User talk:Yorkshirian

Archives
Archive 1

England

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provinces images

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

Problems problems

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

Ignatius

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

England images

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

Thank You!

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

Article Naming Conflict Problem

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

Careful, please

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

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

Dithering here...

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

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

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

England, again

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

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