User talk:Yorkshirian

Yorkshirian's comments

First of all I would like to say that the block should be removed, (1) because the rationale which ONIH present is riddled with strawmen and this is about simply a content dispute, rather than specific policy or anything else. (2) Manning also rushed in with the ban before I had a fair chance to present a defence and answer the ANI and indef blocking for a mere content dispute when he doesn't seem to understand why I was blocked before, is incorrect. Two points on that;

• The reason I was blocked on ArbCom, for a year, not indefinetly, was due to pushing regional separatism.[5] Since returning from my block I have completely reformed on this. I have helped editors I previously had problems with, in their tackling of such POV in the project and have helped to build up the England article as a way to make up for past errors. In fact that article is half way through a GA process as we speak and I need to finish off a few things to get it through.[6]

• The reason I previously had an indef block by Theresa was because of sockpuppeting[7] (I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will). Once I agreed to stop socking for around half a year Theresa allowed me to come back. Since then I have reformed on this too, I have not created a single sockpuppet. Reinserting the indef block for an issue of a content is completely illegitimate. Since I was indefed last year ONLY for socking (which I have stopped completely), not content or ArbCom.[8]

Now down to the rest:

Red Action / IRA — This is the reason ONIH launched the ANI, the rest he just trawled through my contributions to try and create a strawman to bolster his argument. In 1993, two members of the British communist organisation Red Action, Jan Taylor and Patrick Hayes, bombed their own country at Harrods on behalf of the IRA. The full story for quick view is available on The Independent here.[9][10] One says; "Besides running a big IRA bombing campaign, he was a leading member of Red Action, and his political associates maintain that "he was heavily involved" in their anti-Fascist activities, legal and illegal, "playing a crucial role, right up until he was lifted [for the terrorist offences]".[11][12]

Thus, I put such information, reliably referenced also by two books on the incident into the article on Red Action. ONIH (who happens to be a leftwing British, activist for republicanism in Ireland: see,

English Defence League / SOIE — ONIH was completely univolved in discussing content or editing these articles around a week ago. He has just created a strawman on here, after furiously rifling through my contributions to try and find anything bolster his presentation. Ie - move attention away from the Red Action issue and his removal of media referenced information. As Uncle G said this was discussion and differing opinions between various editors on content, ONIH's framing & selective commenting on the diffs is complete strawman. I cited my sources & presented an argument, collaborating with editors on the talk, some editors presented similar arguments, some presented different opinions.[15] Even the two editors who most strongly disagreed with my opinion there, & I in some sense "know" & work with on different articles across Wikipedia (Snowded and Ghmyrtle) are not throthing at the mouth here, which is telling on the extremely dubious framing by ONIH. For instance Ghmyrtle says above: "in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles .. so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry."[16]

I'll just give a couple of examples of the mischaracterisation of the diffs in this content dispute, presented by ONIH above. If this reply itself does not convince I'm willing to go through each one, till the point is got across. Keep in mind you do not have to be a communist to edit Wikipedia (thankfully).

• regarding left, far-left and so on. The organisation who have rioted with the police in protest against these groups (UAF) are described by the press as "socialists".[17] They are described by the Guardian as part of the "far left".[18] They were formed out of a group belonging to the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party.[19] The article didn't mention the position or origins of their opposition at all, so I felt this relevent—I even used references from left wing sites, to present the argument.[20][21][22]

• ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting "We Hate Muslims". Yet the diff he presents shows that I did no such thing at all.[23] In the edit I added that some of the Islamist marches, where EDL protested (they claim to be opposed to "Islamism, terrorism and so on) were flying the yellow flags of Hezbollah. I used for reference, this video report the Guardian website, which you can see the yellow flags. And also this picture from the Associated Press.[24] Though again this is simply content, some editors agreed, some disagreed, we worked to come to a consesus (ONIH wasn't even involved).

Based on all of this and repeating what I said at the very start, I should be unbanned, since it is completely unwarranted, completely unrelated to ArbCom, more importantly the sockpuppeting which I was previous indefed for. This is simply a disagreement on content, nothing "malicious", I'm always proving references, collaborating and discussing to come to a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Manning below. You rushed in from my view, because you didn't even give me a chance to reply at ANI first before you formed an opinion (other editors have said the same). You didn't give other editors actually involved a chance to make comment either, rather took ONIH's dodgy propaganda presentation on face value, which has since been described as selective and dubiously framed by people actually involved (including ones who disagreed with me on the articles themselves).

