Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 23 September 2009

Archives
Archive 1

England

If you do continue to insist on being bold, without having the courtesy to get some measure of agreement for your changes on the relevant talk page first, please at least make sure that your basic English grammar and spellings are correct. Most editors seeing your edits would, I think, simply revert them on that basis alone. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, apologies for not picking up on your disability. Yes, the article does need to be improved (though I'm not the person who raised that, I merely commented on the proposal), but as I'm sure you know the best way to do that is through discussion and consensus, rather than by major rewrites of established text which usually do little more than aggravate other editors. Making major edits, in a way which requires everyone else to spend time checking and correcting what you've done, is not constructive in the long term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Could this editor please give a heads-up on a Talk page before making such wide ranging changes to an article? And perhaps give people access to whatever sandbox you're preparing the articles in beforehand for comment? --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, please read this - in particular the bit that says "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully you won't be tempted to make major changes to important articles without discussion again - but if you are, for example if you have a "backlog" of changes you want to make, I think HighKing's suggestion is excellent - put your revised text into your sandbox, and then use the article talk page to encourage other editors to access it in draft form and make comments on it (or even to amend it themselves). That way you would have more control over your draft, while still being collaborative with others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling for editting time at the moment, but want to thank you for your work on England. I'm really impressed. I had every expectation that such a bold would face resistance and be challenged (and probably rightfully so given the pride some hold about such a page), but I'm confident that the page will now largely form the basis for a GA or FA for England. Well done and thank you, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Provinces images

I deleted your images like File:Province of Liverpool.png, but the attribution is different, the commons images say user:Thomas Gunn. If you made them yourself, and you are a different person, you may wish to edit the commons image description to say so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems problems

I want to give you every opportunity to make good I really do, but I'm getting too many complaints about you. I'm at the stage now where I am seriously thinking about blocking you again. Please see my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Theresa_knott#Indefinitely_banned_User:Yorkshirian_is_currently_engaged_in_a_total_rewrite_of_the_England_article to see the conversation about you and please read the warning I write there. It basically states that the next valid complaint I receive about you will lead to the indef block being reinstated. Examples include but are not limited to: revert warring, editing against consensus, or being rude to anyone in any way. If I am not around to do it, an other admin can so so with my blessing. I'm sorry it's come to this but some people simply aren't suited to wiki style collaborative editing and I believe that you are such a person. Of course I would love for you to prove me wrong by not engaging in any of the above behavior. Theresa Knott | token threats 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignatius

Well, I'm not aware that the pre-Islamic population of Palestine was majority Christian, even under Christian Byzantine rule. If you want to say that Ignatius thought that he would return apostates to Christianity, that's a different matter.Steve Graham (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

England images

I was wondering why you had changed the images on the England article? Bambuway (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank You for the compliment Yorkshirian, you flatter me! See you around, -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Naming Conflict Problem

Having just dealt with a year long row on the Catholic Church name, a user is now wanting to radically change the Misplaced Pages Naming Conflict guideline, particularly with relevance to cutting the section on self-identifying names. If this went through, it could bring the whole issue up for argument again! Not many people are involved in this proposed change, which could cause hundreds of hours of havoc and edit-warring. It would be useful for people to comment on Kontiski's proposed change, or state whether you would prefer policy to stay as it is, at. Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conflict Xandar 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful, please

Some of your comments and edit summaries at England and Talk:England are getting perilously close to the bounds of civility. Please be careful - you know you are being monitored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, the Anglophobic vigilante has come bearing ill news and "ill news is an ill guest". Watch out, Tyke, he considers himself to have inviolate powers of edit warring upon your contributions, now that he sees some other people have an unrelated dispute with you. All the more "justification" for him to run roughshod over you to get what he wants. It's been done before. Just check at my own edits for proof. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For future reference... A Merry Old Soul (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:DNFTT Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dithering here...

