User talk:Gold heart: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:03, 2 June 2007

Hi Gold heart, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Paddy AfD

Hi there! I've completed your deletion nomination for this article. You can find the debate here. It's probably a good idea for you to edit the discussion and say why you think the article should be deleted. Tevildo 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting vandalism!

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ireland

Great to see you weighing in to get the Republic of Ireland renamed!

))

PS , I think Nelson Mandela never said that stuff, more likely it was Marianne Williamson. Deepsoulstarfish 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Moon, Re your new idea for the NI article - yes much better! I would agree to that and can't see how anyone could object unless they are pushing a pov. Regards (Sarah777 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

thanks tara

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marianne_Williamson says he never did, so there is another project for you :-) peace and best wishes Deepsoulstarfish 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test sig.

Thanks!

"New Physiognomy, New York, 1866" ah ha! thanks for adding this info. The whole Race and intelligence "serise" needs a lot of work. I've been adding new material as fast as I can. some of the time some of the dates and titles for sources get mixed up. When I added this new section on Irish stereotypes you would not believe how this one editor responded [1] I felt like I was back in 1866 again for a moment! Thanks so much! futurebird 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had not thought of that! Making note of progress and positive change might be a good idea. The topic has a narrow focus though. I was hard pressed enough to find sources that spoke about stereotypes about intelligence specifically (rather than stereotypes in general) New information and fresh eyes on this project are always needed and welcome. futurebird 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RTE

In you opinion RTE wound up the controversy ,i refer you too WP:NPOV and WP:Cite(Gnevin 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Country etc.

Hi Taramoon,

The situation re: country/state etc. is really getting me down. Not so much for whatever outcome there will be but rather I am dismayed at how the matter is being discussed. It appears to me that certain editors are refusing to engage in discussion on the matter, but instead are carefully avoiding discussion and framing responses through misquotes and demanding that they do not need to explain such an obvious fact. Its disheartening in the extreme - and in the end, I believe, extremely dangerous to the future of the article.

As a clarifier, I do not dispute that Ireland could be called a county (in one sense of the word) (see here for an example), what I mean is that it is confusing to do so when Ireland-the-island is a country also (in another sense of the word) - meaning you have a country called Ireland in a country called Ireland. Its a copy edit conflict.

As for soverign state, see the UK for an example of a country also described here as one. This is how the state is described in the constitution. Article 5 (right after the name): "Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state." [2]

--sony-youth^talk 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tara. Did you mean not to make a vote for-or-against option 1 on the RoI page. As a heads up, I think its being recorded as a "no opinion" - if that's what you intended then good, but just in case it was not ... --sony-youth^talk 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croke Park - citation

Thanks for removing the 'citation needed' notice yourself. Can you now edit your edit summary and remove the personal attack from it, as clearly my removal of it was not for a 'false reason'? Please also see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Bastun 11:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation notice is in the wrong position. I purposely didn't move it, someone else can do that. Gold heart 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New name

Yayy!! Glad it's all sorted now :) Your new name is lovely - Alison^☺ 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. And if you happen to pass this way again, it came down to a few choices. I picked it for a certain specific reason. And if you allow me to return the compliment, yours is a wonderful name. It is also much your credit that you would use your own real name on wikipedia. Thanks for checking the application over, maybe you should do bureaucrat, I think they are a bit short staffed up there. c u anon ;¬)) Gold_heart 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) And nooooo - adminship is already a ton of work!! I don't think I could hack being a 'crat - Alison^☺ 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure 'crat is a walk in the park in comparison, 'cause I see them doing Admin' work. - Gold_heart 20:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian articles

memo -- Many Indian articles need going over for linking, grammar and spelling etc. Must try and do some on a regular basis, and give me a chance to learn more. Gold_heart 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Name change

No problem! Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice to see you back

