User talk:TharkunColl/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, TharkunColl/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Your piece on Moseley School is very impressive. Andy Mabbett 20:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TharkunColl 20:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyoness[edit]

Hey, what's your source for your additions to the kings of Lyoness? I'd love to know more about it.--Cuchullain 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Pennick's book Lost Lands and Sunken Cities, and the map of Lyonesse drawn by Agnes Strickland, plus websites such as [1] and [2], and a number of others derived from these devoted to genealogy.TharkunColl 11:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move pages: do not just Cut and Paste[edit]

When you want to move a page, you must use the Move button or Requested moves, not just Cut and Paste. You are making a right mess of the List of monarchs of England page(s): your latest Cut and Paste has created three overlapping or duplicate articles: not clever at all. In fact, a quite unprecedented dogs' breakfast.--Mais oui! 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop doing this. Take the article to Wikipedia:Requested moves and consider yourself firmly ticked off for destroying the page history. Morwen - Talk 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to restore the article to its original page, where it currently is. I have also added a lot more info to it of a historical nature. TharkunColl 19:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind what you're attempting to do, but what you have been doing is destroying the page history by doing copy and paste moves. Do not do this again, as it destroys necessary page history information that is requried for the Wikipedia licence. The page history is currently at the article List of monarchs of the Kingdom of England. If you want it moved, take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Morwen - Talk 19:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest you simply (a) cease adding the contested info back. And (b) take this issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves. It really doesn't matter that much, I suggest you prove you are the better person by dropping it. Morwen - Talk 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And on a random note, if we are having Henry the Young King in the list, do you think it would make sense to also have Philip II of Spain as a footnote? Morwen - Talk 16:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Mais oui! 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism[edit]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --Mais oui! 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cite[edit]

You cannot add nonsense to Wikipedia: it is considered vandalism. Please read WP:CITE and Wikipedia:No original research.--Mais oui! 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not nonsense, nor original research. Those overlords and rulers were real people. TharkunColl 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not read the two links I provided. All Users are obliged to behave in accordance with these policies.--Mais oui! 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, each ruler I listed was linked to his own, pre-existing Wikipedia article (cite). I did no original research whatsoever - everything is already known. TharkunColl 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England. If you feel this block was in error, please place {{unblock}} on this page and explain why, or e-mail me. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.

—bbatsell ¿? 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that, as far as I can see, TharkunColl was only reverting the "work" of a persistent vandal. If she/he breached 3RR it was surely purely inadvertant and not malicious. I urge leniency. Please unblock them.--Mais oui! 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Only people with buddies can ignore the rules! Thanks for letting me know how you think the Wikipedia is supposed to be run! I love you Mais oui! 68.110.9.62 15:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like using the block button, but 8 reverts in less than an hour and a half would hardly qualify as "inadvertant" in my book. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and it was blatantly in violation of WP:3RR. —bbatsell ¿? 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for breaking the 3RR rule, it had temporarily slipped my mind. The content of the article I was reverting had been lifted wholesale from a copyright website which I pointed out each time I reverted it, and on one occasion I even asked for administration on this issue. Nevertheless, mea culpa! May I ask how long the block is in place for? TharkunColl 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block expires in <6 hours, so it'd be better to ride the block out Sceptr e ^(Talk) 18:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spin̈al Tap[edit]

Note that the diacritic mark above the N in spinal tap is actually a diaresis, not a tilde. The correct spelling is actually "Spın̈al Tap", with a dotless 'i' and a diaresis over the n. However, as this is not rendered properly in older browsers, the consensus was to use the traditional spelling on the article page. --DDG 15:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'British Isles'[edit]