I'm sorry we haven't met sooner. There is another you may wish to acquaint yourself with. His name is User:TharkunColl, an Anglo-Saxonist. English traditionalists (even the pro-Celtic, pro-Roman) are apparently the bane of the British Isles here at Misplaced Pages, but I don't know about that in real life, considering such a sentiment is supposedly more tolerant. Yes, it's said to be more accepting than the "proud Teutonic" approach to English identification, although it seems as though the Celtofascists here are trying to spin the English alone as "foreign" to the Isles, even though it is easy to discover the Celtic origins in Roman Europe, especially the Brythonic kind (as much as Anglo-Saxon European ties are to the post-Classical Rome of Charlemagne and other Holy Roman "Germanics"). They think that pro-Celtic, pro-Roman means hostile cultural appropriation, as they have identified you as "the other", the big pink elephant in the room. It is a sight for sore eyes to see how you manage to reconcile hostile, "mutual-exclusionary" factions of Celt, Roman and German, for most "people" involved in these articles have one agenda to push or another, but hardly any singular Romanists, I'm afraid. Perhaps I should try that. Imagine the double-whammy of negativity from the "Celto-Germanicists". Ahh...there's no way to achieve anything in any of this without some bloodshed, it seems.

Incidentally, if you'd like to get worked up elsewhere, go check out the archives of that talk page...here, for instance. In that article, it is apparently considered nonsense by "the voice of the Republicans" that the Greeks bestowed the name "British Isles" upon that set of islands off of Gaul and that is the ultimate origin, as they instead focus exclusively upon the Tudor-Stuart settlement (extreme violation of WP:WEIGHT and barely even narrowly WP:SYNTH, so wrapped up in violations of WP:NOR!) which modernised the term and put ancient ethnic vagueness into political effect (nor do they care to see that Roman Britain was only that part of Albion, that part of the BI in total which had been conquered or annexed through treaty by Rome, even as Erin would go free...not contradicting the fact that they are both "British", whatever that originally meant aside from the Trojan story). Just about any and all BI related pages are vicious black holes and often, the only way to go about it, is by using extreme caution and wisdom. You will find that whilst your attackers see fit to add and add as they wish, their abuse of you is based upon their own convictions of what they would like to edit one way or the other and if you don't fit their profile, then "you are wrong", not just what you happen to do or write, it is a personal vendetta to expunge all of your works. Many times, after selecting a target, they are simply being difficult and if they are lucky enough, they will have provoked thee into becoming banned, just to see you squirm, as they do whatever it is they wish, to put the spin on this or that subject, according to their absolutist truisms. Of course, you are unable to do anything about it when your editing privileges are revoked and the admins won't even bother to level the playing field for you, only acquiesce to their demands based in vilification and lynchmobbery. They will, most likely, base their complaints upon "improper procedures", which is Orwellian codespeak for "we don't like what he stands for, let's overwhelm him in numbers".

All said, it is very nice to meet you...you, like me, with a youthful tenure here being quite deceiving, would probably enjoy this a lot. I've been a fan for the longest time, of you, TharkunColl (only for standing up to Celtofacism, not for his Anglo-Saxonism), User:John Kenney and User:Adam Bishop, all of whom know quite a lot about this stuff and are able to argue authoritatively as to the root of the matter, being well rounded rather than particularist, without resorting to petty lies, deceit, witchfynding and other nuisances of Misplaced Pages. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

England, again

OK. I get it. You don't like the Welsh. And you don't like me. I think you've made that clear enough, so can you stop the racist attacks now please. You seem to think that only English people should be allowed to edit the England page. A fundamental principal of Misplaced Pages is to allow criticism within articles. Nevertheless, you don't seem to have grasped the idea that for Wales to be allowed to flourish it is important that English people have a clear understanding of their English identity. I was delighted when England supporters stopped using the Union Flag at football matches, and began to use the English flag (not so delighted at the cricket, but there we are). Their confusion between Englishness and Britishness is at last beginning to fade. I want the England article to be as good as it can be. But part of being a good article is that it should be accurate, and balanced. Daicaregos (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Race card, race baiting...is there anything about race you don't corner the market on? Should we all be walking on broken glass to appease your Celtofascist Anglophobia and totalitarian separatism? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. I tried to explain my motivation to you and you chose to ridicule it, and me. Being nice is not a requirement on Misplaced Pages. Being civil is, and that includes personal attacks. I expect it to stop. I look forward to your contribution to improve the Wales article. However, please treat other editors with coutesy and respect, and before you decide to be WP:BOLD, as you have been with other articles, please read Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing, specifically: Be cautious with major changes: discuss, which reads: " Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page." I trust we understand each other. Daicaregos (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Expenses template

