User talk:TharkunColl

Adminship request

Dear TharkunColl, As one of the users I come accross most frequently I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! Cameaeron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

British monarchy

You have been reported for violating 3RR on the article British monarchy. I was the administrator who reviewed or case, and since the page was already protected, and given other mitigating circumstances I chose not to impose a block. However, you did violate 3RR through your involvement in an edit war. Please always try to discuss such issues rather than simply revert. Even if you believe that no consensus had been secured, or that the other version is worse, please try to discuss the issue and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution program or seek assistance from an administrator. Edit warring is considered extremely disruptive, and if you will engage in such actions in the future, you risk being blocked. Thanks, TSO1D (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Comments like this [1] are unacceptable personal attacks on other editors. This is a final warning; you will be blocked if you make another. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions, Tharky

I can't predict the future Tharky, but I suspect (should you be punished) over your Wiki behaviour, you won't be banned. Banning generally occurs when an editor threatens other editors verbally or with legal actions. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, are you out there? - Repeat, you haven't been banned. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Thark, don't you go! The place would be too boring without and intelligent BASTARD like yourself! --sony-youth^pléigh 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish language

"How can a language have an "official" name in another language? "Irish Gaelic" is a much more common way of referring to it"

Seems like you're pushing a POV there. The Irish language is just called "Irish"; just as Manx is called "Manx" and Welsh is called "Welsh". I think you'll find that there is no confusion about the name of the Irish language in Ireland.

Anyway, the name of the Irish language in the UK article shall remain "Irish". All the best, mate. Wiki01916 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User Page existance

Seeing as Tharky has been inactive for nearly a month; perhaps this page should be deleted? Or is there a time-limit on such things? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not unless the user specifically requested. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

He'll be back:) Merkinsmum 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He certainly shall! Merry Christmas everyone! TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, as I've said weeks ago, you weren't banned or blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew that all along - I was just taking a break. TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss your proposed changes at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs (again) first. This isn't a good way to re-appear after a months break, come on - be a pal. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, especially if new, cast-iron sources are provided. Please address this issue. And the same goes for your mate below. What's wrong with my reference? TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is only such when an editor attempts to sway wikipedia constitutional decisions, such as discussions or votes, by saying "You'll vote with me so come here!" If, on the other hand, an editor has been interfering with an accepted situation or vandalising or causing trouble, an editor is well within his rights to prevent the situation from escalating, or to fix the situation, by asking another editor for assistance in the matter, and to alert interested editors to the issue. Michael Sanders 18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

David Starky

Starky's program concentrates on the monarchies, not the countries (or Parliaments). Unless you can proove that the UK is still the Kingdom of England, you've not the chance of making your proposed changes stick. Please, don't start reverting again tommorow - in otherwords discuss don't make a fuss. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And you have only strengthened my case, because the list in question is a list of monarchs, not countries. The UK is still the Kingdom of England in the same sense that Canada is still the Dominion of Canada - it may be bigger, and have a different name, but institutionally there is complete continuity. TharkunColl (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember by claiming the UK is England - 1] the name 'England' would cover the whole island (which I'm sure the Scots will object to); 2] the name 'England' would cover Northern Ireland (which I'm sure the loyalist & rebels will both object to); 3] the article United Kingdom would have to be merged with England keeping the name England (which I'm sure Wikipedia in general will have a fit over). You must agree, a lot of people would be (shall we say) upset, with such changes. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say England was the UK, but rather that the English state (i.e. kingdom) became the UK. England is a country. The English state also included the country of Wales for quite a long time. What you appear to be saying is that a state cannot expand its territory or change its name. TharkunColl (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically, you are claiming that the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is actually the "Kingdom of England" in disguise (maybe it was hiding...). Despite the name, the peerage, the parliament, the governmental institutions covering (with the exception of devolved powers) the entire UK. A state can expand or change its name - but that's not what happened in 1707. It's true that a lot of English features were kept on in the new state, but the Scots objected as it was to English domination, do you think they'd have tolerated outright absorption into England? Michael Sanders 18:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No of course they wouldn't have tolerated outright absorption into England, which is why the English had to wrap it up the way they did. But no one was under any illusions as to what was actually happening. It was an English takeover, pure and simple. To try and claim otherwise is to distort history. TharkunColl (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Scotland entered the union via an 'ear pulling', but calling it an English takeover is a bit strong. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically (what I'm harping about), the monarchs and the country(ies) can't be seperated from each other. You can't be King of X if the Kingdom of X doesn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The English bullied and bribed the Scots into the union. It was what we would call a hostile takeover by a large corporation of a very small and bankrupt one. And I think you are still making too much of the "country" and "monarch" situation. The Holy Roman Empire was never a state, nor an empire (nor holy), but it still had a monarchy for a thousand years. TharkunColl (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you and David Starkey (I wonder if he's related to Ringo Starr? interesting) have got alot of selling to do on the English primacy thing. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean to the SNP for example? The largest party in the Scottish parliament wants independence. No comparable English movement exists. Even the tiny and eccentric groups who favour English "independence" actually want a dissolution of the union so they can jettison the Scots who they see as a financial liability, not because they see England as an "oppressed" country. There is no movement for independence in England because no English person regards his country as not being independent (unless we're talking about the EU, but that's a different issue entirely). TharkunColl (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tharky (noting the Holy Roman Empire), but James I/VI to Anne (pre-1707) weren't monarchs of Great Britain as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until 1707. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain didn't exist until 1707? Then what was the name of the island that people had been living on all that time? How could James I call himself king of Great Britain in 1604 if Great Britain didn't exist? You are once again confusing a state with a place. Possibly, I may suggest, that's because in places like Canada there is no difference between a state and a country, but that is not how it works over here. You should not try and impose such views onto a situation where they don't fit. TharkunColl (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He said "the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until 1707". Which is true. It didn't. James I called himself "King of Great Britain" - but so what? He also called himself "King of France". Plenty of Iberian monarchs called themselves "King/Emperor of Spain/the Spains", it didn't make it true, or even a genuine title. In the case of England and Scotland, under the 'union of crowns', the states remained separate in laws, parliaments, peerages, governance, etc, until the Act of Union (with the exception of the Commonwealth, and the governance of Scotland under Charles II, both of which were abandoned). Then they were united by the Act of Union. (I'm British, by the way, so are you going to claim I don't understand the difference between states and countries?) Michael Sanders 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Scots only allowed the Act of Union in 1707 because they were assured that it wasn't an English takeover - they got M.P.s at Westminster, and I think other rights. If they hadn't been assured that it wasn't a 'takeover', but rather a 'union' (however unfair to them), civil war rather than grudging acquiescence would have been the likely result. To claim that the Scots had no part in the matter, or that representation at the national Parliament (which as an institution at both Westminster and Holyrood was becoming the important governing body of both kingdoms) meant nothing is to distort history. And in this situation, 'King of X' depends absolutely upon 'Kingdom of X' existing - the ruling monarchy makes no claims to be 'King/Queen of England', but rules legitimately over the successor kingdom to the 'Kingdom of England'. You're also being dishonest about English nationalism - what of the West Lothian question? I believe the Conservatives are strongly in favour of booting Scottish and Welsh M.P.s out of the Commons Chamber whenever anything is discussed regarding England which the Scots and Welsh have devolved power over. Furthermore, the fact that the English view their country as independant, and the Scots, Welsh and Irish view themselves as subjugated, doesn't change the fact that legally, the countries became administrative divisions of a larger state with the Acts of Union (and, for all that Devolution has occurred, it is only an internal division of the Kingdom, not a division of the crown). Michael Sanders 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