Utter nonsense to refer to Ireland as a part of Great Britain. Referring to it as being a part of the British Isles is one thing, referring to it as a constituent of Great Britain is majorly ill-informed and makes your whole exegesis invalid. Iolar Iontach 11:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sovereign nation cannot be accurately included in a term if the consensus in same is that it should not be included. It is a rather basic principle to comprehend. Ireland is Irish and European that is fact. Ireland being a British Isle is subjective anglocentrism, the umbilical cord was cut almost a century ago; the British just haven't realised it yet. Popular opinion in the UK does not qualify as fact. Your own government has difficulty getting the name of one of your closest European neighbours correct in its statutes, so it is easy to understand how its citizens fail to understand that Ireland is not a constituent of the British Isles or even have a basic understanding of their own language. British opinion on Ireland's status is irrelevant, the only opinion re: Ireland's status that matters is Irish opinion. I have no difficulty with the fact that Ireland and Britain are within the same archipeligo, I and the majority of Irish citizens have difficulty with the use of the adjective British when referring to Ireland. This is a not complex issue to comprehend Iolar Iontach 13:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say cannot as if you were some sort of all-powerful arbiter of language. The fact remains that the term British Isles means both Great Britain and Ireland to the vast majority of English speakers. TharkunColl 13:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the "term British is also" is contradictory. A term is a defined concept, thus it is inaccurate to say the defined concept is also 'x'. British IS an adjective and does not incorporate Ireland in its definition.

It has been explained to you on several occasions that usage of the nomenclature the "British" Isles has political implications in Ireland. It is not used universally, even within the archipeligo; it is accurate to say that it is understood by those who use it. Please stop pushing an anglocentric agenda, wikipedia is supposed to convey the facts from all angles. "These Islands" is a legal term whether you like it or not. Please view Strand Three of the Agreement page 17. Iolar Iontach 02:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult a dictionary before editing any further; a term is unambiguous with a definite concept. "British" is an adjective. You are pushing an agenda on the article. It has been explained to you at least a dozen times that the "British Isles" is politically charged. If I had a political agenda the phraseology would have been removed by now. Iolar Iontach 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"American" refers to the US or its citizens but can also refer to the Americas i.e. the American continents. "British" never encompasses Ireland in its definition. They are not analogous. Refer to the Oxford English Dictionary. Iolar Iontach 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult a dictionary, preferably in large format. Language evolves; the adjective "British" does not refer to Ireland. This is extremely basic and requires very little thought. Having consulted the large format dictionary and viewed the definitions for "British" and "American" come back and explain the analogy that you are currently supporting. Iolar Iontach 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even when contrite you push your agenda. The term is not used statutorily in Ireland or the in any contemporary UK legislation apart from where it refers to the name of a 3rd level institution. The only term legally recognised in all jurisdictions within the archipelago is "these Islands." Ireland cannot be a "British" Isle as this is completely incongruous and contradicts modern English usage. The UK and Ireland are democracies; in a democracy the view of the minority is always respected; especially its sovereign government. Iolar Iontach 13:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your agenda is for factual accuracy then you should also have an issue with the misnomer as it is factually inaccurate. British Columbia is constitutionally and statutorily recognised. "British" Isles is not. Iolar Iontach 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not. Usage of "British Isles" in English dates from circa 1650. Pretanic Isles is a different thing altogether. "Oceani Insulae" was the nomenclature used within the archipeligo in the sixth century, which is closer to "Islands Of the North Atlantic" than "British Isles." The United Kingdom is not physically part of BC, it is a part of the archipelago, thus there is a much greater degree of implied ownership. You should be able to understand the Irish perspective on this issue; you are from a nation which has great difficulty with the use of the word "Europe" in relation to the UK, which can be witnessed daily in British media. I accept that Ireland is in the archipelago (I have never objected to this) I object to the name as it is inaccurate. Iolar Iontach 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You talk like a retarded child, TharkunColl. Do u know how ur fucking mamma sucks my cock every night?

The previous statement was added anonymously by 201.216.210.107 - a Latin American address. He tried to preserve a deliberate POV in the Falklands War article. TharkunColl 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bollocks for what you said about Ireland. Spaingy 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands reverts[edit]

Please stop reverting the Falklands article and discuss your concerns with recent edits on the talk page instead. Please avoid using hostile language, even if the other party does. I will make the same request to him. Jonathunder 22:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know the same anon user is now vandalising the Falkland Islands page. He's now been blocked for 3 hours for vandalising the WP:3RR page. Someone needs to revert his FI vandalism though. Astrotrain 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please do not re-insert the {NPOV} tag to the Falkland Islands article, or you will be blocked for vandalism. The neutrality of the article is not in dispute and there has been a long-running and mostly constructive debate on the issue of the Spanish name; there appears to be a consensus to retain it as-is. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on an article. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. . Note: you can be blocked for fewer than three reverts if your behaviour is disruptive. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still dispute neutrality Astrotrain 20:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of numbers[edit]