Hi. Could you explain to me the criteria you are using for determining which articles should have the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal template? I am particularly puzzled as to why the Tony Blair article should have one, as he has not been an MP for some while and did not feature in the recent revelations. --Escape Orbit 05:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also puzzled why only Labour MPs were getting it, but now assume you are working your way down the page. It could take a while... :) --Escape Orbit 06:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ash (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

England

Hayden120 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

House of Neville

Impressive work! Hope you don't mind, I've put in a few commas and so forth. Have you thought about putting it up for WP:DYK on the main page in the next few days? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Rhisiart Tal-e-bot. However, please be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Misplaced Pages page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Joowwww (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How amusing. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP Syria

I just wanted to personally welcome you to WikiProject Syria! Yazan (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Catterick

I don't know if he's just following you around stirring up trouble wherever he can or if he has actually made useful contributions to the articles that you have been working on. But I figure that you would know that and given that I have just indefinitely blocked him on the grounds that he is far more trouble than he is worth I figure that you may wish to say a few words in his favor. So you are very welcome to contribute here if you want to but do not think that you are obliged to. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Old North

Neither that website nor that book are reliable sources. I'll respond more fully at the article talk page.--Cúchullain /c 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Let's take the discussion back to the article page.--Cúchullain /c 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain /c 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotia

I don't disagree with the sentiment of your edit but may I suggest you work up the text in the talk page supported by sources. Slanje va. Justin talk 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of House of Neville

Hello! Your submission of House of Neville at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain

Probably because almost no-one looked at it. I did, but other priorities got in the way; I wasn't expecting you to act without giving people more opportunity; and, frankly, it would have taken me a great deal of time and effort to engage with you on every point where I think your version could be improved further. I would have hoped I could have helped you out over this over the next few days but, unfortunately, I'll be away on holiday, and I'm sure that at some point over that period you will face further criticism. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Tactically, I do think that you are much more likely to win people over by proposing one change at a time. Say, by starting with the biodiversity section which most people are likely to find uncontroversial, apart from I expect needing a few tweaks. Then, gradually, suggest the most important changes to the other parts of the article. One of the problems with adding 40K bytes in one edit is that it is simply too much for most of the editors involved in pages like this to cope with at one time, and their instinct will be to hit the revert button, perhaps even without reading what you are proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would be far better to add section by section at a time rather than a full change, certainly would make it easier to give feedback, theres just so much information and text to take in (for me anyway) and there are certainly some problems with the changes. I like some parts of the changes but am not sure about other parts. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for House of Neville

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article House of Neville, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

More Trouble with Naming Conflicts

There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Misplaced Pages. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. In breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict page

Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, if someone else hasn't already done it, please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's meat puppetry and such a request is inappropriate. If there's a problem, take it to somewhere like WP:ANI. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand Meatpuppetry. Yorkshirian is not a new user, recruited by me. He is involved in these discussions which apply to relevant articles we are involved in. he has a legitimate concern in this dispute and in the instance where one person is repeatedly altering an important guideline without consensus, it is redolent that this be pointed out. Xandar 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Power of prayer

Hi, Just a note to explain why I changed back the power of prayer page. I had originally called that page Power of Catholic prayer and people objected, saying it was about beliefs. So the titled settled at that. In fact I wrote two articles, one on beliefs on prayer and the other on the Efficacy of prayer as an analysis of cause/effect relationships, so the words power and efficacy are really needed in the titles. I hope you understand the move back. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Vatican template

