. DDStretch (talk)21:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the same damaging infromation had already been added in almost identical form by a anonymous IP editpr a few days before (see here), and so I think it is quite likely that the newly created editor who added today was the same editor. It is not unknown for anonymous editors to create accounts and continue their disruption with that account. DDStretch (talk)21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on G2B
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.:) StickyParkin16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it would be a very bad idea - a massive waste of money for a start off, and it would leave Westminster with virtually nothing to do. Furthermore, the Westminster parliament is the English parliament, with a continuous history going back to the 13th century for the House of Commons and to Anglo-Saxon times for the House of Lords. Since England comprises 83% of the population of the UK, I feel no loss of representation or any democratic deficit and am happy for Scotland, Wales and NI to have their representatives there. ðarkuncoll17:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As a continuation, the British parliament was exactly the same as the English parliament in its usages, customs and traditions, its meeting place, and everything else. Nothing of the Scottish parliament survived in that sense. ðarkuncoll17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with that, as the UK Parliament is located in England. If it were located in Scotland? it's likely England would have a devolved government & Scotland wouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the place though, its everything else about the parliament. But a parliament based in Scotland simply never could have happened. ðarkuncoll17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By means of its vastly greater economic resources, rather than force of arms. Actual force of arms had to wait until 1715 and 1745, when the Scots tried to rebel. ðarkuncoll17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. While conceding that you are more of an expert in the three revert rule than I, you may be mistaken: Your first edit was a reversion of this, your second edit was this and your third this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's frankly ridiculous using a term that has a perfectly good synonym in all varieties of English (including Scottish English). It's also quite insulting to the reader. ðarkuncoll16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're the impatient one. And it's very easy to recreate an article - just rewrite it. If you don't like them, go to their talk pages and say why. ðarkuncoll20:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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 StickyParkin00:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bought the tickets before all that stuff started up, and I'm fucking well not going to let some Middle East war or something dictate to me what I can or cannot do. We passed through a town on the bus that had had rockets landing in it, and there were gunshots and all sorts of shit along the border. But you know me - I laugh in the face of danger. ðarkuncoll00:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it very interesting, especially Jerusalem. But it's difficult to get anything other than lager there, or spirits, which I didn't really want. I did go to a couple of so-called Irish pubs though, in Tel Aviv and Eilat, but in the latter the Guinness was so badly watered down you could see through it. ðarkuncoll07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Now you will appreciate beverages all the more.:) If you could make a comment, any comment, on the meetup page, that'd be great, as people seem to be hanging back until more people say they're interested. StickyParkin21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CHARLES VII
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)[reply]
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 Tailtalk15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with comments like that, the 3RR is a guideline and a principle rather than a hard and fast rule. If someone were to think you were gaming the system by following rules to the letter then they could still block you under it despite the fact you haven't technically gone over it. But obviously I'm not, I just want to stop the edit warring. Canterbury Tailtalk18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It usually tends to be the other side who cry political foul against their opponents at every opportunity - as your own post illustrates. ðarkuncoll10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay thanks for letting me know. Though not a football fan myself, I have noticed that TV companies in the UK tend to follow the Republic of Ireland team as much as the (other) home nations, so in terms of football at least it is perhaps reasonable to class it as such. ðarkuncoll18:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Just be aware though that that particular edit was made last November, by User:Mooretwin who was aware of the "agreement" on insertions and deletions, etc. Anyway, perhaps you'd already looked that up - I'm really not bothered with BI topics right now... --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of FC de Rakt
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
British Isles 2
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)[reply]
I'm not doing anything, I'm reverting back to text which has consensus. It's a pretty simple system. Raise a point on the talk page, if editors agree with it, it goes in. If not then the old text remains.MITH23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What's new, pussycat? Well, there is no mention of Pytheas at all in BI now, just Dee. There is naught one iota of neutrality in the ambitions and edits which have made the article how it presently stands and how it might end up, as a mere redirect, or even put on Afd! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pytheas should definitely go back in. The current wording makes it seem like the phrase was invented in the 16th century, which is nothing but political POV. ðarkuncoll10:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's like they want to make the whole generic use of the term as in error, that it was made up out of thin air, purely for political reasons, the only original pov in this case, was Greeks attempting to consider the Britons as savages wearing body paint and probably, shouting "ooga booga". Is that really so offensive, more so than the way they are using it now? It's like they are in fact, subversively promoting the annexation of Ireland to London in 1800, because if they wanted to be truthfully neutral about the terms, they should use the Greek words for this "pair" and not the governmental style. It's not like the Greeks specifically paired the two, but used "British" in a vague, collectivist way. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening is extremely tiring, but don't let them win by having more energy. It's like a game of staring the other down is all. Your direct, matter of fact and no-nonsense approach, is just what is needed. The attitude which keeps getting displayed, is a bunch of beating around the bush and spinning it back on the other person. In short, so long as these articles exist and they have an internet connection, they will push for change, which they believe inevitable down the line. I don't really know how else to put it, calling it what it is. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like a war of attrition at times, and is indeed very tiring, but political POV must never be allowed to debase the language and empty it of meaning. ðarkuncoll13:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tharky, haven't seen you around too much lately, hope everything is OK. I've posted this on the British Isles Talk page:
Can anyone provide me with a reference that backs up the claim that John Dee was the first to use the phrase "British Isles" or "Brytish Illes"? This reference sees John Dee use the phrase "Brytish Islands"... Also, the two references give in this article no longer link anywhere useful. I'm sure that there were references provided before or maybe I was imagining it. Tharky? Anyone?