I'd suggest you read Falkland Islands#Assessment and recommendation carefully and note the procedures outlined. There's more to consensus than simple weight of numbers, and intransigent unreasonableness need not dominate in the end. ...dave souza, talk 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands[edit]

I promise to diligently revert additions of Spanish to the opening sentence if you promise not to start a revert war over minor differences in word choice and grammar. I tend to agree a touch more with "venue" than "scenario". You might consider "site". -- Gnetwerker 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I promise to block you for disruption if you change that first line once more without first achieving consensus on the Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Asterion 21:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you reverted only three times, not four. Otherwise, what would be the point of the advise if you had already gone over the limit? :o) --Asterion 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bretwalda[edit]

If you're still interested some changes have been made to Bretwalda. Essentially, the page is seeming like it will be about the term and how it was used. Would you be interested in working on a page on Anglo-Saxon kingship? This could include all the intracies surrounding Mercia et al that we've already discussed. Harthacanute 21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

I noticed you reverted an edit to the Anglo-Celtic page. Indeed in Australia at least, many people are distinctly aware of whether they are Anglo or Celtic based on whether they are Catholic or Prot. The term is regarded by many as an ethnic racial slur and if it was said in the wrong place, though it would be mostly ignored, would end up with a staunch response. Therefore I am reverting the prevus reference to Celtic revivalists. Mr nice guy 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia[edit]

In Australia the difference between Celts and Anglos culturally is the prot-Catholic divide. This is because most catholics go to Catholic schools and are of Irish descent. It is not anti-English, it is a cultural fact. As for citation I will add it at a later time, but are you seriously trying to assert otherwise means your complete ignorance of Australia. For Celts that term is considered an ethnic slur along with terms like Skippy, wog etc.. Some people might not care, others care alot, do you understand. Mr nice guy 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly it is a little bit offensive andit is certainly not a universal perception as such but that is the way it is. Mr nice guy 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to User:Iolar Iontach and User:TharkunColl[edit]

Please remember the point of the Talk:British Isles page, and talk pages in general. It is as a forum for improving an aritcle. You two have spent many months debating various arguments over the accuracy/inacurracy of the term British Isles. You clearly disagree with each other and clearly have strong views on the subject. But talk pages are not forums for discussing these, as you have been warned previously. I have archived the current talk page and left a note at the top of the new one to warn all users in future to follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

If you want to improve or alter the article, then suggest changes, discuss its content. But do not discuss the concept in general, or maintain pointless bickering about the term 'British Isles'. --Robdurbar 12:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

I'm genuinely curious: could you please explain to me precisely what your objection is to characterizing Canada as a kingdom? Bearcat 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks[edit]

Judging by the history on your talk page, I think you need to cut out the personal abuse and concentrate on actually making points. Oh, and buy a history book published after 1950. (Stpaul 10:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why are you so set against the Germans? Nothing to do with Little Englander 2 World WArs and One World Cup mentality? Love the Dambusters, do you? Let's b e frank, a quick look at the pages you edit and one can see where your sympathies lie, English nationalist and xenophobic. I want the Germans there in the interest of historical accuracy, nothing more. I'd like to discuss that with someone who was reasonable, not a rabid, Daily Mail, George's flag waving... etc., (Stpaul 10:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

How ironic. Elizabeth I was a despot, as were Oliver Cromwell, Longshanks, George III, William the Bastard, etc. And, as I said, where is this democracy that you're happy to go on about. I believe it wasn't until the 20th century that Westminster gave the vote to the common man; nor should we forget the struggle for Catholic emancipation; or indeed the real "democracy" of the highland clearances. Where? (Stpaul 10:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Now you're being unfair to me: I've never said anything against the English (indeed I have a much closer connection to England and Britain than most foreigners); you, on the other hand, have clearly said that you don't like the Germans. Ergo, it is your edits that are suspect. (Stpaul 11:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There's no need to abuse me... I don't agree with you, so you try to squash my opinion. That's fascism my friend. And further, where's this freedim that you gave the world? You miss the debate in any case; question is why Germany. The evidence is that you should not be allowed to give an opinion as you're prejudiced. (Stpaul 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Germanism and the Third Reich as something English?[edit]