I don't see the point why you delete human rights and lgbt rights in Vatican City template when, as i have written, it is common that state topics template's contain these in "politics section". 79.163.220.176 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The first of all - Human rights is not Mumbo jumbo - at least not for the Vatican since they signed it John Paul II in UN, if you wanna say something, you should first get know what your Church says about it. :) I agree that this article doesn't exist so it is now unnecessary to fill it in, but i must disagree with your biased statement about LGBT rights article. Vatican City is sovereign State which is recognized by UN and its members and as I said in state topice template it is common to fill in LGBT rights article in politics section. If you claim that this article is gay lobbying LGBT rights in Vatican City, you can share your ideas in discussion but do not act like homosexuality doesn't exist because even Catholic Catechism discourse about it (I know because I'm Catholic and I have read it). So if you have any specific argument which is not "homosexuality is irrelevant topic" (what does it mean and why?!) share it with me and we can discuss it. Saudi Arabia, UAE are also theocaracies and they contains "LGBT rights section" and it doesn't bother anybody, I don't understand why Vatican City should. I restore LGBT rights. 79.163.220.176 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you don't get the idea of sovereignty. As Vatican is such a state and has the right to enact whatever they like laws. LGBT rights is still important part of civil code. I don't understand why you can't see that Vatican is not only 1000 people state but also one of the biggest tourist attractions in whole Europe, they have millions of tourists visiting every year, and believe or not some of them are interested what status does homosexuality have in that place, they have the right to know if they can be punished for homosexuality in this area and I strongly disagree with you that adding "LGBT rights" to this template what is in fact common policy, and you do not throw out this from over countries templates it seems more like you are leading subjective and propaganda. Our Great Pope John Paul II is dead in the matter of fact, but what he has signed is still recognized by Benedict XVI. And it seems you haven't read Roman Catholic Church Catechism there is nothing like you wrote "in fact it actively opposes it" if is, please quote this. Additionally you have written on your page: since this is an encyclopedia not a pressure group. And what you do seems to be a pressure, treating Vatican like it was overcountry. And for the last, I said that I agree that Vatican has no article about human rights, but it does have article about LGBT rights. Whatever you think it seems to be weird for me, because in the matter of fact article about LGBT rights in Vatican City does not stand that Vatican is killing gays or something but you can read there something astonishing like "legal". 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And another thing: I'm not lobbying for anything. So I request You to stop impute this to me. OK? 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP changes because I'm now in another city. I will make an account to make our war easier. As I am A Roman Catholic and I am also homosexual I still strongly consider it is an important part of Vatican City politics and also Catholic Church politics. Otherwise I can not agree with your ad personam arguments and imaginary lobby. The only organisation I am member of is Catholic Church. I do not lobby for anything. I beg your pardon, in many countries as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Australia and so on, Catholic Chuch is the strongest opposition of LGBT rights so don't try to make me believe or acknowlegde in what you are saying: "since it has no effect on the life or politics there. It is not a significant issue".

79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As I admire your work on Misplaced Pages, I think that momentary it goes to personal for You. As I don't say that Vatican is bad I just can't recognize your opinion that if something is not in accordance with your faith it shouldn't exist on Misplaced Pages like "LGBT rights". And I am not trying to lobby I just think that if there is common policy in state topics templates (like containing LGBT rights) every state should be treated equal not only for "equality for itself" but because you can not deny that LGBT people exists and as Vatican bans LGBT people as cardinals and so on policy concerning LGBT is important to Roman Catholic Church. 79.163.216.171 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And the last thing: I strongly believe that we can reach some consensus. At least because we are both members of the same Holy Church. And maybe my life is not in total accordance with Catholic teachings but the you can not deny that Vatican does not approve LGBT people as priests which is significant part of it politics even only inside their 0,44 km2. Can You? 79.163.216.171 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vatican template

Hi

I have added section "Sciene" in Vatican City template. I think it is interesting thing about Vatican.

I hope when you see it you won't have the willingness to revert this. :) A Man from Poland (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found only "Christianity and science" in article "Religion and science" but maybe "Science" could direct to "Pontifical Academy of Science"? A Man from Poland (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

England population density

Of course, silly me. Thanks for the correction! Hayden120 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Cornwall

I've proposed a splitting out and reorganisation of Template:Cornwall at its talk page, and would welcome your thoughts. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

England

Hey Yorkshirian, I'm in the process of reviewing England for GA. I haven't finished reviewing it as of yet, but as I've mentioned on the review page, I'm going to be placing it on hold. See the review page for the comments I've made so far. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard hold time is a week, but as mentioned on the review page, I'm a bit short of time this week, so I'll probably end up dragging it out a bit. I think I should be able to finish up the review tonight (assuming I don't fall asleep at the keyboard), so I'll leave it to you to get to work on it and I'll check in when I can. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

House of FitzGerald

Hi - just wondering if there was any discussion on this move of FitzGerald to House of FitzGerald. There are almost 16k surnames but only 3 with "House of..." in front. Thanks.  7  07:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok - should we remove the {{surname}} template then? Thanks.  7  07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Desmond