In the ArbCom thing you see there about "geographical and cultural". That is what its refering to, regarding my previous (now reformed) regionalist pushing. Read through the ArbCom case. In any case, I served half a year block without editing for it. As for "POV editing", I present verifiable sources, collaborate on talks and come to a consensus—all completely within editing policy. There are no rules against presenting referenced information some might not agree with. You don't seem to be assuming good faith on it, perhaps take into account comments above such as ChildofMidnight. If a block can be handed out on that basis, then you should block ONIH too, for vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that because you're pushing an extreme English nationalist POV and not your former English Regionalist POV (if there is actually a significant difference between the two strongly overlapping camps), it is somehow not a problem? Sorry, that doesn't wash. You are soapboxing, misrepresenting sources, using mainspace to pursue a political agenda including against living individuals, and you seem unwilling to admit that there is much of a problem with this. The only way you are ever going to be able to edit without turbulence, in my view, is to steer clear on article where you have a strong POV. Perhaps you can give a list of articles not on issues of British politics where you have made significant positive contributions? Guy (Help!) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't let that last slur pass unchallenged. Any cursory inspection of Yorkshirian's contributions since coming off his last block - or even just a glance at his talk page - would show major inputs of content on a whole variety of historical, ecclesiastical and European subjects, including a DYK. That's not to excuse some of his recent behaviour, or to suggest that I agree with all his edits or his manner of undertaking them, or for that matter his politics - but I do get the feeling that some people here are making comments based on the serious issues that happened some time ago (but which have now ceased), rather than on the relatively minor disputes (speaking as one who's been involved in some of them) that have taken place in recent days. I've had far worse arguments with "experienced" and "valued" editors than I've ever had with Yorkshirian. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned above, that you've (in the past) evaded a ban (via socks). To quote a Shania Twain tune - 'That don't impress me much'. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..and if anyone can find any evidence whatsoever of recent behaviour by Yorkshirian along those lines, please make it public. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was closely tied, for my sins, with Yorkshirian's pre-2009 contributions, RfCs, ANIs, Sockpuppets, etc etc. We have locked horns and have had (I think it is quite fair to say) a turbulent, if not hostile relationship in former times. However, I really am with Yorkshirian on this; I share his views entirely on why he should be unblocked here and now. I do believe Yorkshirian is a different editor since returning, and has done some invaluable article work (a complete revamp of England for example) that proves him to be an asset. He has strong views, and can be difficult to persuade (hell, I know), but I don't see anything of this supposed bad behaviour that he's been blocked for, and so also agree with User:Ghmyrtle that evidence (diffs) should be shown together with which policies he has broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too am of the opinion that Yorkshirian should be unblocked unless there's recent evidence of serious misconduct, despite not always having seen eye to eye with him in the past. I've been very impressed with his work and attitude on the

Fatuorum 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I was an uninvolved editor who has only encountered Yorkshirian since coming back from being blocked (a fact about which I was, until very recently, oblivious). I too have locked horns with Y. at the England talk pages, and have been trying to find a NPOV way forward at Talk:Red Action. I find Y. to be rather opinionated in talk contributions, but I have to back a couple of other editors here like Ghmyrtle and say that Y.'s contribs have been net positive. Y. certainly has a POV which is relevant to the articles where they've been an active editor, but this mostly has been managed successfully through discussion on talk pages, the way it should be. I'm not tracking the specifics of this incident, but i will say that there are POVs on both 'sides' at Red Action, and as a neutral editor on that topic, I wouldn't lay all fault at the feet of Y. I think Y. also makes a good point that the previous block was for socking, and there's no evidence of socking here, so I'm not sure it is appropriate to be relying on Y 'having form' in making the judgement calls on the current complaint (if that is the case: i'm not across the detail). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed Yorkshirian around since coming back from the block, and though he is obviously still very opinionated, his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically. I am completely unimpressed that the evidence given proves serious behavioural issues and it seems the ANI is being used as a means to silent an opponent on the issues.

talk) 09:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks fot the comments everybody (including on my talk). Can somebody take the block off now so I can get back to seeing to England's GA? It seems most involved (or who I mostly come into contact with here) think this block was incorrect, its obviously a content difference of opinion and absolutely nothing to do with last years socking or anything else. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be willing to unblock you if there is no opposition...? Is there? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be best left to the blocking admin - have you approached them? Keith D (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be left to the blocking admin. He's cocked up once already. --

Fatuorum 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I strongly oppose unblocking. I don't think it was cocked up at all. Theresa Knott made it clear that Yorkshirian was on a very short leash, and he has mostly ignored that. He's simply not allowed to play around in these controversial areas. Just like Guy said above - which was conveniently ignored like the rest of the opposition - all Yorkshirian has done is exchange one POV bias with another. If he is unblocked, we'll just be right back here in a few weeks, guaranteed. Wknight94 ^talk 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Jza84, you've made your stance pretty clear which makes you "involved". You unblocking Yorkshirian would be just as inappropriate as me re-blocking him afterwards. Wknight94 ^talk 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have very strong feelings on this matter Wknight94, Yorkshirian has apologised above, hes stopped using socks a long time ago, hes reformed. Avoiding the specific articles which has caused this dispute would resolve the problem and allow him to go on to contributing at articles where several respected editors have said hes done alot of good edits. Surely encouraging more reform is better than just giving up which means wikipedia loses out in the long run. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think that is a little odd, but you do right to put "involved" in scare quotes. I am not involved in this case, and all my contact with Yorkshirian in the RfC etc (which I hope you have read to have passed your judgement?) were broadly before me becoming an administrator. However, I concede this as opposition for me to unblock (though disagree with the rationale, and I'm still looking for what diffs are policy breaching, where his warnings are, etc) and will not perform it. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Yorkshirian has contributed to the project in terms of improvements to articles. However, although his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically since his return from being (officially) blocked, his interaction with and lack of respect for editors who do not share his views is still, frankly, appalling. I would be in favour of the block being lifted only if his behaviour toward other editors is moderated considerably. Perhaps a probationary period with an experienced editor monitoring his contributions would be the answer. Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jza84 can't find any policy violating diffs, I would just like to ask him if he's familiar with

WP:NPA being policy, as there's clear evidence of violations of all three in the diffs provided. BigDunc 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You're being silly: do you think I'm going to say I'm not familliar with those being policy BigDunc? Come on. I'm asking which diffs? That's what I'm asking, but I'll underline it incase you missed it: Which are the offending diffs? What policies have they breached? What steps/warnings were made to curtail distruption? I'm sure that something has happened, if a block has been made, but Yorkshirian's request to be unblocked raises serious questions, questions that you'd want answering if in that position, right? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not being silly, there's a large collection of them on ANI which most people have bothered to look at, but here's a few specific ones, Personal attacks, Addition of unsourced claim about the EDL protesting against the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", Lying about sources. Also could I point out that people who've been banned for a year for various conduct issues, and received a final warning after that do not have to be warned any further before being blocked, and there's no policy that says otherwise. BigDunc 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the first a personal attack: who is being personally attacked (if you say republicans, and that it is a blockable offense then I'll be blocking half of