25 (I think that was the number) appointed Scottish MPs just turned up at Westminster in May 1707 and were admitted to the proceedings. Whatever the legal technicalities, the fact is that the Westminster parliament survived, with all its usages and traditions, and the Scottish one didn't. They didn't even bother holding a new general election, and the triennial act then in force was measured from the last English general election. This was not a union of equals. TharkunColl (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The English Parlaiment survived: but it became the Parliament of the "Kingdom of Great Britain". It may not have been a union of equals (who said it was?), but it was a union nonetheless. Whatever the controversy over the survival of institutions (and there's plenty), it's undeniable that legally the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1707. Michael Sanders 20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Legally speaking the Soviet Union was a democracy. Law does not adequately describe reality, and not understanding this simple fact is a very serious fault with most Wikipedia editors. TharkunColl (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You must also remember, you've brought up this argument twice before at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs; on both occassions the consensus was against you. Ya can't seperate the King/Queen from the Kingdom, if you make your changes at those article - you'd have to make similar changes to related articles (example: Kingdom of England would have to be described as still existing or James I of England would have to be moved to James I of Great Britain). You change one article? you change them all. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference. The Soviet Union was a state which claimed to be a democracy, but which did not uphold those claims. Whereas the claim that Scotland and England were united by the Act of Union was upheld - Scottish and English M.P.s sat together in the national Parliament (even if that Parliament was little different to the previous English parliament), newly created peers were members of a single peerage (even if previously created peerages continued), the monarchical title made no mention of England or Scotland, there was one united foreign policy, the kingdom had a single set of ambassadors, a single army, a single empire...I think the reality adequately reflects law. Michael Sanders 23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes. The kingdom had a single set of ambassadors, foreign policy, office holders, etc. etc., all of whom had been the English ones. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But who all now owed allegiance to the "Kingdom of Great Britain". The English dominated the union (I'm not disputing that) but nonetheless it was a union, not a simple English takeover, either in law or in fact. Would you describe modern Russia as the Soviet Union? Or the Soviet Union as Russia? Michael Sanders 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia and the Soviet Union are a very good analogy. Russia existed and then it formed the Soviet Union in 1922, which it totally controlled. They were even interchangeable in common speech. TharkunColl (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And of which Russia was a constituant part as an SSR. It would be inaccurate to describe the Soviet Union as Russia. The fact that people did so in common usage doesn't make it appropriate here. Michael Sanders 00:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the article Soviet Union, it tackles this very point in the second paragraph. You may be surprised. TharkunColl (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above Tharky, if you make chages on these monarcs articles, you must make changes to the relating articles (there's no way around it). GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No that's just your opinion. I edit chronology articles. I leave biographies to someone else. TharkunColl (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean you personally have to change them all, I meant Wikipedians in general. Moves & changes, that I would oppose. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm signing out for the night. These discussions are very interesting (and fun). If you 'ever' get a consensus for your proposed changes, I won't revert them. Until tommorow. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as there's a combined list article List of monarchs in the British Isles, why are you so anxious to have a List of English and British monarchs created? GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That list is truly awful, confusing, and confused. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present info simply and concisely, not befuddle the reader. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that article survived an AfD over a year ago (not sure). Remember, the British monarchs are equally successors to the English & Scottish monarchs. My goodness, the British monarchs have Scottish & English royal blood - they're combined genetically aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Genetically the British monarchs are mostly German. You keep asserting that the union is equal but you have not provided a shred of evidence. The English state dominated the union. Why is this obvious fact of history so difficult for you to grasp? What's the capital of the UK, London or Edinburgh? That is just one example of a myriad of similar questions I could ask. TharkunColl (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying there's an English primacy feel to the UK (Elizabeth II tends to be called 'Queen of England', but never 'Queen of Scotland'). As I've said earlier, if you can get a consensus for your proposed changes, I won't revert - but as it looks now, the consensus is 'leave lists alone'. Ya know, things would've been alot easier if Elizabeth I of England had married and bore children. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah we might never have got to take over Scotland then. Much better to trick them into thinking that their monarch becomes King of England, then a hundred years later boot out his descendants and bring in a bunch of Germans who can't even speak English and so are easy to control. TharkunColl (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna let others respond to your English takeover agrument, as we're not convincing each other. All we're doing is taking up 'talk page space' with our 'tug-of-war' discussion. It's only fair of me, as the consensus currently backs my argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a peek at discussion at James I of England, an editor there prefers that article be moved to James VI of Scotland (which I oppose). GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A Thark's not just for Christmas