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)[reply]
I'm fine thanks, just been a bit busy. When I wrote to the OED last year with my discovery of Dee's use of the term, I first pointed them to Queen Elizabeth as Astraea by Frances A. Yates "...for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner, at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus avaylable." It's available here [16]. Their reply was as follows (6/5/08):
Thank you for your message. As it happens, we have recently revised all the entries dealing with BRITAIN and BRITISH, and these entries will be published in the online dictionary later this year. I cannot quote from unpublished text, but I can tell you that the first quotation for BRITISH ISLES is now dated 1577 and is taken from John Dee's Arte Navig.
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)[reply]
Mythology? Now that's YOUR POV. Besides you don't just revert EVERYTHING in the article to an earlier version. You have to READ to know abuot the subtle and not-so-subtle changes in the WHOLE text. Please don't resort to deleting complete portions of text in other sections if you don't 'like' something in one. The 'Muslim Veneration' sub-section implies that the MUSLIM viewpoint be expressed there. Could you explain the dire necessity of deleting a well-referenced paragraph from there? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are inspired by doctrinal concerns, and are therefore POV. It is a fact that Muhammad founded Islam, and a fact that Muslims don't believe this. Both facts are reported. ðarkuncoll12:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Islam isn't a 'founded' religion. The word Islam comes from the Arabic root word 'slm' meaning submission to one God alone; another meaning of the word is 'peace'. See http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_islam_mean_in_arabic. The meaning of the word itself suggests that it is not founded, and rather is a continuous chain starting from the first human being (Prophet Adam (a.s)) right down to the last one. As opposed to Christianity, Zorastrainism etc. --each of which are named after the central entity being worshiped (although Christianity contains more of St. Paul's teachings than those of Jesus Christ (a.s.)-- Islam doesn't name itself after anybody, rather it is a choice a person makes throughout her life. It is not a fact that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) founded Islam, but it is indeed a fact that non-Muslims are mistaken in believing it to be so. A personal question, have you ever tried reading through the Qur'an? Try it sometime, I'm sure InshaAllah (i.e. God-Willing) you will be convinced that even the wisest and most learned of men couldn't write a book as extra-ordinary as it. You are right, most religious historians do view Islam as having been founded by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).* However, the facts (that we Muslims believe) are 1). Islam existed before Muhammad (pbuh) was born, 2). The origins of Islam date back to the creation of the world, and 3). Muhammad (pbuh) was the last and by far the greatest of a series of Prophets (peace be upon all of them). Coming back to the article, yes, in my most recent edits I've tried to ensure that both points are reported. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Chillum13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Chillum: I don't know you; but thanks anyways. And you may refer to me as either 'Abd el 'Azeez or Elazeez unless you consent to the title of 'Chi' or 'ill' for yourself --no offense intended, its just that incompleteness irks in a bad way at times. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Elazeez. Just because Islam claims not to be founded, doesn't mean it isn't. And not all doctrines are named after their founder. Nazism, for example, is very rarely called "Hitlerism" - far less commonly than Islam is called Mohammedanism, anyway. And if you wish to report religious beliefs about Muhammad, why not the medieval Christian belief that he was inspired by Satan? As for the Koran, I've tried to read parts of it, but it's such an incoherent pile of schizophrenic gibberish that I gave up. So yes, in that sense you're right - it is indeed "extraordinary", and no wise or learned man could ever have written it. ðarkuncoll14:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TharkunColl: So you did try to read through it eh? Well I must atleast commend your attempt at trying to know what it actually is, although I must say I am disappointed at your lack of understanding and far more saddened that mankind's worst enemy Satan was able to tempt you out of it. Could you maybe point out/list down which Surah/Ayah you actually tried to read through? You see reading the Qur'an is not like reading any book per say, it doesn't go like for example the Bible, which is full of stories and an [allegedly] continuous thread of events --although there are disappointingly too many scientific anomalies in it like for example acording to the book of Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" ("lesser light" actually) however we now know (from established science) that the moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light - a fact correctly highlighted by the Quran more than 1400 years ago when it was revealed "It is He Who made the sun to be a (source of light) shining glory and the moon to be (reflecting to the) light (of beauty), and measured out stages for it; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did God create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand."(Quran 10:005) as well as in ""Blessed is He who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a lamp and a moon reflecting light (Quran 25:61) . How could a people believing in a faith which is based on a book with such blatant scientific errors be quoted while referring to Muhammed (pbuh)? Mohammedanism was a misnomer coined by the Western world, most of whom wrongly believed that Muslims worship Prophet Muhamemd (pbuh). My recommendation to you, there is a small statement that you should read before you start your study of the Qur'an, and it goes like: "I see refuge in Allah, from Satan THE accursed", InshaAllah if Allah Wills, Satan won't be able to trick you out of it this time. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate, I don't give a flying fuck about the Koran. I wouldn't even use it to wipe my arse with. Now please stop filling my talk page with crap. ðarkuncoll13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TharkunColl: Point taken, your frustrations at my recommendations understood; but I do feel sorry for you though especially since you mentioned you tried to read through the Qur'an but couldn't understand it. InshaAllah if Allah wills HE will bring you to it again someday. Just one more piece of advice before I put this section off my 'watchlist', if you really don't care about something or probably cannot comprehend its significance in the first place, it might be a better choice to steer clear of any discussions pertaining to it. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that my earlier attempt to read it was in no way motivated by a desire to believe it. And I shall not steer clear of any discussions about Islam, just like I shall not steer clear of any discussions about Nazism, even though I haven't read Mein Kampf - which, from the bits I've seen, is only slightly more coherent than the Koran. And it's you I feel sorry for, by the way. ðarkuncoll09:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fool yourself about how "high and mighty" you are. LutetiaPetuaria |
A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
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)[reply]
Lilibet II's nationality
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)[reply]
I would have suggested email, there's been a lot in the press about how keen the palace is to be seen to use modern communication systems, and it's also easier for them to reply, but their site still doesn't seem to use it except for site business, though you might find one somewhere on the site. You can find the snail and phone number of the Public Information Office here, though knowing Thark he's found it already:) [17]StickyParkin03:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me, but I have no idea why you oppose it. It's how the info is always presented and accurately represents political reality. ðarkuncoll23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Scottish monarchs? If they are to be included (which they should be seeing as British does not just mean English), TharkunColl, won't this template just create confusion when we list both James I of England and James I of Scotland as English and British monarchs? Not to mention queens Mary I of Scotland and Mary I of England. I think there should be three separate templates as before: English, Scottish, and British.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. ðarkuncoll08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Scottish monarchy is as much a direct predecessor to the British monarchy, as the English monarchy. I'm certain that when England & Scotland united in 1707, their respective monarchs (who was the same person) became the British monarch. After 1707, Anne's title was Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland; it wan't Monarch of Greater England and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also, Pictich and Scottish monarchs is a no n. The Pictish weren't the only predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. If continuity is the game, expand the English/British monarchs Template to Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real point here is the difference between practical continuity and technical continuity. In both cases the current set-up accurately describes the situation. ðarkuncoll14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before (I recall), concerning the 1707 Act of Union. I'm sorry Tharky, but I can't help but see this Template as half-accurate. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Scottish monarchs are added & the template is re-named Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs? you'll have my Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my favoured option at all - and in any case I think you'd have a hard time getting the Picts separated from the Scots... ðarkuncoll14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Template: English and British monarchs smacks of English prejudice against the Scottish, with its denial (via exclusion) of the Scottish monarchs as co-predecessors of the British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That point has been raised, at the thread linked above. The premise of WP:1RR/WP:BRD principle is that it's okay to revert to the prior consensus version, once, but as soon as editors start reverting one another, it is no longer safe to presume that the former version has consensus. Further discussion is the solution, whether that's with a view to determining a new consensus, affirming the old one, or leading on to a further dispute resolution process. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to abide by the same editing restriction as everyone else, I will unblock you now. If you're not, I hope I don't see you tomorrow. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only apologise for that. I thought it was possible to lift the block and the IP autoblock at the same time; obviously I was wrong. ETA should be okay now. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
British Isles
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)[reply]
Your input would be welcome...