The vote was as part of a merge request - I'll admit I was pretty full on in pushing it through. The discussion took place across the Full breakfast (the new page) and the Full English breakfast talk page. There wasn't so much discussion on the Irish breakfast page. Most of the important stuff is on the Full breakfast page. Personally, I don't feel any degree of sadness to see it go, but rather more satisfied that a common name could be arrived at (England-based editors were the most fervently opposed). I merged the two texts myself and can testify that what little differences there was between the two could be kept in the combined article as it just as equally applied to the other. The new situation also gives equal respect to Scottish and Welsh breakfasts which had previously redirected to English breakfast. Ar aon nós, nice to see ya back. Good luck with the piano program, I'm an interaction designer myself so I know how painfully slow it is to finish things. Post a link to my user page when you're done, I'd like to check it out. --sony-youth^talk 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eadgbe.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Eadgbe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the upload log, you uploaded an image by that name on June 7, 2006. It appears to be a 50x50 white jpg. It was somewhat confusing to me as well. It was uploaded over what appears to be a picture of someone non-notable which was added to Irish People the day before your upload. If you have no strong feelings about these images, then don't worry about it and the closing admin at WP:IfD will take care of it. ~ Bigr Tex 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomsday

Bloomsday now points to Bloomsday (disambiguation), which now has 5 alternatives (the Irish holiday, the race, two music bands, and a cartoon episode). Before anyone changes Bloomsday to mean the holiday: how notable outside Ireland is the holiday compared to the other alternatives? I live in England and I have never heard of the Bloomsday holiday. Anthony Appleyard 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox

Re this comment - why not try Firefox, things like spell checking come as standard... /wangi 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Hi LO2U, well flicking about on WP I hit upon your user-page. Some very good thoughts there about WP etc and IP editors. I didn't notice anything wrong with your spelling, and it appears spot-on to me. Just to let you know that there is a great little resource that one can add to their browser. You can get it at http://www.iespell.com/ -Gold♣heart 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's because I get very emabarrassed if I make mistakes - had to look up "exaggerate" several times during that article discussion :-). Thanks for the link - I'll take a look tomorrow. BTW - I'm very pleased that article's (hopefully) sorted out. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gold♣heart. I really am sorry to read your talk page comment. I like to assume good faith but I know I don't always - I certainly never meant to attack you personally or to belittle what you were saying - my comment about people not liking the term wasn't meant to pick up Bastun's comment and the wording was poorly concidered - it was meant more of an attempt to pre-empt the inevitable "why the Irish don't like the British" comments - which you've had no part in but which fill large parts of the page. That page has as many opinions as editors but I do appreciate your attempts to reconcile us all. All the best. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I wasn't sure if you were addressing me but I felt my immediate repitition of words that were slightly belittling couldn't have been very nice for you. Bastun, in his defence, has previously been accused of personal attacks that he simply hasn't been guilty of - and he's probably feeling singled out and is afraid the article will go in a direction he feels would be a big mistake if he doesn't respond to talk page comments. If he's sharp at times I don't think he's assuming bad faith. I rather think I need a break from this too - this is one of these bad experiences where it's good to stand back and realise the thing doesn't really matter at all. Take care.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting user talk pages

I edited the diff out of the AfD, but solely as out of past respect and current conciliatoriness. It was relevant and ought to have been seen as it succinctly explained the reasons for the "new article" - plain, simple, ugly sectarianism. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the link to the diff back in after reading your comments on the AfD page. I am appalled at this disruption and ashamed that I may, through our shared opinion, be associated it. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you'll look back and say that it was the Brits that divided us. There were four Irish editors on that page, now there are two and two. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish kings and High Kings

Hello Gold heart. Just making a reply to your following comment on the United Ireland talk-page.

Ireland was united in 1014 a.d. by Brian Boru, high king of Ireland.FACT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suikoeire (talk • contribs)

And it had a unified monarchy, High-Kingship, for centuries before that. Gold♣heart 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly for both himself and the Dal gCais, Brian achieved nothing of the sort. He directly controlled Thomond, was King of Munster, was allied with Hy-Many and Mide, but could never bring Aileach, Ulster or Leinster fully under his control. And that's not even to mention the kingdoms of Dublin, Waterford and Wexford.

Nor was the monarcy unified - its claimants and holders were from different dynasties all over the island - or in use for centuries before that. It only came into existence in the 9th century (circa 862, just over a century and a half before Clontarf. And I must point out - again - that none of the Ard Rí's from Aed Finlaith (reigned 862-876) to Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair (1166-1198) EVER ruled all Ireland. Their title simply meant that they were the most powerful king on an island of kings.

The wiki section on High King of Ireland sums it up: The concept of a high kingship was converted into political reality by the Uí Néill in 862 when Aed Finliath is styled in the annals as rí Érenn uile (king of all Ireland), but this was a personal kingship (my emphasis - Fergananim) to be won anew generation by generation rather than an impersonal office settled upon a lineage.