Welcome back, Thark. Is this just a seasonal visit, to brighten these short Winter days - or ... dare I wish ... will you be round all year long?? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - I might stick around for a bit! TharkunColl (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sayings attributed to George I

I've often wundered: Did George's succession to the British throne (1714), bring about the saying By George, I think he's got it? GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. It may be something to do with Saint George, patron saint of England since the Middle Ages. Anyway I'm off out now. Catch you later. TharkunColl (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RE;

You appear to be outvoted, and have now reached your 3RR limit as well I'm afraid

I'm afraid that's not how wikipedia works, my friend. You will need to provide actual reasoning. In lieu of psychic abilities, I have no reason to change my opinion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, you can make no more reversions. Why don't you wait and see how it turns out? It's still under construction at the moment. TharkunColl (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you want an unstable article then? I suggest you take the opportunity to make some sense on the talk page, where I have opened up some discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish monarchs

Since you've shown an interest in this matter, would you like to comment atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)? Michael Sanders 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Olly

Yes, fascinating man. Do you know The Regicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson? It's focus is John Cooke, but he has some fascinating insights on how English-speaking political tradition still won't own Cromwell. Yet, as you say, he abolished absolutism forever.--Gazzster (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that one. But yes, Cromwell deserves a better place in British, even world history. He was the first person ever to draw up a written constitution for a state, which is ironic since we are the only country that doesn't have one now - which I think is a very good thing, incidentally. TharkunColl (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good for Britain, I'd agree (not having lived there, though my mum was British). Although isn't there a debate in Britain about a possible danger of parliamentary absolutism? I think it works in general because Britain has had centuries to work it out; you've had civil wars and revolutions, Runnymede, de Montfort, etc. In newer nations, like my own, only a written constitution can work.--Gazzster (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always felt that a written constitution inhibits democracy. Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it likes, but it is constrained from acting tyrannically by centuries of convention. When Ted Heath refused to resign as PM in 1974 after losing the general election and attempted to continue governing, he was literally laughed out of office by the media and threatened with the sack by the Queen. His attempt lasted mere days. TharkunColl (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Digressionary points on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

Donald III was also a contemporary of William Rufus, King of England - or in his own language, Guillaume le Roux. Or how about the former English king, still very much alive in the 1090s, Eadgar Æþeling - or in modern form, Edgar the Atheling. Or does your policy only extend to speakers of Celtic languages? And if so, when does it become no longer appropriate? The Bruces and Stewarts were certainly not Celts (in fact they had mostly Norman ancestry and spoke English), yet you had Gaelic versions of their names. You even had a Gaelic version of the name of William of Orange! How is this possibly useful or justified? TharkunColl (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are confusing different issues. The Gaelic names of all Scottish kings, not put there by me (although I reformatted them), were there because Gaelic is and was a major language of the Scottish kingdom at all periods. That has nothing to do with this topic, and is a entirely different consideration from native names for the Gaelic kings of Alba, used by almost all historians who write about them today. As for the descent of the Bruces and Stewarts, if you take the kings and trace their actual ancestry, you'll realise your belief comes from cultural fallacy, that of Agnatic seniority. As for language, we don't know that they adopted English until the 14th century. All of this is not relevant to this discussion though. And blatant irrelevancies such as these, by diverting energy and distracting from issues, can only hamper progress here, as I've learn through experience on wiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic is not a major language of Scotland and hasn't been for many hundreds of years. Indeed it was never a majority language and only rose to promince because it was the language spoken by the early kings, after they had conquered the Picts. The Bruces and Stewarts were Norman by ancestry because they inherited Norman attitudes and culture. And since the 14th was when they came to power your assertion that that was when English became the language of the kings fits exactly. TharkunColl (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic is not a major language of modern Scotland, but it was a major language of the Scottish kingdom for all of its existence, the majority language language before the 15th cent, and the only major language before the 12th century. This is not relevant here though, as the issue you're pursuing concerns the Scottish monarchs page and isn't editorially related to this discussion.