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)[reply]
RE: SVG map of EU
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)[reply]
PS- I apologies for the 'ill tempered' things, I said at my Userpage (concerning our previous discussions, relating to templates). GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just wondered
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)[reply]
I don't know of anything off hand, but it's no real surprise that most sources play up the Celtic angle - what's the point of continually going on about something that the vast majority of its inhabitants take for granted, namely that Cornwall is part of England? ðarkuncoll12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll keep hunting. Another user suggested we needed something along this vein, but specific to Cornwall rather than Scotland. I'm hoping to get round to the Scots and English people pages soon, so may come back to you for your input. --Jza84 | Talk 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Kite10:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Ethelred coin.gif
File Copyright problem
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)
File source problem with File:Ethelbert coin.jpg
File Copyright problem
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.
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)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Such discussions though, in my opinion, just keep on going round in circles and leading nowhere. I shall continue to use British Isles on Wikipedia wherever I consider it appropriate. ðarkuncoll23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Tailtalk01:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Islands
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, read it here. You might have missed the fact that Black Kite specifically banned additions or deletions of British Isles without references. I didn't revert *all* of Tharky's edits, but I deleted the ones where it was questionable. In no cases did he provide a reference. You've reverted most of my edits, again specifically going against the instructions of Black Kite, as you've not provided references either. I had already discussed Tharky's spree with Black Kite beforehand in any case, and he originally decided not to block Tharky because it was 11 days before I noticed what he'd done. Your edits, on the other hand, are fresh. --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BK did also imply that you shouldn't revert the changes. However, we are just not going to make progress here. Let's take them one at a time - perhaps over at that project page, and thrash it out. Some are wrong to use Isles, many are wrong to use Islands. I'll put the first one up for discussion (taking as a list the articles changed today). MidnightBlue(Talk)20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bold, Revert, Discuss
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 Kite19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...at which point you almost immediately reverted a number of reverts in the few hours after you posted that, so I have therefore blocked you. Further blocks will be incremental. Black Kite11:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
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.
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.
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)[reply]
Lemon Monday's reverts
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 Kite22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the one about the beetle, was there any good reason to remove British Isles? Does not its removal constitute censorship, and a degrading of Wikipedia by the removal of useful and valid information? ðarkuncoll08:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To balance it out those places where it incorrectly says British Islands instead of British Isles, should be corrected. I think correcting those is more important than having BI in the articles BK removed them from. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
gone
I was kicked out of chat twice: blocked for a day and then permabanned for saying the "wrong" thing.
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)[reply]
Yes, it's a very good reference. Indeed, since the Pagan revival in the British Isles completely ignores the political division between the UK and the RoI (see Stewart Farrar and Janet Farrar, for example), to draw an artificial distinction completely misrepresents the situation. ðarkuncoll00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They already have been. The Union of the Crowns was in 1603, a much more significant date in British history than 1707. Read any history book. ðarkuncoll00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please go and have a look on the royal website. After 1603 the monarchs were the same person, and the realm they ruled functioned as a single polity. And move those articles yourself, if you're that bothered. ðarkuncoll01:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Template you guys want, contradicts those articles-in-question. Why can't you & the Doc request those page moves to remove the contradiction? GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself - I'm more interested in chronology and accuracy, than page titles.