Am sorry to hear you are leaving us, especally as I have never made the pleasure of your acquaintence, but I understand something of your reasons for doing so. Is mise le meas mor, Fergananim 19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain and Ireland

Hi Gold - I revert your redirect; when we talk of these islands here people refer to Britain and Ireland rather than "Great Britain and Ireland". I'm trying to name the article after the most common usage in Ireland; the most Geographically correct would be "British Islands and Ireland" - but I've never heard or read that used! (Sarah777 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Approaches

Gold, over the top, I may have been, but not without reason. I am on your side regarding problems with the articles, but I do not think that the winning approach it to beat them editors editors over the head with the name issue. It is the last thing that they will give in on, and the least thing that we can prove in a unequivocally. It is counter productive because pulls the talk page into acrimony; then they close ranks and react just as we would: viscously, ardently, and unmovable. Everything edit we make and every change we propose gets tainted with suspicion that its some ploy to against the name. They will see a Popish Plot everywhere.

We are enormously out numbered. Brute force will not win. We have to box clever. Win some of them over, then pull the carpet out from under those who remain. Look at the changes I made to the article recently: adding the languages section, adding the political cooperation section, adding the names in other languages. They wanted the reference to the dispute removed from the first sentence? Fine, no problem, I'll move it to the end of the paragraph - and expand it to three while removing references to the UK in the lede. Changes like these chip away at the monolithic British (read anglo-centric) interpretation of the islands - but we cannot hit them head on: the movement must be from below. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony, it's not "them and us" - we all have the same aim - improving Wikipedia and ensuring that articles are written from a neutral point of view. Your comments above indicate that you are assuming that other editors are acting in bad faith or have some hidden agenda or prejudice. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a war; we don't need editors to act as moles or sleeper agents. Such behaviour is not in keeping with the collaborative nature of the project. Waggers 09:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers, that wasn't my intention - but I can see how it would be read as such. That there is undoubtedly an opinion that there is a "them and us" attitude towards the BI page, see conversations between Gold and Sarah across their talk pages as evidience. My intention above was to demonstrate a partisan editor the rationale and, especially, benefit of WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:NPOV - to work with people rather than constantly beat them over the head with the same issue. But, I none the less accept your criticism and my comments above were badly thought out. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief, sorry that I misunderstood you. You've always come across as a level-headed editor and I think you set a very good example, so I was quite surprised! I'm glad it was a misunderstanding. Waggers 09:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Sorry Gold heart, we seem to have hijacked your user talk page! Waggers 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) No apologies needed. I am afraid that I have been misunderstood this last week or so. Can I set out a challenge to any editor to make a link to this page to anything written that shows that I have not assumed good faith, or have breached anything civil. That being said I have been personally attacked by Bastun (an Irish editor), he really adds very little in the way of opinion to the page and lurks about in the hope of making some odious comment or other, this doesn't help the page. My exchange with Sony-youth was to the point an addressed the issues, and was in my belief, not personal. So Waggers, if you think it's a them and us affair with some, you will find that I have praised the British editors, and one of my favourite editors is Tharkumcoll, how's that! Also I didn't know anything about the "new page" until 2 hours after it was made, there was nothing that I could do about it, no more than any other editor. And BTW, the reference to "tiny people" had nothing to do with the BI talk page, it was written as a conciliatory piece, and I am extremely anti-isolationist in my WP attitudes. I could go on, but the challenge is there, and I will be able to answer it, no doubt. Gold♥ 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge accepted. Let's start with this edit. We have a user (me) accused of personally attacking you, "lurking" about in the hope of breaching WP:NPA, with "odious" comments, etc.

I have made (to the best of my recollection and a quick search) one previous edit to this page - back on 26th February (no. 8 above), where I asked you to retract an attack on me on the Croke Park article. This edit, bizarrely singling me out, is a breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. An apology is in order. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bastun, I have a right to say so, because you did attack me, and I have the right to respond and defend. Gold♥ 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where?! Please either supply a diff or have the good grace to apologise and retract. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it to the British Isles pages for the moment and please do not try change the issues here. I'll address that other issue separately, later. Gold♥ 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I'm not changing the issues here. You are the one who issued your challenge, after all, and I'm responding to it here. Again, prove your allegation or withdraw it and apologise. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, what response? Keep it in the framework of this last week in relation to the BI pages. Gold♥ 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said (above, on this page): "Can I set out a challenge to any editor to make a link to this page to anything written that shows that I have not assumed good faith, or have breached anything civil."