WP:IR for the stuff I see against "the British", and let go by)? The second is a breach of WP:OR, but that's not a blockable offense, it's an editorial dispute. The third diff ([25]) is not a blockable offense, it's an edit that needs further input and refinement (and I presume you're not assuming bad faith that Yorkshirian forgot to add a source or misunderstood one of them?); its edit summary is, actually, more of a personal attack than the first diff as it names an editor, but it's certainly not raging hatred; it's a poor summary that Yorkshirian should've been warned about. Yorkshirian needs mentoring, not blocking. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You asked for violations and you have been provided with them that you chose to ignore is your own concern the fellow traveller comment is a clear attack. Also you say that individually they are not blockable but considering that this editor was on a final warning yet continues the behavior that got them blocked originally then the reblock was a good one. BigDunc 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is fellow traveller an attack or offensive? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't see that. Am I missing some context here BigDunc? I don't see who (editor or group) is being attacked. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for an example of

WP:AGF + insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here belittling Cornish/baiting Cornish editors, here racial baiting. Mentoring would be good. But would it work? Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but how an earth can "Far more important than any "Saxons and Druids" stuff" be called 'racial baiting'?

talk) 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It isn't. Daicaregos, there's nothing wrong in those diffs and I say that publically, on record and with conviction, because it's so clear. You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding with the

WP:PA policy: nobody was mentioned by name and there's no use of derogatory language or slurs, or saying a particular editor is (wrongfully) harming Wikipedia without basis; so I ask again, who was personally attacked? At worst this is anglocentricism, but I think the truth is more like one editor sharing an opinion on a talk page. I don't agree with some of it, but, even as a half-Scot, I just see one perspective in a debate about lack of progress on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then say so, counter it with evidence, but don't say they should be blocked/banned for it, as that's not what blocking/banning is for. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Come on Dai, we can cope with that level of baiting, he can be amusing and he does his position not good with the stupid comments. On the other side he is willing to do some good detailed work to improve articles. He won't ever get another chance after this one, so lets go with it. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock review

OK, I'll bite the bullet. I've read through the various diffs and comments here and at ANI (where this section is still transcluded). My understanding of Yorkshirian's response above is that you'd be willing to accept ChildofMidnight's suggestion. To clarify, as I understand it this would mean you are agreeing to:

• a
  one revert rule
  on all articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly construed
• a temporary talk-page-only editing restriction on the above articles (two weeks?) Added EyeSerene^talk 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• avoid
  personal or inflammatory comments
  , including in edit summaries
• seek advice on suitable noticeboards, such as
  WP:Content Noticeboard
  , where appropriate

If I've misunderstood, anyone please feel free to correct me!

If you can confirm the above, I'd be willing to unblock under those conditions and on the understanding that this is very much a last chance there will be no further chances. Your thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was the last chance. You're offering a last last chance. At the very least, any unblock should include a topic ban of some kind. Otherwise, this will just be a merry-go-round. He clearly can't control his temper in certain articles and topics. Wknight94 ^talk 13:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended per your above. Did CoM propose a topic-ban? I didn't notice one being suggested above. EyeSerene^talk 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, CoM did not propose a topic ban. Why does that matter? Wknight94 ^talk 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe Yorkshirian has already indicated that they accept in principle CoM's suggested restrictions, and my assessment is based on their acceptance. Given that, I don't believe it's entirely fair to start moving the goalposts. I also have no idea what areas Yorkshirian works in; if a topic ban amounts to a de facto site ban, there would obviously be little point in considering an unblock. EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the above terms as laid out by EyeSerene and agree to do that. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that'll do for me, and the blocking admin has also agreed to an unblock under these terms. I have to say that if it wasn't for your excellent article work, I wouldn't have considered unblocking, but given the improvements highlighted by many editors above I do believe you come down on the right side of a cost/benefit analysis. However, just to reiterate, any infractions of the above conditions will result in an indefblock, and I'd imagine the chances of it being reversed again are vanishingly small. Play to your obvious strengths and, if at all possible, avoid areas where you might be drawn into conflict with other editors. If you must visit contentious articles, stick exclusively to their talkpages for the next two weeks, and 1RR on the articles thereafter. If you need advice, I'm sure many of the admins/editors that have posted here (including me) will be happy to help out. I'll head off now to unblock your account - all the best with the England GA :) EyeSerene^talk 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript

It seems to me that one of the lessons to be learned from this episode is that Y should recognise that the editors who interact with him on a regular basis on articles are, in many cases, much more tolerant of his behaviour than admins in the rest of the Wikiverse. So, when editors who "know" him start to object to his actions (whether on republicanism-related or other matters), that should be treated as a fair warning that he should immediately stop what he's doing, and move on to something more constructive. And, hopefully, over time, the "cost/benefit analysis" of his involvement (I'm assuming it's a "he" by the way) will continue to swing more strongly in his favour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about this edit:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:History_of_Cornwall&diff=prev&oldid=316006549

Is this appropriate? The Cornwall article provides a multitude of reliable external refs attesting to the fact that Cornwall is a nation. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean by this comment you left on my Talk page:

"Though by all means feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney and so on."