We all know how plainly different the masses of English are, from the Germans. We are more proud of our Graeco-Roman (inc. Carolingian) and Celtic heritage than they, of which origins they have little. We are justly the heirs of the Norsemen, which Germans only pretend at in their jealousy. We have fought two world wars against the Germans, even forcing the alien Royals to change their surname and marital alliances. England has not been ruled by natives since the Jacobites were destroyed, since the Stuarts were a Scottish clan from Strathclyde (once part of Northumbria) and had Breton (British, you say?) roots. Every single Englishman has at least one Stewart or Fitzalan ancestor from before the Jacobean Union and a lot of Scottish or Breton commoner blood, but how many German ancestors do we have between the Anglo-Saxon/Danish/Norman invasions and the present? We have Holy Roman Emperors and some Italian nobility because of the Crusades. Hell, I'm intrigued on the fact that I have Armenian (Byzantine) blood from the Crusaders--but those proportions are just as low as the German ancestry. Just because we may have this descent, doesn't mean that there is any closer relationship with the Germans compared to the Armenians. We do indeed have an extremely lot of French blood, from all over France. My mother's family is from the Bristol Channel/Severn Valley, but each great grandmother on my maternal side is from Normandy. Now, I take that as being completely natural. What sort of common history does England and Germany, vs England and France have? Who cares what the Teutonic racists have to say about Catholics and Mediterranean people? We have King Arthur and they don't. We have King Canute the Great and they don't. We have the Lancastrian King Hal V--who conquered France for God and Saint George--with Bordeaux wine, from our Royal Dukes of Aquitaine. What do Germans have that is just like us? Our closest German relatives aren't really Teutonic, but French--the Burgundians. I object to the Whig history which tries to eradicate/minimise our actual history, in favour of inventing a culture for us based upon joining the Prussians and Hanseatic League. Bluff King Hal VIII despised Luther, as do I. Dieu et mon droit! Honi soit qui mal y pense! Lord Loxley 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about minor revert war in "English language"[edit]

Sorry. I simply didn't look back far enough in the edit history. (I'm very new to this.) But I do think the "that which is earlier should be list first assumption is questionable... but we both probably have better things to do than fight about that! Best wishes, Cultural Freedom talk 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay! TharkunColl 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to answer my discussion posted here![edit]

You do not discuss; you become a battering ram for control of this article. Why do you think it is an aristocratic fantasy that every Briton has French blood today, especially with so many public geneaologies and archaeologies that attest our mutual links across the Channel? Furthermore, why do you have something against aristocrats and feel like you must remove anything that doesn't conform to your POV? You have some self-hate/self-defeatism that you are taking out on others. I am not ashamed of my French heritage. Why the fuck are you trying to erase history? The Bretons and Cornish are irrelevant; Cornish are English and Bretons are no different than Normans or Aquitainians in respect to their English relationship. Why include Bretons, but leave out Normans? You are an eccentric fanatic and I'd wish you would keep your POV bigotry out of the Wikipedia, so neutrality rather than your own private fantasy gets distributed. You are not the sole arbiter of truth. Others on the talk page disagree with you on the French part, but archaeologists' discoveries should mean more than those simple objections. I'm telling you now, You have no idea what it means to be English. You want to erase all Continental relationships England has. Tell me; did the Hanoverians breed into the lower classes or was that our Mediaeval French royalty? Please, don't attack English heritage by denying actual contributions to our identity. 1066 changed England's composition in all aspects; 1707-1714 changed only the government and aristocracy. I have nothing in common with the new order. My objections to your mischaracterisation, are merely self-defencive and based on our millenia-old heritage that you stringently deny as if it were a cancer. ************************************************************************************(personal attack removed by User:Merkinsmum)Wikipedia is not for CRACKPOT REVISIONISM. Lord Loxley 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the history of this debate (in which I have no part), please read and fully understand WP:NPA. Thanks. --Storkk 00:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so simple.[edit]