Gaelic is not a major language of modern Scotland, but it was a major language of the Scottish kingdom for all of its existence, the majority language language before the 15th cent, and the only major language before the 12th cent. Regarding the emergence of English as the language of the kingdom's elite, that's a complex historical topic. It's emergence in the 14th cent. probably owes more to the decline of French because of insularization and the decline of aristocratic links with French-speaking England, rather than the histories of those family. Scotland had acquired and integrated since the 11th cent. a large English-speaking region (known then as "Lothian"), and scores of pockets of English-speakers resided in enclaves throughout other parts of what became Lowland Scotland. Both the Stewarts and Bruces came to Scotland directly from France, and it's more likely in the Stewart case at least that they were characterised for the first two centuries by French-Gaelic bilingualism or French-Gaelic-English trilingualism, not English monolingualism. Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith, 3rd generation Stewart, used the Gaelic nickname Ballach ("the freckled) in letters to the Pope, and that part of Kyle (a totally Gaelic speaking area) ruled by Walter II was called (in an English-speaking (!) Latin source), "Walter Og's Kyle" ... Og meaning "the younger" or "little", distinguishing him from Walter I fitz Alan! In summary, the early Stewarts in Scotland seem to have been at least partially nativized (in Gaelic culture), the fate of Norman aristocratic settlers everywhere. And even in the fourteenth century, if you read anything about Robert II and his family, you'll realise that that monarch was as Gaelic as any other magnate whose lands were primarily based in the West Highlands and Firth of Clyde. While non-aristocratic church guys of burghess decent like Barbour and Wyntoun led the charge of English in late 14th century Scotland, Robert II was producing sons like Alasdair Mór mac an Rígh, the "Wolf of Badenoch", while Gaelic medicinal and superstitious tracts were being written in the margins of Stewart owned manuscripts. So it is not quite as simple as you seem to think. Anyways, this is all irrelevant to this discussion, and is distracting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please might I add my POV here, as the above really is a POV and little else and is largely not supported by pre-Second World War academics. It is well established that both the Bruces and the Stewards came to Scotland from England. It is just ludicrous to suggest they by-passed England and came directly from Normandy. Doubtless this is yet another rewriting of history by the ultra-pro-Scottish-nationalist brigade of writers but its pathetic. I can't be bothered arguing with the language issue. My family were well established in the Lowlands before the 14th century when English was well-established amongst virtually the entire population of the Lowlands with some Norman-French being spoken by the educated classes. All these attempts to turn established history on its head does Wikipedia no credit whatsoever. David Lauder (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All Bruce links with England before Henry I's invasion of Normandy in 1106 have been debunked since the war. Since you didn't even believe Professor Archie Duncan on this, you'll never believe any one. As for the Stewarts, they demonstrably came to Britain in the same reign ... but so far as I know no proto-Stewart was ever invented to put them here earlier other than Fleance and Banquo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your (and Archie's) POV. The Bruces were firmly established with lordships and manors in England before one of them came north. When the countless dozens of pre-war historians, most of whom had strings of credentials, are proven to be national frauds then I (and everyone else) might sit up and look. In Scotland it is easy to get really good posts because the population is tiny. Archie might have had more difficulty elsewhere in landing his plum jobs. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't him that debunked it, he was just repeating and agreeing with it. No evidence for Bruce presence in Britain before Henry predates the 16th cent. ... and England in the 11th and 12th cent. has exhaustive records. Slagging off one of Britain's senior historians whom no modern historian disagrees with on this matter because of this matter really won't work. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "slag him off" just made a couple of pertinent points. Both Sir James Balfour Paul and Sir Thomas Innes were great scholars in their fields but countless people sl;ag them off. No academic is beyond question whatever his job. The College of Arms in London has copious MSS of the Bruces in Yorkshire prior to the Robert decamping for Scotland. I cannot recall the exact dates. I took notes. I suppose I could find them if I tried. There is not one single credible reason why anyone in France would go directly to Scotland at that time. Even Dalrymple said it was barbaric. I do not accept for one minute monstrous generalisations such as "no modern historian". Unless you can prove to every Wikipedian that you know them all personally. Hundreds (thousands?) of them. Please don't try and put others down with that kind of silly statement. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no Bruces in Britain before Henry I's invasion of Normandy; the train of events which brought them to Britain are well known - they were locals who helped Henry out in Normandy and were rewarded. It appears from modern reconstructions that Henry brought David to Normandy in his campaign ... David had some kind of lordship over the Cotentin peninsula, and the Bruces became senior in David's French following; David has no following which had spent more than a generation in England ... i.e. they were all new men. They were petty barons who came to Scotland when David did and received a lordship the size of an earldom (I think that would be more than enough to come to Scotland), and some smaller estates in England. Robert I fell out with David because of The Anarchy, was deprived on his "Scottish" possessions, which were given to his son; and you know the rest. No pre-Henrican Bruce existed until they were invented in the 16th cent. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We know they came into Scotland with David. No-one is disputing that at all. The dispute is where a claim was made that they came directly from Normandy to Scotland, bypassing England. The Bruces were given lordships and built at least one castle (Skelton) in England prior to Robert going to Scotland and possibly that explains why most of them continued to be buried in England long after they acquired their Scottish possessions. It is also entirely debateable that the exact measurements of a possible grant of lands in Scotland was made by David to Robert de Brus prior to their arrival up here. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Dear TharkunColl, you may without knowing have violated WP:3RR, and I have listed your actions on the appropriate page. I don't really care whether or not you have cross the 3RR line, but may I say that your confrontational approach to editing and unwillingness to discuss things is unacceptable in a co-operative consensus based project like wikipedia. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I made an edit. Then I reverted 3 times after that. The first one was not a revert (I have myself in the past been informed that this is the rule when I tried to complain about someone else). TharkunColl (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

English monarchs

Is it alright now? Michael Sanders 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. You have to be careful because columns can be distorted very easily. TharkunColl (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's new developments at Template: Scottish Monarchs, take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a very sensible solution. Create a new template for the Picts. TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Muhammad

Considering you've been warned already about rude comments barely a month ago, I would suggest you stop commenting on this page altogether - you clearly don't have any interest in editing the page itself currently (you last edited a page related to the topic on 25 August 2007 ([2]), and seem to be solely causing trouble. Comments such as [3], [4] and [5] are childish, baiting, and offensive. I have blocked you for 2 weeks to give you time to think about your future conduct. I was only going to block you for 24 hours before I noticed in your block log you have already been blocked for trolling Talk:Muhammad before ([6]). As this clearly had no effect, a longer block may do the trick. Neıl ☎ 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

2 weeks is massively excessive considering I was called a hypocrite by another user and was merely responding to his attack, and also because the original block was only going to be for 24 hours.