--Mais oui! (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you claim (at WikiProject Cornwall) that User:Goustien "seems to have added it by mistake". Is there any basis for your assertion? Should we not perhaps ask the User if he/she was mistaken in his/her editing, rather than simply assuming? --Mais oui! (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now canvassing known supporters:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BritishWatcher&diff=prev&oldid=316021168

Would it not be better if you honestly adressed the substantive issue, rather than treating this as an exercise in gaming theory? Why is it inappropriate in your opinion to add the Cornish history category to the National histories category, and yet you say "feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney". Is this not totally topsy-turvey? We have a wealth of reliable ext refs referring to Cornwall as a nation, yet none that refer to Orkney and Shetland as nations - they have always been simply parts of other nations. And yet you tell another user to "feel free" to go around adding unsourced cats to Wikipedia. Do you grasp the grave inconsistency in your approach? Wikipedia must be based solidly on real life, as witnessed by reliable ext refs. Not on how one user or group of users would like the world to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i would have replied on that project page with or without that message. I have had the project on my watch list for sometime and been involved in a few conversations on there. As for the references, they show some view Cornwall as a nation. That is not the view of the British government, and theres no evidence that its the view of the majority of people in Cornwall itself. Many of the references are infact organisations or people that profit from advancing the "Celtic Nations" agenda. Anyway even if others disagree with the removal of the category and restored it, id hardly describe its removal as an "inappropriate edit", seems reasonable and understandable. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the color background on your Talk page. Since it's being transcluded on ANI, it's messing up that page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think just going to ANI and removing the transclusion, with an explanation, that should be no problem. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that I now have a copy of Trevor-Roper's The Invention of Scotland. Haven't started it (I'm reading The God Delusion at the moment) but will do soon. Also managed to catch Jonathan Meades on BB4 the other night - there's a summary of his documentary here that dovetails with Trevor-Roper. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction as I wrote it was just Irish Republicanism. Maybe that wasn't entirely what was intended by others, but no-one else objected at the time. However, if you feel it might lead to conflict or perhaps calls from other editors that you're obeying the letter but violating the spirit of your restriction, it might be best to voluntarily refrain from editing the EDL article too. I see no problem with your edit, and you've demonstrated good faith by self-reverting, so... your call. My personal opinion is that, although I have no intention of sanctioning you for editing EDL, I think as one of the articles involved in the dispute you should probably tread carefully for now ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit was a useful one, but not as a full box, just insert it at the end of the paragraph about the BNP as a quote with the source and reference. --Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed some of your recent edit summaries. For future reference, O' in Irish names does not mean "of", it means "grandson" - see Irish name#Surnames and prefixes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - outside my area of interest basically, but I thought from your summaries you were interpreting "O'" as "of". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

x2 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (

coṁrá) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This kind of behaviour seems to be your standard response to being challenged about your editing: running to a pal asking for their support. I strongly suggest that you desist from this behaviour - it will only end in tears.

Note: I have removed a wild accusation that you made at my Talk page. As the founder of WikiProject Scotland I have every justification for take an interest in all Scotland-related articles, cats, templates etc. And of course your

Yorkshirian - by now you should know that if you don't stick closely to the rules here, you'll be out. Please tread very carefully - some of us don't want to lose you, but to stay on board you must follow the behaviour guidelines rigorously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever plan to do an overhaul of the UK article? Having come back to it after a spell away I'm pretty disappointed. Might be one to collaborate on after the England GAC? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page, but was also wondering what kind of things we're missing for "contemporary England" in the final part of the England article's history section. I was thinking maybe something about the world wars might be useful. Maybe something about the ensuing deindustrialisation of England too. Ending with something about post-devolution England might be fitting too; I remember reading that

Euro 96 was an event that reinvigorated English national identity - that might be worth putting in. Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Bonjour Yorkshirian! I found the whole text of the Marseillaise des Blancs, transcribed in modern French from its original Vendéen form, with translation already done by a Franco-American author by the name of Charles A. Coulombe. To read it, please go to

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_real_bastille_day

and scroll down to about 2/3 of the article where you will see the text, first in French, then its translation in English by Charles A. Coulombe.

I do not know if Wikipedia allows the use of material found on the web, but here it is, probably OK to use as long as Mr. Coulombe is properly mentioned & given credit for the translation.

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:TdLWbYL_CQ8J:www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/index1.html+Charles+A.+Coulombe&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshirian, oui, I think that as long as Charles A. Coulombe is named & linked to the site where both text & his translation are given, it should be OK. It would also be nice to have the original text in vendéen. Bonne chance! Frania W. (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of my edit to England: "Using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} will allow the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided." – from here. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding to change Nietzsche into a writer rather than a philosopher (the information box) without discussing it on the talk page first is really pushing it. An editor of your experience should know that. Restoring that change after it had been reverted compounds the error. Your edit summaries were also misleading. Given that you are on probation I suggest you don't do anything like this again, it makes the position of those (such as myself) who supported your retaining editing rights difficult to say the least. --Snowded ^TALK 07:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yorkshirian. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have marked that a commons file has replaced File:York england UK theatre royal.jpg, but it has a different name, so the two articles that use it need to be updated before we delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've restored the fact that Nietzsche was a German to the Friedrich Nietzsche. The current wording is the result of a long discussion that is preserved in the talk page archives. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your page move on RC in E&W, but you really should propose it first you know. I'd seriously think about reversing it and then saying on the talk page that you plan to do it. --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know from previous attempts at removing the word Roman from articles on Roman Catholicism these moves are considered controversial and as such I have reverted the unilateral page moves you have made as there has been no discussion on any of the talk pages. All such moves should be made via

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For England. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say how much I enjoyed your article, the House of Neville. You provided a lot of information regarding their ancient origins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slippers and socks!!!