Sorry we disagreed on the Geraldines. I love the infobox you added for Kingdom of Desmond and we need its like for a few more. Would you consider adding one for Tyrconnell? Then we have to create an article for Tyrone, which should not be redirecting. Tír Eogain simply redirects to Kings of Tír Eogain and the other spelling Tír Eoghain redirects to County Tyrone just like Tyrone, which is entirely unsatisfactory. I'm not sure how to fix the mess. DinDraithou (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice. It looks excellent. I think going with maximum extent is good, like with Thomond, although the southern portion (mostly Uí Fidgenti) was long part of the Earldom of Desmond even though theoretically subject to the O'Briens since Domnall Mor O'Brien took it in 1178 and they remained capable of asserting their authority (Gerald FitzGerald, 3rd Earl of Desmond). As far as the Kingdom of Desmond, actually the maximum extent should be greater and cover part of the southern coast (Barony of Carbery too?), depending in part on the inclusion of MacCarthy Reagh territory. Compare http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Ireland_1300.png with http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Ireland_1450.png DinDraithou (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

SIOE

So Stop the Islamification of Europe isn't a far right group?! Ha!  Francium12  07:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Folklore

The outline I wrote for it (or modified the older form into) is not a mess, nor disorderly and it sticks to the facts more than the one you wish to see on the page. Originally it claimed that Arthurian myths pre-date the Anglo-Saxon invasions which should be blatantly obvious to not be the case when it features a character resisting the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Anglo-Celtic.org does not fit the criteria for a valid source, as a) it says many unverified claims (such as bagpipes being Celtic, Cernnunos being in Britain and becoming Herne The Hunter (which has been suggested but most scholars disagree with this. Cernnunos is a Gaulish God and there is no evidence of "Cernnunos" being in Britain), Morris Dancing being from a Celtic-rite (which flies in the face of most scholarship) and the Maypole being Celtic when it is thought by most scholars to date from after the Romans). It doesn't state its sources unlike the sources I found to fix the article that are from scholarly websites. What is more Anglo-Celtic.org does not say who runs it so for all we know it could be you (or another member) putting in weasel words. And lastly it doesn't state anything connected to King Arthur or the "Matter of Britain". Likewise the other source (which at least is a scholarly one) does not state or imply what is being implied in the article. The section as it is now loaded with weasel words that imply that the so-called "Matter of Britain" is far older than it is, is a survival from the Brythons instead of being a post-Norman mythos *inspired* by Welsh myths, genealogies and Welsh and to a lesser extent English traditional histories. The placing of the Arthurian mythos so prominently gives it undue weight as well as making it look like it is continuous and older than it is, and much of the information is lost.

Lastly the section was not any longer than many of the other sections and contrary to you calling it a "mess" (thus deciding to insult (which is against wikipedia's rules in the first place) rather than being rational) it was far more orderly and less biased after my edits (as I don't personally consider it to be folklore, and I disagree with Michael Wood's analysis it does not conform to my views but agree it is of great value regardless that it should be unbiased and be based on current scholarship). I would be happy to trim the section (not that I feel it is needed) but you removing well sourced sections is verging on (if not) vandalism. I shall reinstate the section (which may give the article a better score in its assessment). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was going to make a new topic on this same issue. A summary should contain information about the contents, contexts and history of the topic in which it is summarizing and therefore, Sigurd's revision meets the criteria.

And I would agree with the few that Anglo-Celtic.com is not a valid source of study as it contains little worthwhile information that can be used for an encyclopedia and in this regard it is similar to the new age wicca books and websites which are criticized by scholars. We know that Cernunnos is a Gaulish and not British good, we know that Morris dancing does not date to Celtic times and we know that bagpipes are common in the Scandinavia, Spain (which admittedly did have Celtic tribes, however, the oldest bagpipe found there was, I believe, pre-Celtic).

And Arthurian myths, whether they are folklore or not, do not predate the Anglo-Saxon era but instead are from Wales at the same era with latter Anglo-Norman.