Decline reason:

In view of your previous blocks, the block is not excessive.— Sandstein (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I also would have refused this unblock request. You have been doing the same thing at the Muhammad page for too long. The blocks will only get longer in the future. We require a civil editing environment to allow for the level of collaboration we need. 1 != 2 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If Tharky promised to leave the Muhammed page alone, would that get his block shortened? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes a block is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, so if he promises to stay off the Muhammad page there should be no reason not to unblock him. I also don't see why he should be blocked for asking about Islam's view of paedo-ism, seeing as by our modern view of the issue, muuhammad married a woman far under the age where she could give full consent, or even be anywhere near physical maturity. Merkinsmum 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to cast any judgements on the severity of the block, but preventative is the operative word here. Thark has been a serial disruptor across numerous Wikipedia articles and/or talk pages; this example is just one of many. His self-induced "break" has obviously not been long enough for him to fully reflect on the consequenses of his actions. --G2bambino (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the block is to prevent TharkunCoil knowingly baiting Islamic editors on Talk:Muhammad. It will prevent him doing so for at least two weeks, and if he returns to doing so a longer block will be imposed to prevent him again. That is not punitive. Neıl ☎ 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the ruling now, Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to block specific editors from editing specific articles? Wouldn't that work best? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no specific way to block someone from an article. What has occured is people are banned from editing an article, usually by the arbcom. When this happens, any violations of the ban will usually result in a warning or perhaps a direct block regardless of whether or not the edit was constructive. This is AFAIK particular rare in talk pages of articles which is what this concerns (although it may have happened before). However the best solution here is for TharkunColl to either reform and contribute constructively to said articles, or if he/she is unable or unwilling to do so, he/she can go into self imposed exile from the article/s in question. Being blocked or banned is a serious thing and ideally we should not have to impose either Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is impolite for User:G2bambino to come here and gloat at User:TharkunColl. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gloat? Besides the obvious point that my words in no way show any reveling in your present circumstances, I was just recently blocked myself; why, then, would I gloat? To the contrary, I was pointing out, in contrast to your friend Merkinsmum's evaluation, that, in my experience, your approach to editing at Wikipedia has been, to put it lightly, almost consistently troublesome, despite a few glimmers of collegiality here and there. That's all. --G2bambino (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, mate. How could you resist commenting on the misfortune of your archenemy? I've seen you guys carry on. You goad him on as much as he does you.--Gazzster (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncalled for. Sorry.--Gazzster (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Gazzster, everyone, how about we all stop goading? 1 != 2 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never been blocked, I must be very boring lol:) Merkinsmum 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to be a bit more careful this time I think. TharkunColl (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

the blocks will get looooooooonger and longer otherwise, and you'd have to use a computer in a library to come on with a new improved sockpuppet account solely for evil lol.:|) Merkinsmum 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - or something like that. TharkunColl (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome back Tharky.--Gazzster (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! TharkunColl (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Say Tharky, are ya sure that's a good idea? going around the Muhammad page again? Anyways, there's discussions going on about possible moving of some monarch pages, take a pick. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Which monarchs? TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Check my latest contributions, they'll lead you the way. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See Richard I of England, William I of England, William II of England, Philip II of France, Frederick II of Prussia etc. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through and to be honest I have no strong opinions either way. My only suggestion would be to never give a monarch a number if he himself would not recognise that number. TharkunColl (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Also, I've made my first (and only) comment at the Muhammed page. Hopefully, my atheism will calm the waters there. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Muhammad, part 2

I'd strongly suggest you reword your announcement, and especially the header. Pairadox (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? If not, please feel free to edit what I wrote in any way that you think will uphold NPOV. TharkunColl (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to edit another person's comments and merely offer suggestions instead. How would you feel about

Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed.

-- Pairadox (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK done it. TharkunColl (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Pairadox (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your subpage to Talk:Muhammad/images which was the established title we had been using until it got archived and redirected to Talk:Muhammad. I'm sure you can understand why "censorship requests" is not a helpful title although in many cases it would be accurate. In the cases where it is not accurate we should not be belittling our editors just because they wish to discuss the images and in the cases where it is accurate we would not create pages where users are specifically meant to discuss issues that go against Wikipedia policy. gren グレン 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

Please do not remove the sections that are active. Please remove only the sections that say nothing but "remove images" and created by unestablished users. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tharky, my ahtiest comment & my notice of Lamest War nomination both got erased during the day. Things sure are nasty on that discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my own remarks keep getting deleted as well. TharkunColl (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

baiting editors

Stop it - you were blocked for this previously, if you have nothing constructive to add on talkpages don't edit them. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it wrong to state that one holds freedom of speech sacred? In what way is that baiting? TharkunColl (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And that requires you to make some crack about "any old 'prophet'"? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? In reference to your edit summary, please explain what it is precisely that you find offensive about upholding freedom of speech. TharkunColl (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tharkun, one more baiting comment on the Muhammad talkpage or any related topic and I will block you for three months. Don't even try and claim dismissing him as any old "prophet" wasn't baiting. You know it was, I know it was. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - you don't like Islam, we get it - there are plenty of places you can go and express your dislike. This is not one of them. I hoped that the past block showed I was serious on this. I strongly suggest you don't post anything on any Islam-related subjects as it's pretty clear you're unable to control yourself. Neıl ☎ 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO Tharky, it's best you stay away from the Muhammad article. It's not worth getting a 3-month block over. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO T.C., if you find dhimmitude to be offensive, just think of the Nordicist blanket you want to suffocate the British under, by boxing in their character as derived from foreign invaders who suppressed their way of life through paganist nonsense. You do no better than Sharia. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry "Lord Loxley", but I have no idea what you're talking about. TharkunColl (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, everybody is "Lord Loxley" and you feel free to disrespect everybody. Your hypocrisy will get you. Enjoy it! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody is Lord Loxley, just you. The style and length of your rants, and their incoherent, loony subject matter, gives you away a mile off. TharkunColl (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know that you will never give up your tendentious edit warring with everybody who comes your way, regardless of who they are, always on subjects related to the monarchy and muhammad. I await your permanent banning, mister know-it-all. Your zealotry is giving me an erection