The sandbox edit there is in response to my accusations towards that account, are you any good at sockpuppet comparisons?

Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks a lot Yorkshire. Regards to you.

Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you have reclassified Leonard of Blakemore as a West Saxon saint. Do you have a useful reference for this? Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yorkshirian -- we're having some differences. If you look at the discussion page on Catholic Democrats (or was it Catholics for choice?) under "POV again") you'll see that the discussion has already been had; I view your contributions here as

OK, I see that you've edited the article further, which addresses my concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been continuing on User talk:Sarah777 the incivility I first experienced with you on Talk:Republic of Ireland. This includes accusatins of whinging and crying, claims about how "99.9%" of republicans have "victim complexes", "don't seem to care about Irish culture to begin with", "spend all the time arguing about English-speaking tourists from Britain like Connolly and Pearse", pulling out fanciful terms such as "Big Brit-Yank conspiracy", further quotes.. "Aside from clutering the encyclopedia with fantasty and mope, there doesn't really seem to be any relevent encyclopedic fruits from the whole self-degrading republican shtich", "Irish people were all wearing grass skirts and feathers in their hair until the 1950s", "Spare me the whinging and crying. How does one be "racist" in this area, when my own ethnic background is half-Irish", "Judging by RTG's Wiki spree tonight apparently "thats waysist!" is his favourite ad hominem", "Discredit you racially??", what exactly are you on".

Do you think that this carry on should continue and should I root out our previous encounter some months ago and any related material, which I now assume there is at least some, I can find in between? I cannot recall any openly Unionist/Loyalist contributors being even comparably offensive, Yorkshirian..? ~ R.T.G 12:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting references to allexperts.com articles into

Hello, Yorkshirian. You have new messages at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please read

You just don't get it do you? I did NOT claim that Aussies are ignorant. I asked why Ausseagull was talking about ignorant Australians on a talk page devoted to Neil Kinnock. Read it again - slowly. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it: this, this and this is a serious accusation of bad faith and, presumably, of a personal attack made by me. Please provide diffs to support your accusation that I was saying "North Americans are ignorant" last week. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A belated reminder, but further to the above mentioning this diff, please take a step back and think about your comments before you click the "Save page" button. If what you've written might be seen by others as offensive, don't save it. As noted by Jongleur100, your editing restiction to "avoid personal or inflammatory comments, including in edit summaries"([26]) still applies. EyeSerene^talk 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over 200 years since you visited the Levant :P the blessed Marie-Alphonsine led me to you and I noticed you share my interest in the Levant. I'm running into a dead end mate, there is this fairy tale crusader castle in northern lebanon called the

Thanks for trying mate, thank you for your time. i'm not giving up on the article, looks like i'm gonna have to pay a visit to a couple libraries :S. About Catholics in palestine, well i hope this frail community remains and prospers, but this is unlikely with the current Judaization/Islamization ambitions

+ 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have nominated Category:House of Neville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Neville family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this merger was a big mistake. The name O'Donnell in Ireland has several quite distinct origins, or septs, i.e. if anything, several dynasties.

But the historically most-important are the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell - a distinct sept, of former rulers, indeed a noble family, of Tyrconnell. I recommend that you restore a distinct article which would indeed be better titled "House of O'Donnell of Tyrconnell", in line with prevailing wiki-practice for noble and royal houses. See the article

By the way, the so-called "O'Donnell" arms are only one variant - the one (ab)used by tourist souvenir shops. Arms as such are only borned by armigerous persons, and the armigerous O'Donnells have at least 5 variants. Furthermore, your map of Tyrconnell (maximum extent) is wrong in that historical evidence points to a far wider spread at its maximum, indeed almost half of Ireland, which is why the earlier O'Donnell kings were called "Righ Leath Cuinn". Seneschally (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying to some extent, but I agree with DinDraithou that the ones which reigned in Tyrconnell are the "main deal" so to speak and are worthy of primary usage of the main "O'Donnell" redirect; the later lines after they fled to different countries should probably have different articles created specifically for them. On the naming, I personally don't see why "dynasty" is used on these articles (DinDraithou's choice). When I made the O'Brien article for example, I put it as "O'Brien Clan" before it was changed. That is the title I'd prefer for these Irish dynasties; ___Clan.

On the coat of arms and the map; the map was derived from a work by WesleyJohnston.com, there doesn't seem to be an abundance of material available on this period (for some reason everything before Cromwell gets criminally neglected). The map on the Tyrconell article is from the 13th century I think. The arms I haven't seen any others to create, isn't the symbolism of the cross one derived from the Habsburg allied

Hugh Roe Ó Donnell? - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The coats of arms: the yellow field and red cross is a variant of the arms of Rory O'Donnell, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, although his registered arms depict the cross as blue in the office of the Chief Herald of Ireland. The O'Donnells of Trough Castle (descended from Tyrconnell's, and established in Limerick) have a different armorial, with fish and no cross. The O'Donnells of Austria have the hand and cross but also the Habsburg eagle. The O'Donnells of Ardfert have a cross-crosslet in gold against a blue field. all of these share the same motto