I do not feel that the subsection, which is roughly the same length as a lot of the other subsections, needs to be shortened but I do not think it needs to be extended either. The current revision by Sigurd is informative and works well as a study whereas the revision that you, Yorkshirian, reverted to was not. The current one by Sigurd exists upon neutral grounds. whereas, the previous one did not and contained many claims that no historian, archaeologist or folklorist would agree with; the confusion of Gaulish and Gaelish with Brythonic is non-Scientific. The Mummy (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To Yorkshirian: The order gives a false impression for one thing, the Matter of Britain should not be at the top. It should give a summary of where it comes from and why it entered the mainstream. In fact the whole "Matter of Britain"/"Arthurian" section gives mostly half truths, no truths and distorted truths. It uses unverifiable sources and it is chronologically incorrect. The prose is not "tight or neat" and neat and I beg to differ on biases. I wrote my edits in such a way as they cannot be seen as biased and do not reflect my own opinions, the version you seem to be so intent on keeping is written with the author's views in mind. After my edits it now looks encyclopedic and should pass the GA. I doubt it should or will pass the GA review as it is. If there is anything you think should be included which isn't under my edit (which is only the unsourced statements and distortions of history) then by all means tell me which they are and I shall accommodate them. As for listing all of Geoffrey of Monmouth's sources, that is an intelligent point and I may trim it rather than listing most of them as they are listed elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that you are giving sensible suggestions to why you think it can be improved, I shall see what I can do in those regards. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Geoffrey of Monmouths sources should be trimmed, aswell. I woul dlike to hear your suggestions, Yorkshirian, to see what else could be added or trimmed, however, the general and unbiased wording and layout should remain the same as Sigurd's edits as the previous version was biased and messy. The Mummy (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

far right and radical nationalism

I have restored the prior position on both the article and the template to the position prior to your undiscussed moves on the 17th September. Please discuss such moves first. Just to make it clear, I acknowledge that you do a lot of good work here (many of the recent edits on England) but you really need to proceed with more caution and less polemic on political issues. --Snowded 09:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Yorkshirian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of the evidence presented in the above and see no reason not to reinstate the block alluded by Admin Theresa Knott on 30 July 09 in this diff. Hence you are being blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and violation of Arbcom directions. This has been noted on the Arbcom case. Manning (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Yorkshirian, you can't say you weren't warned - but, for what it's worth, I think that the hasty decision to reapply a block without the opportunity for discussion was quite inappropriate, and despite our many differences I wish you well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

its disgusting how quickly some people are "dealt with" What really bothers me about this case is someone has chosen to document his actions over a long period of time instead of questioning him or telling him he should stop at the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite. And anyway, I find BritishWatcher far more disruptive than Yorkshirian.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL shhhhh!! ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I haven't been given a fair chance to participate in the ANI to put across my side yet. Most of what One Night in Hackey has put is commenting on content, rather than anything to do with policy as ] pointed out. Much of what he is claiming is either strawmen or not reporting the full extent of the diffs (some completely not what he is claiming is in it). However the specific reason he reported me is he blanked from an articile ] academically referenced info about two of its members planting a bomb for the IRA. (which seems to be politically motivated, as the editor is a British left-wing, republican activist) In any case, I feel I should be allowed to go and participate in the ANI and then editors form an opinion afterwards. As other editors pointed out Manning has been hasty, because I've not been given a chance to reply or state my defence yet. A balanced opinion can only been given when both sides have been presented. - ] (]) 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I haven't been given a fair chance to participate in the ANI to put across my side yet. Most of what One Night in Hackey has put is commenting on content, rather than anything to do with policy as ] pointed out. Much of what he is claiming is either strawmen or not reporting the full extent of the diffs (some completely not what he is claiming is in it). However the specific reason he reported me is he blanked from an articile ] academically referenced info about two of its members planting a bomb for the IRA. (which seems to be politically motivated, as the editor is a British left-wing, republican activist) In any case, I feel I should be allowed to go and participate in the ANI and then editors form an opinion afterwards. As other editors pointed out Manning has been hasty, because I've not been given a chance to reply or state my defence yet. A balanced opinion can only been given when both sides have been presented. - ] (]) 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I haven't been given a fair chance to participate in the ANI to put across my side yet. Most of what One Night in Hackey has put is commenting on content, rather than anything to do with policy as ] pointed out. Much of what he is claiming is either strawmen or not reporting the full extent of the diffs (some completely not what he is claiming is in it). However the specific reason he reported me is he blanked from an articile ] academically referenced info about two of its members planting a bomb for the IRA. (which seems to be politically motivated, as the editor is a British left-wing, republican activist) In any case, I feel I should be allowed to go and participate in the ANI and then editors form an opinion afterwards. As other editors pointed out Manning has been hasty, because I've not been given a chance to reply or state my defence yet. A balanced opinion can only been given when both sides have been presented. - ] (]) 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

We can transclude this page on WP:ANI for a time. Wknight94 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating a section below for that purpose. Feel free to undo me if you don't want such a section. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Yorkshirian's comments

• Requests for unblock