You have yet to refute my position as an Englishman; you think that by avoiding logic, it won't bite you in the **** (expletive removed by User:Merkinsmum) and expose your weakness. Come on and do it, or are you a coward too? Lord Loxley 06:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was right after all; you try to turn back history to pre-1066. Go back in time in your dreams and leave bloody well alone with reality! I'm proud of all English heritage, not less than half! You've confirmed your lunatic fringe nonsense; this is specifically why the Wikipedia shouldn't be accessed by ******************* Lord Loxley 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (Personal attack removed by User:Merkinsmum)[reply]

First official warning[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

Lord Loxley 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment to readers - note that this is a content dispute.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second official warning[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This warning is in relation to the articles English people and Kingdom of England. The User:TharkunColl has been adding biased, unsourced POV material unsupported by any historical evidence. He has also retaliated by adding a warning to my own page, and has personally attacked my ethnicity and my politics. I believe that this user is intractable, and that only arbitration can solve this issue. Lord Loxley 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph was added to my talk page by User:Lord Loxley as a direct copy of a warning that I issued to him for his persistent vandalism. TharkunColl 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph was added because User:TharkunColl is a hypocrite who wants an admin to defend his bigoted POV and block NPOV from a diversity of sources and beliefs. This user is trying to cover his **** (expletive deleted by User:Merkinsmum), but he knows he's the one pushing National Socialist/Ethnocentric Marxist vandalism onto every British Isles-related project he interferes with. Lord Loxley 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you have resorted to personal attacks. I am neither a Nazi nor a Marxist. TharkunColl 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do your beliefs, as written by you, come forth identitical to that lunatic fringe? Lord Loxley 00:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TharkunColl, do not respond to this person. Enzedbrit 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A spade is a spade; don't get your panties in a twisted bunch, or bees in your bonnet over it. Lord Loxley 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: extremely belated as I am, I have warned Lord Loxley about this. Also about blanking his user talk page. this should not be interpreted as endorsing any point of view in the discussion. (s)he seems, however, to have left wikipedia. I proceeded with the warning anyway, since if they ever come back, they should be reminded of our policies and guidelines. --Storkk 01:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of England[edit]

You are in violation of the Three revert rule at Kingdom of England. Please do not revert any article more than three times in one 24 hour period. Thanks. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English people[edit]

You are in violation of the Three revert rule at English people. Please do not revert any article more than three times in one 24 hour period. Thanks. Lord Loxley 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was placed here by the vandal User:Lord Loxley after I placed a similar warning on his page. It is a lie - I have not broken the 3RR on English people. TharkunColl 06:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was placed here because this user is a liar who has broken 3RR numerous times, a few days straight in a row. That he chooses to attack me for his own hypocrisy now, is indicative of his wish that the previous warning to himself by another and outside user (on the Kingdom of England) is lessened in its effects. What a ********. Lord Loxley 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Expletive removed by User:Merkinsmum)[reply]

Get a life you stupid wanker. No one is interested in your moronic theories and we are all tired of your semi-literate rants. You are a vandal and a troll. TharkunColl 06:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will not shut me or Alun up with sludge-talk and sludge-thought. Go to a university and learn a thing or two about English history, just stay away from the acid and get into rehab. Lord Loxley 06:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24hr block[edit]

I have taken a look at this conflict and found a few expletives and here and some incivility on the talk pages of the disputed articles. Please refrain from this in the future, as an outsider may assume that you have lost the debate if you resort to personal attacks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A refutation of User:Lord Loxley[edit]

As soon as my ban expires, I shall revert the English people page to that which had been agreed by a consensus of editors, though I hope that someone else does so sooner. In the meantime, I shall attempt to address each of the issues raised by User:Lord Loxley in his "revisions".

In the "related ethnic groups" section you have included Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes, but excluded Welsh. This makes no sense, and it had been agreed by all editors that the Welsh are among the closest ethnic groups to the English, as anyone familiar with those two peoples knows. Your argument appears to be that the Welsh should not be included because they are English - as a result of the 1536 legislation that annexed Wales to the English kingdom. I can only assume that you have no idea what ethnicity actually means, and I suggest you read the article about it. In short, ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with legislation, and the mere annexation of Wales to England did not extinguish Welsh ethnic identity. But you don't need to take my word for it, just look at the Welsh people page. And nor, incidentally, is ethnicity dependent on race or genetics. You have accused me of being a racist, but it is you who are the racist by insisting that ethnicity is defined by race. As for Danes and Norwegians, their inclusion is arguable (though not so much the Swedes - very few of them settled in England). The agreed consensus prior to your unilateral intervention was that no Continental ethnic groups would be included, on the grounds that the inhabitants of the British Isles are much, much closer to each other in terms of culture, history, and language than any groups from mainland Europe. Again, this fact is obvious to anyone who knows them. As a Canadian, it is possible that you may have been ignorant of this. If you are not familiar with a subject, it is probably not a good idea to make edits to its page.