In Hoc Signo Vinces and the general emblem of a cross with that motto derive from a legend (influenced by Emperor Constantine's vision at the Milvian Bridge) that Saint Patrick emblazoned the cross on the progenitor of the O'Donnells, namely Conall Gulban (son of Niall of the Nine Hostages). It has nothing to do with the Nine Years War (1592-1601), and nothing to do with the Habsburgs. If anything there is a possible influence by the MacDonalds of Scotland, but medieval Gaelic manuscripts that I have personally studied cast doubt on that, and pre-date any such influence. By the way I am Irish, and specialised in medieval history and can assure you there is an abundance of heraldic and genealogical information on the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell. Seneschally (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

When you change this. Then you are not making it less POV ... You are rewriting reality. Since Moncktons arguments aren't with the policy (which he of course also doesn't like) - but are about the science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The politics and the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax itself are so closely intwined that to separate them is impossible. Lord Monkton sits in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom and thus is publically known as a politican. His counter-activist involvement is a contribution to the political sphere. Nobody would be bothered about the hoax as such, if the far-left weren't attempting to manipulate political and economic culture itself with it. For instance the

WP:SYNTH. After the far-left were essentially defeated at Copenhagen anyway, we should now make sure there is no POV or SYNTHy bias against biographies on Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, Lord Monckton does not sit in the House of Lords (thats just the first of the errors in your comment). And i'm sorry to say that the rest of your comments are so blatantly POV that it makes it hard to take serious. How do you define "far-left" for instance - is Gordon Brown far-left? (he was on the opposite side of Monckton in Copenhagen, does that make him a Marxist?).

You need to differentiate between science concepts: Greenhouse gases will warm the atmosphere. And policy concepts: This is a problem that we need to do something about.

Monckton is attacking the science and the policy - but mainly it is the science that is his focus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Party are the most successful far-left party in the UK and are cultural Marxist on almost every position. In regards to Gordon Brown, he also claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—the Labour Party are not above lieing to meet their purely political globalist ends and exploitation of the taxpayer. Lets put it this way; some people claim Bigfoot exists; this in the political sphere is largely inconsequential because nobody is attempting to extort billions in the name of the "Bigfoot threat". The adoption of scientific language to political concepts is at the core of the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax. If not, why would political heads of state from around the world need to meet in Copenhagen for a game of globalist chess, if the politics was just a tiny "side issue" to keep out of sight? - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I think there was an edit conflict there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep this here? You are letting your political views taint your editing. And i'm sorry to say that your comments so far make you seem rather more biased than the viewpoints that you apparently disagree with. We have to describe things as it is seen by the majority (be it in science or in policy), that is what NPOV is about, it is not "equal time" to all viewpoints. As a side-note, what you are saying is also a false dichtomy, since the policy agreement on climate change transcends political barriers (at least in Europe), so that the Conservatives in Britain are also arguing for it - just as Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel do respectively in France and Germany. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yorky, you've been doing some fantastic work.

Remember the Labour immigration scandal article you made not that long ago, that got deleted? (Which absolutely should not have been deleted) The article was perfectly fine, and should eventually be rebuilt at a future, appropriate time.

You know where you messed up in launching that? One of the first things you did after creating it was putting it in a Labour party template/infobox!! That was a very silly tactical mistake! Think about who likes to look at that grid, who travels through it, who built it. Answer: People who would not be fans of your new article. You walked into a 'kill-zone', with not enough friendlies about who knew about the new article, who could have provided support and assistance. Approached differently, and that article would be up there right now. You actually had MP's staffers all over your article, so of course it was ganged up on and wiped out. (Plus, it wasn't really the most appropriate place to put it for general information reasons anyway).

Next time, build up any "future new articles" within a friendly ideological harbour. Build up projects you're working on slowly, make sure that other friendlies know about it, and you'll do much better. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillteache (talk • contribs) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not

Be careful. You seem to be playing around in the BNP article with C18 and moving it to suggest that it is the same as the BNP's security force. This is not true (though I suspect that the one was in fact heavily dependent on the other). BNP has always denied links to C18, which is not the same as saying there are none. That's why C18 featurs as a section in the BNP article. I have taken the liberty of reversing these moves, and suggest you look a bit more carefully at the issue. Hoepfully, this will avoid a lot of problems later. Emeraude (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're stilll editing the article so I can't make the changes. There is a whole chunk of text that you moved from the C18 section into the 1990s, plus a pasting from the C18 article itself that need to be replaced. Emeraude (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the sources may not be reliable. Tyndall always denied (publicly) any knowledge of C18, so he would also deny having had it set up (see here and [here], despite what the BBC reference says. My own view is that the BNP did set it up and disowned it when it got out of hand, and there seems to be some evidence for that. However, it is also plausible that C18 was set up unofficially by individual BNP members, supporters and hangers on (and there is evidence for that as well!). If you haven't already, read the rationale I gave on the talk page for removing some text from the C18 article. Emeraude (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must stick to what the source says. It nowhere mentions the League of St George, so any mention in the article is unsourced. The article does not say Red Action attacked the Kensington Library meeting, anywhere, so that's unsourced. The interviewee mentions Red Action, but does not specifically name them as the hammer wielders, so that is unsourced, and would be even if he did mention them. His claims are not not proven and the Independent is simply reporting what was said - it makes no claim for the veracity or otherwise of anything said by its interviewees - indeed, how could it given the nature of the article? Everything said by the C18 members in the Independent must be taken with a pinch of salt. Yes, the paper is a generally reliable source, but it would not assume to be used as proof that what people it has interviewed have said is true, rather than what its own reporters have discovered. Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to abide by