I pointed out that in that post itself you were breaching WP:NPA WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, by accusing me of:

making personal attacks against you,
denigrated my contributions, and
lurking about "in the hope of making some odious comment or other".

And I have asked you (several times now) to either back up your claim with evidence or to retract and apologise.

Even if you are talking about the 'British Isles' talk page, rather than this page, I:

responded to your "Cormac Mac Airt = King Arthur" comment, asking for sources;
clarified who I was accusing of trolling (not you);
made a (valid) point in repsonse to you that googling "map of Europe" and counting the non-appearances of "British Isles" wasn't exactly scientific;
answered your question about who uses the term West Indies;
told you not to edit out my comments;
and supplied a possible reason for the discrepancy in google hits.

I'm still not seeing any personal attack...

Again - supply a diff where I attacked you; or retract and apologise. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, this is somewhat tiresome. I retain my right to respond to personal attacks, and I also retain my right to defend myself from personal attacks. I have other more pressing things to be doing today rather than responding to you with ditto, ditto, ditto. Gold♥ 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly entitled to respond to and defend yourself from personal attacks. That's not an issue. Thing is, I have the same rights. You've asserted that I have attacked you. I have demonstrated that I haven't. That's actually twice now you've personally attacked me (including your edit summary on Croke Park). So - any chance of an apology? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun: # clarified who I was accusing of trolling (not you);. Indeed Bastun, that was me on that occasion. And I'm still waiting for your apology/retraction; but I'm not stalking your talk page like a bully trying to force it out of you. Please cease this harassment of GoldHeart. (Sarah777 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Defending my good name is now stalking? Asking for evidence or a retraction is now bullying? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, I am willing to forgive and forget. In edit summaries, it's not usual to cite a user_name and their talk page. That type of editing is usually reserved as an answer to vandalism. You did that in Croke Park to one of my edits. You had the citation in the wrong place, and I mistakenly made a good-faith edit. There were some exchange afterward that was a bit iffy. But I thought no more about it until you personally attacked me at the BI talk page, and it was then I remembered the earlier incident. I have to be at the Shelbourne Hotel at 5.30 pm and will not be around for some hours. Gold♥ 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Croke Park. I'm not bothered about it - just to note that if one clicks the 'Undo' button, the edit summary automatically contains the previous editor's username/talkpage link. I rarely remove that and generally just add in my own edit summary afterwards.

Re British Isles. You've now again accused me of attacking you there. I went through the page using Ctrl + F to find my edits and I've listed all my edits from the current talk page that involve you in any way, above. Unless I'm really missing something - none of those is a personal attack. Yes, I accused Sarah of being a troll. Not you. I may have sailed close to the mark in response to an anti-Irish comment from TharkunColl. That's it. No personal attack directed at you. Yet you keep accusing me of making one. I don't think I'm out of line in asking for you to supply the diffs in question; or in seeking an apology if you can't do so.

Anyway - enjoy the Shelbourne Hotel. How much are they charging for a pint in the Horseshoe Bar these days? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun; that Ctrl+F is great! But really, as an (admittedly not totally neutral) observer you seem to be hounding Gold, probably in contravention of WP:HOUND. And Gold manifestly wants this discussion to cease. (Sarah777 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Challange still unmet