Further down the article you have inserted a sentence saying that the Tudors are the chief representative of the English kingdom. This is not only false, it is also completely irrelevant.

Still further down you have completely mangled the section dealing with the Norman Conquest and its effects. You have deliberately suppressed the historical fact that the English became a conquered nation, and inserted irrelevant descriptions of coats of arms. You then suddenly lurch into a (false) description of Neolithic Britain and Gaul, as if this was in any way relevant to the Norman Conquest. You then mention the Roman Empire and one of its short-lived breakaway states, jumping straight to Offa and Charlemagne, desperate to clutch at any sort of straw that will lend support, however flimsy, to your own preconceived notion that no distinction should be made between the English and the French (despite the obvious fact that these two peoples have a very different language, culture, and ethnic identity). Your mention of the consolidation of kingdoms around capitals such as Winchester and Paris is also completely irrelevant, and your suggestion that the English Channel has been the main focus of English cultural development is demonstrably wrong - the North Sea has been just as important, usually more so.

Moving further down still, you have inserted a whole new section entitled "Royalty", and it is here that you expose the full extent of your total misunderstanding of (a) what the article is about, and (b) the English people. English identity is not based on coats of arms as symbols. If you want evidence of this, look at the World Cup, being played in Germany as we speak. The English fans, almost to a man, carry the flag of St. George, and only very rarely the Union Jack. They never, ever carry the royal coat of arms of the UK. Being Canadian, I suspect that you have received a rather distorted view of the English through Holywood depictions and the like. The vast majority of English people would laugh in the face of the sort of mediavalist aristocratic fantasy that you are espousing. You then go on to claim that all Englishmen are actually descended from royalty! This is patent nonsense, and once again exposes your own royalist fantasies. The medieval French-speaking monarchy deliberately did not interbreed with its English-speaking subjects. Now, I'm not saying that no genetic material from earlier monarchs exists in the modern English population, but that is not the point. Statistically, every single person on earth might be descended from Julius Caesar, or anyone else you care to name who lived long enough ago. Oh, and French is most definitely not a lingua franca used among Englishmen - we don't need one, because we've already got English. Indeed, English people in general have been notoriously bad at learning foreign languages. And all that guff about what Scottish and Irish people think of this, that and the other is not only POV, but also completely out of place in an article about the English people.

To sum up - by your own admission you are a Canadian of French ancestry. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it means that your view of the English may not be at all accurate, and this has been proved by your ill-conceived alterations to this article. The English and French, for all their geographical proximity, are worlds apart when it comes to culture, language, and ethnic identity. As a Canadian you might lament this fact, but Anglo-French identity in Canada is something for Canada to sort out, and you have no right to try and impose it on the actual English and French themselves. If you really want to make constructive additions to this article, then try and learn something about what the English are really like, and stop relying on medieval fantasies. You clearly have some sort of personal axe to grind, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia is no place to sort out your own ethnic insecurities. And you might also gain more respect by not resorting to foul-mouthed insults and childish temper tantrums every time someone disagrees with you. TharkunColl 10:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lord Loxley's reply, with my own comments[edit]

"The recidivism rate of TharkunColl is sad, for he has vowed to disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point. Here he attempts yet again, to blow smoke all our ****s." (Expletive deleted by User:Merkinsmum)

You are the one who is disrupting Wikipedia. I am upholding the consensus.