Hi Yorkshirian, I hope all is well,

On the trail of the success you had with the England article, and remembering you had some plans for Great Britain, I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User:Jza84/Sandbox3? I have 'pinched' some of the material you did for England and used it at the sandbox. I was motivated to do something about this important article, because a couple of bright sparks turned an article into a disamibugation page.... in good faith of course... --Jza84 |  Talk  00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting picture of Anne Boleyn on a hunting expedition. I have already uploaded it to her article. She was a keen huntress. As for Henry resembling the Jolly Green Giant; well, that's a good description of him. He was also known as Bluff King Hal. Green was one of the Tudor colours, the other being white. It's strange how a cruel tyrant such as Henry was highly regarded by the populace, whereas Richard III, who was interested in obtaining justice for the people was reviled-except in the North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Yorkshirian,

We've disagreed in the past, as you know. I wondered what you thought about Template talk:Infobox UK place, specifically the part under the heading Dublin. I have no idea as to what your answer will be, but I know for sure that you will speak your mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have seen that you remove some theologians from Roman Catholic theology template. I have previously added some names mostly important figures in 20th century Toman Catholic theology and philosophy. Some of them are included in book Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians by Fergus Kerr (like Bernard Lonergan). In article Karl Rahner write that Rahner is consider as one of the most important Roman Catholic theologians of 20th centuri among with Hans Urs von Balthasar and Bernard Lonergan. Étienne Gilson, probably leading interpretor of Thomas Aquinas in 20th century also removed. I dont insist to put all Roman Catholic theologians but some os the most important are excluded from list. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that recentism can be a big problem. but I thint that we can put same number of theologians in 20-21st cebtury box as in 19th century box. I think that 20th century was much more inportant for

Roman Catholic theology than 19th. Especially related to Second Vatican Council and after-concil theology. Also I think that modern theologians are more interesting for thelogy students, for example, than theologians from other periods. I dont thin that we need to put 20 or more names, maybe several more like Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar and especially Hans Küng (he is well known not only among theologians). Maybe article Roman Catholic theology in 20th century should put tham all together :) Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea about theologians per country. Did you mean on specific templates for Roman Catholic theologians per some coutries (of course not for every country just for some of leading theological centres if I can use such phrase like Germany, Italy, France, Italy etc). Also it would be very usefull to make List of Roman Catholic theologians. Modern theology, as I can see, isn't only concentrated around great names like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus but thre are many important writers on specific areas of theology who aren't well knowen so we need some more cooperator to do such job. I am interested to write on Roman Catholic topics but I am not expert so I cant do many things alone but I would like to cooperate. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have been working for quite some time by now in

Hi. I see your exchange with user Snowded. I've had experiences with him. His behavior is really strange. What's going on with you guys, seems to be similar to my experiences. He doesn't get much involved in the discussions, seems to not really read the talk pages, and then just comes in and claims that there's no consensus or something like that, or reverts something without really explaining why, and then just interrupts the whole flow of progress that was taking place. It seems like he's just intervenes for the sake of intervening in order to see himself as some type of policeman or arbiter that swoops in to make sure nobody does anything without consensus, but he just makes things worse throwing a wrench in the progress that's been made. He'll revert things and in his edit summary say to stop edit warring, but not seeing that he's edit warring. It's a really strange thing. Maybe just bored. Can I touch it? (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report here. I see you have someone else who has been reverted against three other editors expressing sympathy--Snowded ^TALK 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently involved in an edit war at British National Party. Making bold edits to improve an article is laudable, especially when there is a broad consensus at the talkpage that improvements are needed. When other editors in good faith request further discussion of your edits, however, the onus devolves to you to engage in the specifics of that discussion rather than simply reverting to your preferred version and continuing to make controversial changes. Such discussion should be civil, focusing on the content of the proposed edits themselves to the exclusion of commentary on your fellow volunteers. Particularly to be avoided are accusations of bad faith, dismissive references to political leanings, and personal attacks. Your contributions are valuable, but please keep this in mind. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before cutting any more text from any portion of the article, can you please propose/discuss it as you have been asked? It doesn't apply only to the History section. I have no problem with the correction of refs/dates/etc, it is specifically the removal of paragraphs of text without discussion. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I saw the recent ANI thread, though I came to it late when it seemed that you'd managed to work things out (up to a point) so I didn't think I could add anything useful. Re the article, as an admin I can't get involved in content disputes; I have no more say than anyone else on content (as long as it doesn't violate policy), so my opinion would be nothing more than simply my opinion. As an editor, I really don't have the time to get involved in anything substantial at the moment, and that dispute looks like it would be a bit of a time sink! There are some suggestions on

I'm sorry to say that I've basically ripped off your user page, because it's one of the best I've ever seen, and my old one was shamefully bad. If you visit it, you will notice I've even stolen two of your userboxes, such is my poor Wikipedia-ing ability. I hope you don't mind - if you do, let me know SE7^Talk/_Contribs 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Seán Mac Stíofáin, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction as may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Yorkshirian, did you hear about