Bastun, I am not bothered about Croke Park either, it's in the distant past as far as I'm concerned. I said earlier that I had forgot about it, as far as I'm concerned, it is over. Still no editor has met my challenge, as outlined above. Gold♥ 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gold, just to clarify - my mentioning of a "them and us" attitude was a response to what sony-youth wrote at the top of this thread, not to any action of yours. Meanwhile I'd suggest to any other readers reading this that the challenge remains unmet - squabbling among ourselves is not going to improve the encyclopaedia nor any of our relationships. Waggers 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, re-reading the challenge, I'm now unsure as to whether you mean this page, or the BI talk page. Regardless, I don't recall any uncivility or personal attacks made by you on either page - with the exception of your repeated accusations that I have attacked you. On further reading of WP:NPA, accusing someone of making a personal attack is in itself not a personal attack. I therefore withdraw my accusations that you have personally attacked me, and I apologise. However, the fact remains that you have, several times, accused me of attacking you. I can't find any evidence of it, and despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide any. So - how about withdrawing the remarks, call it a scoreless draw, and we can move on, get Friday out of the way and enjoy a stress-free bank holiday weekend? Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Bastun, thanks for some of your comments. I really don't like accusing anyone of directing a personal attack against me. You have asked me for the link, and to be honest I had some difficulty tracing, and also I was busy at other things too. In a court of law, it's most often in the way a transgression is interpreted by the recipient that is accepted by the court as being fact. So if the recipient has been hurt by some remark, the court won't deem on whether the recipient should, or should not have been hurt by a remark (slander). Basically, the way I took this remarkis as follows. You addressed me, and you pointed to a WP link that was all about "hate". The inference was that I hated the term "British Isles", or maybe I hated the term British. This could, in the circumstance be inferred that I harboured "racial hatred". Well Bastun, that's very far from the truth. Sometimes these disputes get into the area of hyperbola, and maybe the odd "point" is pressed a little too strong, but Bastun, it's not hatred, it's just debate. It's important that one can argue, with fervour sometimes, without being tarred with the above, and it's not a nice accusation to take, especially when it's incorrect. Gold♥ 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an... interesting... chain of assumptions. To be clear, my intention was only to point out that an editor can't remove something because they don't like it. And I linked to the relevant essay. It was never my intention to accuse you of racial hatred. If that's the inference you took, then apologies for any offence caused. In my defence, though, I don't think linking to WP rules, guideline or essays is generally frowned upon. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deansgrange

That looks great Gold - much better! Mind, the Bank of Ireland is no more but the photo is a great record of what the crossroads once looked like. (Sarah777 10:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Gold - there IS actually a Luas stop to be built at Laughanstown rather than Loughlinstown [3], believe it or not! Regards (Sarah777 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Neither had I till the Luas came around...I assumed it was a mistake too. (Sarah777 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 :Ok, re-reading the challenge, I'm now unsure as to whether you mean ''this'' page, or the BI talk page.  Regardless, I don't recall any uncivility or personal attacks made by you on either page - with the exception of your repeated accusations that I have attacked you.  On further reading of [[WP:NPA]], accusing someone of making a personal attack is in itself ''not'' a personal attack.  I therefore withdraw my accusations that you have personally attacked me, and I apologise.  However, the fact remains that you ''have'', several times, accused me of attacking you.  I can't find any evidence of it, and despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide any.  So - how about withdrawing the remarks, call it a scoreless draw, and we can move on, get Friday out of the way and enjoy a stress-free bank holiday weekend? Regards, [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 10:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 ::Okay Bastun, thanks for some of your comments. I really don't like accusing anyone of directing a personal attack against me. You have asked me for the link, and to be honest I had some difficulty tracing, and also I was busy at other things too. In a court of law, it's most often in the way a transgression is interpreted by the recipient that is accepted by the court as being fact. So if the recipient has been hurt by some remark, the court won't deem on whether the recipient should, or should not have been hurt by a remark (slander). Basically, the way I took this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles&diff=prev&oldid=134196525| remark]is as follows. You addressed me, and you pointed to a WP link that was all about "hate". The inference was that I hated the term "British Isles", or maybe I hated the term British. This could, in the circumstance be inferred that I harboured "racial hatred". Well Bastun, that's very far from the truth. Sometimes these disputes get into the area of hyperbola, and maybe the odd "point" is pressed a little too strong, but Bastun, it's not hatred, it's just debate. It's important that one can argue, with fervour sometimes, without being tarred with the above, and it's not a nice accusation to take, especially when it's incorrect. [[User:Gold heart| <font face="Bradley Hand ITC" color="#00BB00"><strong>Gold♥</strong></font>]] 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
+:::That's an... interesting... chain of assumptions.  To be clear, my intention was '''only''' to point out that an editor can't remove something because they don't like it.  And I linked to the relevant essay.  It was never my intention to accuse you of racial hatred.  If that's the inference you took, then apologies for any offence caused.  In my defence, though, I don't think linking to WP rules, guideline or essays is generally frowned upon.  Regards, [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 ==Deansgrange==