Look at the equivalent articles for Spain. They use union of crowns as a basis for their list, not parliamentary amalgamation. ðarkuncoll01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's Spain, we're talking UK history. Anyways, I'm gonna kick around this for about a week. If after that, I'm still standing alone? the template won't be disputed anymore. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why didn't you do this when it was first brought up on the talk page? Why try and disrupt it now? ðarkuncoll
'Cuz, I didn't have the Template on my 'watchlist' for months. But, I do tend to check up on what my fellow editors are up to & your contributions led me there. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for that. Please go and do some basic research (beyond Wikipedia) about British history. 1603 was a crucial turning point. 1707 passed almost completely unnoticed. ðarkuncoll01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tharkuncoll, King James I of England was also King James VI of Scotland. Those were two separate kingdoms. James was not known as a British monarch as there were no British monarchs until 1707, when the two kingdoms officially united; the Union of the Crowns notwithstanding. I'm with GoodDay in this debate. As he aptly says, you cannot have a king without a kingdom.
"You cannot have a king without a kingdom" - please point to the rule that says that. James assumed the title King of Great Britain, and ruled the whole of Great Britain from his capital, London. ðarkuncoll09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine II of Greece, Michael of Romania, Alexander of Serbia, Girendhra of Nepal, Reza of Iran, in otherwords the pretenders, oops I forgot Charles II of England, Scotland & Ireland (1651 to 1660). GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ðarkuncoll16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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...
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.
My own position is clear, Lox, I'm a Mercian - i.e. Anglian - folkist. The rest is just superfluity. As for what's been going on, have a look at our website. Things are moving. ðarkuncoll00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ðarkuncoll00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No it was the River Eider that formed the boundary of the Angles and Saxons in Europe - famously so, since it had been set by Offa of Angel. The Danevirke, built long after the Angles had migrated to Britain and the Danes had moved in, is some way further north. ðarkuncoll09:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anglo-Saxons
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)[reply]
The Saxons only became the dominant group under Alfred, after the Danish invasions. Prior to that the Mercians - Angles - had been dominant for 300 years and had already given England its name. ðarkuncoll09:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Roman Britons hated the Saxons and Gregory the Great used a word play to influence Papal hegemony over them via conversion of the "Angels" (angel in Greek means 'messenger') he had seen in a slavemarket. In a sense, Rome reconverted both segments south of Hadrian's Wall. The Welsh were forced by the Synod of Whitby to obey the Angels or Angles, whilst the heathen Roman Saxons became Christian Roman Angles. Why Rome chose the Saxons to this task, must have been an encouragement to diplomatic recognition as a spur for conversion under Augustine, for they would have the spoils of Britannia and the Pope would have all souls united in his magisterium, rather than some under Iona. In any case, the Angles are Danish inasmuch the Saxons are French, separated first by the Danevirke and second by Watling Street under Guthrum and Alfred, or the Thames under Cnut and Edmund. It is a blessing that Angle was settled upon, to minimise the Frankishness of the Saxons, which had provided the Saxons with power enough to overtake both the Danes of Scandinavia and Britain, when Egbert succeeded Offa and Eric of Pomerania took over Denmark. You see, the original esteemed group was that of Jutland, even further north than the Angles. It may seem somewhat like a balance to choose a medium between the Jutes and Saxons as the embodiment of the nation, as the Angles no longer had a homeland in Angeln either, but both the Jutes and Saxons did. This is probably why the Danes did not change the name of the people, despite the fact that the bulk of the blood indeed comes from what is called Denmark, whether one tribe owes its origins to the peninsula, islands, or whathaveyou. Another reason might have been to distinguish from the Saxon Duchy as it existed in the Holy Roman Empire. There never were formal relations with that region in all of England's history as its own identity, although there was with all of the Scandinavian nations who speak North Germanic languages, with Normanising acclimation to Frankishness on the part of these Saxons of the West contributing to a sense of indistinctiveness in their name from other nations. Angle seems distinct enough to not be confused and not anybody's "boy" except Denmark's, which would be resolutely organic and natural for the reasons so described above. Furthermore, read up on the Ingaevones. Regardless of what ethnic name the Romans or Holy Romans chose, Saxon or Norman, these people had their own names and these were Angle and Dane, for neither Saxons nor the Northmen made up the majority of the people. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. ðarkuncoll10:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
_comte_de_Richemont.svg){kind=small}
![[7]](http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/MechTheDane/3AMV/TCORDER.jpg){kind=link}