FYI, you've been mentioned in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Karanacs (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to alert you to this, I saw your interaction while looking at recent changes. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies for missing your reply to my earlier post - I often check my talk page via the last change link in the message bar when I log in, and if there has been more than one change (especially to an older thread) I don't always notice the older ones. I found it just now while looking for a convenient link to your talkpage. Secondly, you need to be very careful about edits like this. It could be taken as trolling because it contains provocative implications that you must be aware some editors will find offensive; from a hostile perspective it reads as though you are actively looking for a dispute. As I've explained on RTG's talk page, I have cut you some slack in the past because you're on your final 'life' (and you do some good article work). It would be a mistake to rely on this though; other admins might not be so reluctant to reblock your account for minor infractions, and community patience is not endless. EyeSerene^talk 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your work on those navboxes—{{Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004}}, {{Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009}}, and {{Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014}}—but it looks like they're getting too large. --bender235 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't want to reply, okay. But don't you think we should split up these templates? Like one for each country's MEPs. --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for other editor's incivility on the talk page. Your question is very valid and I answered you on the talk page here [27]. NancyHeise ^talk 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old version of the article is now dead, and there was never really any consensus for it. Please discuss major changes in the talk page. The new version is now the baseline model: do not tamper it with it substantially unless you bring up your complaints in the talk page first and get consensus for your ideas.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The straw poll ended 11-7 in favor of changing to the new version. Thank you for your understanding.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I made a "bold innovation." All of that was part of the straw poll. That's what we voted on. Please do not tamper with the article in that manner until you gain consensus for your changes. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring and I wish you would stop. I do not plan to follow in your path.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This confrontational style cannot and will not improve the article. Do not take your concerns to my talk page, but rather to the talk page of the article. That's where these discussions belong.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshirian, a reminder that

I want to thank you very much! Despite our differences, we came together to find a working compromise. I look forward to working with you in the future to improve the article. Thank you again.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? The claim has four reputable sources (all books) from political scientists. Refer to the talk page about WP:EXTREMIST, which you don't understand very well at all (in fact, you completely misunderstood what it means). "Extremist" can be included if it's sourced properly.UBER ^(talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are also changing the lead in a way that no one previously agreed to, substituting "right-wing" far "far-right" without any prior consensus. At the very least, until we sort out the extremist stuff, leave far-right in the lead. Again, I'll follow the same strategy as at the CC article: you can either make the changes yourself, or I'll make them for you if you continue your reckless edit wars.UBER ^(talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can not find reputable sources from political scientists calling Obama an extremist, so please do not attempt to make such a ludicrous and appalling comparison.UBER ^(talk) 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you will not find, or at least I would be shocked if you did, is a reputable source from a neutral political scientist calling Obama extremist. You're playing around with terms like "mainstream media" without identifying any specifics. Just so we're clear: the likes of National Review, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh are not considered reputable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. Again, stop bringing up this botched comparison before you further taint Wikipedia's good name.UBER ^(talk) 21:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're constantly bringing up this tired mantra of yours, provide me one reputable source, as defined by Wikipedia, that explicitly calls Obama racist or extremist. Either do it or stop wasting our time and start being serious.UBER ^(talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting my time and see this.UBER ^(talk) 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't link RL names to accounts, regardless of whether you think you may be right or not. It's not allowed per

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  bot
  , and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Connacht

Hello Yorkshirian. I was delighted to find illustrations of the kingdoms of Thomond and Desmond recently created, by yourself I believe. I have long since wished to create one for Connacht and its kingdoms but do not know how to do so. Rather than ask you to do it for me, could you advise me how I should go about it? Imagery construction is a mystery to me. Fergananim (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the edit warring

I appreciate and respect your "wikidragon" mentality, as you say in your userpage, but the lead sentence for the JBS was placed there through consensus and that's the same thing you need in the talk page before you can change it further. Thank you for your understanding.UBER ^(talk) 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again. Unbelievable. The difference between the changes you propose and those that Haldraper proposes is that Haldraper actually has consensus behind them. You don't. Please take it to the talk page.UBER ^(talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haldraper has actually discussed his changes regularly in the talk page, and I advise you to do the same.UBER ^(talk) 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yorkshirian. All credit for your sterling work in trying to keep balance in the article. I have posted a critique of the recent drastic changes on the talk page, and have proposed a rather different solution that could set the article back on a proper track. I hope you will read it and give consideration to my suggestions. Xandar 11:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion

I hope I haven't annoyed you with my compromise suggestion of deleting the History section from the CC article and restoring all the rest. It was a suggestion floated to see if it could quickly resolve the situation - and would actually amount to just a de-facto splitting of the article between Catholic Church and History of the Catholic Church. This is in view of the sudden immense pressure to hugely cut the article. The suggestion has not generated great enthusiasm in any event. I very much appreciate your great work recently to keep the History section balanced and preserve it from the hack and slash that has been applied to the other sections. Personally I don't have a strong view on the History section being in the article now that we have a HoCC article. But with people saying that there's no room to tell people about the Church Today and its beliefs and Organisation, changing the History section to a link to HoCC seems an elegant solution. I don't like History at the top though, because it just makes the article look like HoCC, and hinders people reading the other material - which has been cut on the page to Stub level. Xandar 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice - Proposal on community ban of you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify this - the discussion is a proposal to community ban you from Wikipedia for ongoing disruptive editing and source fabrication. As of the moment I am posting this, there is a 12-1-1 ban/don't ban/ban from all talk pages and reverts alternate edit restriction. It would be premature to call a consensus only 4 hours after the proposal was posted, but obviously there is some very significant concern being voiced by very senior Wikipedians. Please address the issues on ANI.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of ban discussion

Yorkshirian, I'm enacting the very clear consensus here, and blocking you indefinitely; unfortunately, you have been banned from participating in Wikipedia. If I understand right, this can be appealed via email to the arbitration committee, but not through an unblock request, so I have also prevented you from editing this talk page to emphasize the finality to this decision. If you have any questions, you may email me; I've left the "email this user" function enabled.

It appears you and Wikipedia are not a good fit for each other. Please consider taking your considerable talents elsewhere, rather than... you know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a

Talk // Contribs 19:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Replaceable fair use File:Mein Kampf.png

Thanks for uploading File:Mein Kampf.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MASEM (t) 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contests

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]