I really did not want to know that. Please go and wank somewhere other than my talk page. TharkunColl (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

because yours is always declaring war. Cockfighting can be bloody when tearing apart hymens. I'd like to see you sink your balls into the princess of Jordan and have a half sand nigger baby. That would make you proud. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't edit your posts after I've replied to them. Second, fuck off. TharkunColl (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

24.255.11.149 won't be harrassing you anymore Tharky, he's been blocked for 3-months. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, that was quick! Last time he showed up he was hassling people for at least a week before someone blocked him. TharkunColl (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

rofl, I love to revert vandalism :) Especially the dirty kind :) Merkinsmum 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy

I don't know how an Aussie monarchy is in British interests. My own personal beef is more that we are ruled by a person who's only claim to job is that she was born into it. It's a most undemocratic institution. But I have to say, until we get a national HoS, the monarch is just a symbol.--Gazzster (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in British interests because it promotes friendship and trade with Australia. And that's no bad thing, either. TharkunColl (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Friendship and trade would exist monarchy or not I suspect. Trade with Britain is not the thing it use to be, not for decades. As for friendship, our interests lie more with the USA.--Gazzster (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And by sending the Queen over there and promoting her sovereignty of Australia the British establishment hope to retard such developments as much as possible (inevitable though they are in the long run). Do Australians tend to feel they have more in common with the USA than the UK then? That's not how it's viewed here. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the UK Parliament can tell the other 15 Commonwealth realm Parliaments what to do, concerning their monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the UK Parliament can repeal or amend any law it likes, it can also repeal or amend the Statute of Westminster. TharkunColl (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Canadian Parliament could keep the SoW in its own Constitution. In any event, it would make for good theater. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it certainly would! TharkunColl (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not so. The Statute of Westminster enacted explicitly:

No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

In other words, no tinkering with the UK Act would affect what the other countries had subsequently enacted, including constitutional legislation in the other countries. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct, but others have already been through this discussion with Thark. --G2bambino (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So we have 'in effect', 16 identical 'Statues of Westminiser' Acts (one per realm). GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why is he repeating it here, two hours after your archived discussion? Bill Reid | Talk 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing Archived Discussion at G2Bambino

We have our head-ons, but you've got your head screwed on. And I enjoy discussing stuff with you. Can I ask you, about changing the succession: isn't there talk about B Palace changing male primogeniture to make it more in line with the more liberal monarchies on the Continent?--Gazzster (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And that stuff about the UK promoting its interests in Aus thru the monarchy? Elaborate on that please. Is that your own idea, or is it national policy?--Gazzster (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Whenever Buckingham Palace have been questioned by journalists and others about any matter relating to the law of succession (for example, the suggestion that the Australian Mike Hastings has a better claim to the throne than the Windsors), they always say that the succession is a matter for Parliament to decide - Buckingham Palace certainly has no power to do it itself. On the issue of removing male primogenture and the anti-Catholic clauses, a number of private members bills have been submitted to the Commons over the years but none of them have so far succeeded. The idea is occasionally mentioned in the news but no one actually cares enough to bother doing anything about it.

Interesting stuff. I tend to agree with you about the dangers of amending the succession, from Britain's point of view. Revolutions tend to occur not when the Ancien Regime is intransient, but when it starts reforming itself. Old Louis lost his head because he couldn't reform fast enough. So why start in the first place?--Gazzster (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Britain's foreign policy is to cling on to as much influence as it possibly can, simply because it's in our best interests to do so. Our relationships with former colonies - the USA in particular but not excluding the others - has been the cornerstone of British policy ever since we had former colonies. The British monarchy is part of this, as is everything else. TharkunColl (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the UK promotes its interests abroad by sending the Queen on state tours is certainly not mine - it's been going on for years. And yes, it is definitely national policy. Each country uses the assets it has to promote itself, and the Queen is a truly massive asset in that she is a world famous and instantly recognisable figure. Shortly after Tony Blair left office and there was evidence of a cooling in relationship between the US and the UK, what happened? We sent the Queen over to dazzle them. When an Australian PM - Paul Keating - started to make noises about republicanism, we sent the Queen over to dazzle them. I remember that particular tour because Keating put his arm round the Queen at one point which was, of course, a huge breach of protocol and therefore seen as a deliberate snub to the British and was all over the news here for days and days. John Major told the Queen that he had nothing further to say to Keating and relations between the two PMs became very frosty indeed for a short while. It was the Queen herself who eventually brokered a reconciliation of sorts by telling Major something personal about Keating, namely that he was a big cricket fan. Since Major was too, that gave them something in common to talk about at the forthcoming visit of Keating to Britain. The point is though that the British establishment uses the monarchy as an instrument of its own policy and to promote its own interests round the world. And the monarchy is more than happy to play its part. Indeed, they no doubt see it as one of their essential functions - they are, after all, an integral part of that very same British establishment. TharkunColl (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the 'succession', my guess is the UK Parliament (with the 15 other Cr Parliaments following suit) may change it to 'first born regardless of gender', starting with Prince Williams' children. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They might eventually, but I suspect that the British establishment is afraid to bring the subject up in case the Commonwealth realms decide to just abolish the monarchy instead. Both eventualities would require lengthy constitutional amendment procedures in most of the realms so they might think it was a perfect opportunity to just go the whole hog and become republics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The queen visited US in early May 2007, Blair left almost 2 months later on 27th June. In any case these tours are in the planning for a very long time and can't react instantaneously to events ... and only take place by invitation. The British establishment uses the monarchy as an instrument of its own policy and to promote its own interests round the world. – by establishment, I assume you mean government; the two terms are not synonymous. Bill Reid | Talk 19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that she went to the US in anticipation of Blair's stepping down, which was also in planning for a very long time. By British establishment I wasn't just referring to the government, but to the monarchy and all the other things that make it up. Occasionally the government is even at odds with the establishment (though not very often). TharkunColl (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Empire used to be Britain's raison detre, it's soul, so to speak. Bringing civilisation, prosperity, good governance and Christianity to the savages. And now I suppose its having trouble reassessing its place in the world? If it reformed the monarchy or even abolished it, it would not know itself. I don't mean to criticise your nation. Lots of nations in fact have this post-colonial identity crisis. Now that the Cold War is over, the USA doesnt know what to do with itself. Paradoxically it seems like the newly emancipated nations have a better idea of themselves, like Germany, the former Warsaw Pact countries, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Hello Tharky. How do you feel about nation or country being in that article's lead? There's a discussion going on about it, which I just about ready to depart (due to the fact, I value my sanity). GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think either is fine. Scotland is both a country and a nation. TharkunColl (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by formation dates

