User talk:HighKing

I'm on a mini-wikibreak although I check in from time to time. Be aware that I may take some time to respond to comments left here. I get email though.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 9 days may be automatically archived by .

Glowworm

Since I am almost certainly correct in assuming that half of this little comedy act is you editing as an IP, I'll say this now - any more, and I won't just block the IP next time. Give it a rest, please. Black Kite 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not me - I don't anon edit ever. Feel free to check out the IP.

On another note, the actions by the anon IP's and Tharky amount to a form of censorship. They revert without discussion or providing references as per policy. Makes no difference if I wait for a discussion before making further edits or not - none will be forthcoming. I note here that the anon IP in question even goes so far as to say that my edits are irratating to use his words - not wrong, but irratating. I even note that Tharky has reverted your compromise - again without providing a reference even though one has been asked for on the Talk page. We've tried multiple discussions and compromises - most notably on WP:BISLES recently - and nothing doing. Tharky (and others) find it easier to revert by calling my edits political. Yet I don't have any particular views on the politics - check my edit history - I don't edit on any political matters. But I am interested in accurate usage of this term. So what to do? You tell me? --HighKing (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt BlackKite will tell you in due course, but allow me to do so as well. You don't like the term British Isles. I could hazard a guess as to why, but I won't bother. Regardless, you seem to be on a mission to eliminate its usage from Wikipedia. You dress up this elimination as a need for accuracy; quite laughable. You cause mayhem across the encyclopedia resulting in much wasted effort on the part of other editors trying to sort out your edits. You are persistent in the extreme, to the extent that many good editors simply give up and clear off. You issue ridiculous warnings to anyone who attempts to reverse your edits, accusing them of vandalism and ad hominem attacks. In short, you are a liability to this project. What to do? Direct your energies elsewhere and leave alone anything to do with British Isles. LemonMonday (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a template warning on your User Talk page for this personal attack and your threats. Funny how there's a growing cabal of anon IP addresses and SPA's that pop up when corrections are made to articles using the term British Isles. I'm sure BlackKite and other admins will realize that I'm very happy to follow policy and process. If you've a problem with my edits, point out the inaccuracy and lets discuss, preferably on the Article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HK- you are very keen to label others criticising you as a 'personal attack.' Please WP:AGF. And it is your edits most people are seeing as a form of censorship. It is you that admins have told off for similar edits at various times, and even blocked specifically for them. Sticky Parkin 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SP - you are always very quick to jump into someone elses discussions. Your position on condoning personal attacks has already been commented on by me and others in the past. Rather than directing me to AGF, you'd be better off reading up on what constitutes a personal attack, and stop wagging your finger until you have a clue what you're talking about. Comments such as "you dress up this elimination as a need for accuracy" and "you are a liability to this project" from LemonMonday are clearly in breach. Maybe spend you energies looking at my edits and seeing if they're actually wrong - wouldn't that be a novel start! Or try taking a look at the guidelines being hammered out by editors actually trying to make a contribution at WP:BISLES and then put away your knee-jerk reactions and look at my edits compared to editors like Lemons or Tharkys. --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Radio Luxembourg

Hi,

You reverted too much here. Please be careful when using automated rollback. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockybiggs

You have asked for possible motavation on his motives this might shed light on the subject. And in showing you this it will now probably be used as evidence against me in not showing good faith. His Irish scum account says it all to me. BigDunc^Talk 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a known abusive anti-Irish sock-puppet it is then. Thanks BD. --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Sorry 'bout the outburst HK. I was getting annoyed with DG's bashing of Wikipedia & his (IMO) veering off from the topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS- Have ya noticed the paradox in that discussion? It seems editors who call for the Article Title to be changed? are also calling for the mentioning of how the term British Isles is objected to; and vise-versa. Thus the reason, I claim we have a compromise: article in named British Isles & we have the objections to the term mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is too wide-sweeping and broad for it to have any practical or quantifiable results - and I believe this is a tactic being employed rather too successfully by a number of experienced editors. Much better to set a limited scope terms of reference (such as WP:BISLES) and complete the discussions, with recommendations/policy, without getting distracted or drawn into discussions that aren't relevant and are really a soapbox for a set of views. Just my 2c. --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IPs are (IMHO) getting in the way, again. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldunreal Official 227 Patch Link removal

This link must not be removed. I will keep having people add it back from the community as I contact them via MSN Messenger. This links to the official OldUnreal Community patch granted permissions to Smirftsch by Epic Megagames. It is important that this link is seen by old players and new who have played or are just starting to play Unreal (the original). This patch fixes major networking issues in the original 1998 versions of unreal. I don't know who is contacting you about removing this link (namely The Stalwart UK 'TSUK') but this link should be considered a privilege for Wikipedia articles. (providing that most of Wikipedia articles are only based off of fact). You can email my back at jackrabbit@unrealcoop.net if you would like to discuss this further. If not, I will have people spam the royal shit out of the unreal wiki article.

First of all, I did not remove the link. Second, threats and ignoring policy usually results in getting blocked from editing. Please read WP:EL and argue the case for including the link rather than making threats. --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette case

I beat ya to it, HK. I've already begun to focus more on Tharky's behaviour & have contacted him. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should also look at HK's behaviour. ðarkuncoll 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, you both need to got to the Mediation Cmt, big time. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least consider a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

How about when you find a page with British Isles and think it should be deleted, post the article in a section here on your talk page with a brief reason why. I (and I am sure others) would agree to place it on watch and indicate agreement or disagreement. If you were prepared to do that, then it would strengthen the case to prevent others inserting it without consultation or reverting reasonable deletions. The current edit wars are getting no where and will just lead to an admin loosing patience and banning both sides. I would also suggest a monitorium on either side posting on each others talk pages --Snowded TALK 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, thank you for trying to settle this issue - I appreciate that. But *I'm* waiting for Tharky's behaviour to be settled first before agreeing to anything on my part - you're aware of the WQA. I think it is curious and controversial in its own right that I'm being asked to stop editing - done in a perfectly legitimate way, and following high behaviour standards - while Tharky's behaviour is being condoned and ignored. Not once has he been asked to stop, nor has anyone commented asking him to stop. Do you agree with his behaviour? This issue isn't going anywhere. If I am being threatened with being banned, I'd like to understand why an editor can get banned for following policy, remaining civil, not edit-warring, etc. This complete process smacks of a cabal of British POV pushers bullying the project. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:AE section:

I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement section regarding your wars with TharkunColl. Please see [1]. SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An official complaint about you

Although I honestly hate to do this, this latest round of accusations has forced my hand. I've lodged a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#British_Isles_and_User:HighKing. ðarkuncoll 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I honestly would prefer to get this sorted, so whatever works. You know, just to be clear, I've only a problem with your blind reverting and not providing references - but I've no problem with discussing edits with you or anyone else. If you could acknowledge that the term British Isles is misused in articles, it'd be a start... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been ruled as forum shopping & has been removed, HK. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, GD. --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think censored is the word you're looking for. May I ask, by the way, why you appear to be taking the side of a serial vandal? Because when it boils down to it, that's what his campain amounts to. Those who revert vandals don't usually get this sort of treatment. ðarkuncoll 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then you go and call me a serial vandal.... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As if that wasn't enough...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran IP accounts

Yep, their refusal to create an account (and saying so), only causes (IMO) suspiscion (which one would think, they'd wanna avoid). GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Point me towards an example of incivility please. I'm direct and insist on references. That makes some people uncomfortable. That's fine. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]