I have informed the other user as I am informing you, you are going to break 3RR if you continue editing on this page. Please stop editing on the page for 24 hours or you might also be blocked. If the other editor breaks 3RR don't revert but inform the Admins of this event. If you try to revert or edit the page you might also be blocked. Please try to solve the problem of this page on the talk page. Thanks for the cease fire :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deliberate political POV pushing

No thanks - im quite happy maintaining reality in this specific instance for the moment :). siarach (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you are a POV pusher, plain and simple. TharkunColl (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can insising that the article consist of historical fact and objective, orthodox, mainstream reality (rather than subjective interpretations based upon abused references) be POV pushing? It cant and the POV pushing is entirely on your part. siarach (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What I actually said was that it is POV pushing to change just the UK, and not the others. TharkunColl (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

English & British monarch lists

Hello Tharky. Don't forget to get a consensus on those articles 'talk pages' first. If you won't to 'merge' those pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't forget, don't worry. TharkunColl (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I recommend leaving the 'fact tags' on the 'state offices' edits (until things are settled). Better to have the tags there, then having the state offices edits reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure not suggesting any kind of censuring of comments at the discussion at List of British monarchs; but, calling Scotland 'crap'? may get you unwanted attention. Again, it's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS- Trust me, they're editors out there, who don't apprecaite such 'jokes'. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The joke consisted of the fact that the statement has a double meaning, and can just as easily be interpreted as saying that England is pretty much crap as well. TharkunColl (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya gotta be careful though. I made a joke somewhere (can't remember) months ago, on one of the Irish articles. It took me a few days, to explain myself. It was a wiki-bruising experience. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I took offence and I am "English" insofar as "English" exists. British would be correcter really --Camaeron (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC).

You may be interested

You may be interested in this Talk:List of countries by formation dates#Where is England?. For once you might be on my side = )! --Camaeron (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC) YOu may also want to vote at Talk:List of countries by formation dates#United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the vote...see you there = ) --Camaeron (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Scotland

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Flag of Scotland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

you've been here a while, you both know the rules. As it happens I agree with your position, but this is getting ridiculous. --Bazzargh (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just tell me what to edit my liege, and I shall do it.ShieldDane (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your loyal pledge, Duke ShieldDane of the House of Dane, and let this be the glorious beginning of the Order of TharkunColl! Many others shall flock to my banner, but as the first you will forever be in my counsels, and you shall find me a wise and generous lord. TharkunColl (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm enjoying this (I'm not being sarcastic). GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have lent my support to this cause.ShieldDane (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

Hello Tharky. I think you better check your home-page, it's being vandalized. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Tharky, you've got a fan club - lucky duck. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Order of TharkunColl...Vandals?! I'll show you a GoodDay!ShieldDane (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news, the Coat of Arms of the Order of TharkunColl has been completed, [7](click on the number 7)ShieldDane (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That's hillarious. --G2bambino (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We At the Order of TharkunColl remember when you G2Bambino were accused of gloating at the blocking of our beloved TharkunColl, for this accused Heresy we name you an enemy of the Tharkunhood! Which we do easily because of our pro-American Anti-Canada feelings (Except for Trynaa who discomfort-ably enough is from Canada) Your doom has been written! No Maple leaf will protect you now, nor handouts of citizenship to anyone who asks! Long live the Fenian Raids ShieldDane (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You will rue the day, good sir! I shall defend my Canuckified honour to the death, in the name of Her Most Gracious Canadian Majesty The Queen! (And I mean Elizabeth, not that usurper Celine of the Dions.) --G., Second Baron Bambino of Old York Town (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You only have so many Lumber Jacks to call upon, and with a large contingent of French speaking citizens, there can only be true outcome! And whilst your soldiers may get the benefit of free healthcare, us American cowboys know how to heal all wounds with a can of beans, a hot iron and Horse urine. So as you can see, your days are numbered! ShieldDane (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On a mostly unrelated note, I did make this page Egil One-Hand. It was hard work and isn't quite done yet, but that should prove my real-person-hood! ShieldDane (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For Tharky, only

Hello Tharky. I'd suggest you have your 'followers' understand something. If they're planning to follow you around on the articles (for editing & discussions etc)? I fear they 'might' create the impression of sockpuppetry on your part. That's an impression, I don't want them to create. I'm hoping they're faithfull followers & that they're not trying to get you into trouble. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thark, you may have inadvertantly violated WP:3RR on the British Isles page. Friendly notice. Bardcom (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I reverted the unnecessary insertion to the intro twice, then the inappropriate dablink twice. TharkunColl (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's a 3RR all right - actually, is it a 4RR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Bardcom (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Thark, you only reverted the insertion once, making three reverts in all, so you most surely did not break 3rr.
On the other hand:
(a) you were edit-warring, and treading close to the line with respect to 3rr, which I would caution you against, for your sake, and ask you to avoid, for Wikipedia's sake.
(b) if you had reverted the two things twice each, that would have been a 3rr breach -- 4 reverts in 24 hours. Bardcom is right insofar as that it does not matter, in relation to 3rr, whether the reverts are the same or different.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You have made a powerful enemy

I found the image on your talk page, the crest of the so called Order of TharkunColl to be disgusting and racist. I will make it my personal crusade to have that image deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fletcher (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The image still lives on in my heart. ShieldDane (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Offensive link

I have removed the link to the "Mohammed" pictures on your userpage. That's really not a good idea. Black Kite 10:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:TCORDER.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TCORDER.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Offensive??

What was it about your 'image', that AF found so racist? Which 'image' did he find offensive. Also, what happend to AF. I feel as though there was a riot & I missed it. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything can be racist these days, merely if someone says it is. They didn't like the reference to Islam. There's a discussion going on here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (towards the bottom). TharkunColl (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked it out. IMHO, what you have on your personal page? is your bezz. As for the public articles? not so OK. PS- don't feel too bad, the Pope got into similiar trouble awhile back. As an atheist (of course), I find the whole 'image fight' at Muhammad? much-a-do about nothing. PS- Remember, I did advice you, to stay away from the Islam topics (for religious sensitivity reasons). Good luck, surviving this current storm. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, sorry. I live..in America? We value freedom of..speech..and expression...maybe that's not how it is in..wiki-erica? Apparently saying "Islam Sucks" is raciest. I didn't even say it/show it to any islamic people, just my lord and liege TharkunColl. Was the 'sucks' word just too darn strong? Am I allowed to dislike Islam..? Or strongly be in difference of opinion with Islam? Or does that too fall in the category of racism. Perhaps I should have the Thought-Police teach me a seminar on what I am allowed to like and not allowed to like, so that I don't get in any more trouble. ShieldDane (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind if you're a racist or a religious bigot, but you're not advertising either on a userpage. Black Kite 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious sensitivities? have always been a bewilderment to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I really did think the image was funny; but, then, that was within the context of knowing Thark and what he's been up to in and around Wikipedia. It certainly wasn't "racist" - Islam is in no way a race. But, though one is allowed to disagree with the dogmas of a certain group, I don't think Wikipedia is a place meant specifically for one to project one's own personal opinions. Cold as it sounds, this project deals only with hard facts; and so making subjective remarks about things - whether in favour or against - isn't really kosher.

Yeah, some people are being over-sensitive and overreacting; living in PC Canada I can recognise that behaviour a mile away. But, though I in no way excuse others who themselves don't exercise discretion or tolerance when trying to have removed what they personally deem offensive, on the other hand, I think Thark needs to use a little discretion in a place where one has to work with others; another thing one learns when growing up in multi-cult Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people put what they like, and don't like on their User Pages, which seems to me to be a place for people 'personal opinions', since..most people put their personal opinions on them? What happened here was TharkunColl just doesn't like, something he isn't allowed not to like. ShieldDane (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... that's not completely true. They can only choose to put what they like and dislike within the limits of what Wikipedia allows. Nobody is permitted to put "Death to America!" on their user page, or "Serbians blow donkey cock!" or even something like "Jesus rules!" I even recall debates over the use of user boxes that stated what one was pro- or anti-. So, the "Islam sucks!" bit did push the limits, and the uber-sensitive did seem to make a tempest in a teacup out of it (your comments at ANI regarding the deathly silence around the cross through the Queen's British Arms reflect that point quite nicely). The link to the anti-Islam cartoons probably took it over the top, though. --G2bambino (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For example SD: On my userpage, I point out that I'm an atheist. But, I also point out that I prefer not to badger religions. Thus I've done it in good-taste. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a new Coat of Arms, I hope it's up to wiki-standard, The Order of TharkunColl ShieldDane (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm offended by the knight's helmet at the top; my ancestors were enslaved by the Knights of the Round Table and made to clean the round table with their bottoms. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Damnit Bambino! Sigh. Alright, does this version make you feel better? Bamb's coat ShieldDane (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kind of. But the swirly things scare me a bit. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're a hard man to please. ShieldDane (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm appalled. By the spelling. Black Kite 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the spelling? ShieldDane (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cesnor Wikipedia", oh, and I will request image deletion if they are uploaded. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangit! That's more of a typo then a spelling error.. Anyways, I request your face gets deleted if i ever see it. ShieldDane (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the typo, re-fresh the image on your browsers, and enjoy. ShieldDane (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh, love that threat, that diff will now be put in the large, long case I am filing against the both of you! Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you an adult?(Because I hope you took that threat seriously, I am a professional face deleter) Anyways, some self-righteous guy says he is gonna checkuser me, I've seen GoodDay mention it before. How does checkuser work? ShieldDane (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll see, if like you said, you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's filed in then, lets see what we turn up...Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I contact a moderator or admin about a user who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than harass a new good faith editor of Wikipedia? ShieldDane (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Innocence is to be proven by checkuser. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who broke the record player? Your realize by just repeating yourself you are only setting yourself up for a bigger let down. Now are you going to help me find an admin to report you to, or not? Unlike some people I don't get on wikipedia just to harass others, the article of Asmund Berserkers-Slayer isn't going to write itself. ShieldDane (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry, PMSL at you ever finding an admin to take you seriously, I mean really... Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Indef

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not guilty of this offense and have not been using multiple accounts

Decline reason:

Checkuser says otherwise. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.