"TharkunColl believes that the English and Welsh are not ethnic twins of Southern Britain (in the present day and age), perhaps unaware that they are indistinguishable to the world at large. The Principality of Wales has not been its own country since before Edward I of England, while the Principality of Liechtenstein is an independent country that has no real ethnic status different from its neighbours. His argument is to play up national-separatist sentiments that serve nobody in the present day, about a Principality vis a vis Kingdom--which form bestows actual ethnic statuses to peoples. Wales has never been featured on the arms of state and seals of office that denote independence, the chief marker of separate identity among the nations in Europe. That the Welsh people page exists, doesn't qualify its existence. This guy believes that there is a sort of "Anglo-Celtic subrace" of Europeans, that is defined only by the British Isles (an idea only popular among xenophobic yobbos proud of the British Empire's world domination, in an era circa the Great War). He believes that Brittany is part of the British Isles, rather than a former duchy in the Kingdom of France--by choice over allegiance to England in the Breton War of Succession. He believes that mass settlement, colonisation and the transcendence of national cultures is arguable in favour of the people under Canute the Great's dominion as governed by Winchester, but denies any significance in relations from 1066 (until the present) as determined by London and what the Normans did which transformed the populace in all ways--especially ancestry and tongue, to form actual and extant connections with the French, Scots and Irish--the countries England has dealt with for the past millenium. He uses racial definitions in respect to the "Celtic fringe" and their English relationship, for we all know how the English never held special favour to them until the Hanoverians changed the political climate and drew sympathy from the English for the harsh oppressions of that regime which never bred into the population of the British Isles and was "naturally nativised". The user believes the Norman Conquest was as removed from the people as the Constitutional Hanoverian rule, but more bloody and causing a Marxist class struggle between monarch and subject for centuries as opposed to a few decades in which it was possible to secure their integration as part of the English people themselves. My other opponent User:Enzedbrit believes that the Norman Channel Islanders are no different from the English, but TharkunColl thinks they are foreigners (since 1066) compared to the Celtic fringe (whom only assimilated to the English way of life because of aftereffects created by the Norman Conquest of England). This person has attacked my nationality as Canadian and put my knowledge into question, simply because I'm not jingoistic to punish the French in any and every discussion of them--we in Canada have learnt to get along, because English and French are more alike than different--despite intense rivalry. He tries to speak with authority and down to me, while it is obvious that he is a crank out of the mainstream of academic institutions but well within the realm of football hooliganism."

Read what I wrote. I believe that the Welsh and English are indeed very close, but quite obviously still retain separate ethnic identities. You are trying to say that they are English. For your own sake, please don't say that if you ever go to Wales. I have never made any claims about an "Anglo-Celtic subrace" and nor do I believe Britanny is part of the British Isles. Why do you ascribe false beliefs to me? As for you being a Canadian, all it means is that you may have a completely false view of what the English are like, based on your misperception of history. As I said, just because Canada is an Anglo-French society, it doesn't mean that England is. And the only crank here is you I'm afraid.

"I made a reference to the Tudors being England's chief representative of the Romano-British in England's culture and identity, which you think is ludicrous or have problems interpreting what was written. It was the Tudors who brought a revival of King Arthur, which made it an official mythology of England."

The Tudors lived about a thousand years after the Romano-British period, so to call them a representation of it sounds a tad unreasonable. And their revival of the Arthurian myths was purely political.

"You have only tried to deny any and every relationship the English and French have ever had, plus what is to come. You have deliberately skewed facts to serve your Ethnocentric Socialist agenda, to continue berating Anglo-French traditions which have survived into the present. You deny the (sorry, epipalaeolithic rather than neolithic) Azilio-Tardenoisian microlithic culture of Southern Britain and Gaul, which was the basis of relations which supported such a state as the Gallic Empire, making it further affluential during the time of Offa of Mercia's Angles and Charlemagne's Franks in their unity among the Teutons of Europe and across the English Channel--just as the Bretons and Welsh maintained ties along the same body of water. The fact that the capitals of England and France have always been Channel-focused, especially since the Norman Conquest, Angevin Empire and Hundred Years' War, eludes him in such concepts as Western Europe and the Entente Cordiale, or the rate of assimilation between the English and French in their colonial empires. He thinks it is alright to look backwards to an England unchanged by 1066, but then changed by 1689 and the changes effected since the Glorious Revolution as the only native English identity (ignoring 600 years). He calls me an aristocrat, but I accept all English relations and you'll find nil elitist separatism based upon identity politics and special interests in my heart--unlike him and his nationalist agenda to purify the English identity from a Marxist standpoint, which was what the Nazis did in WWII Germany--TharkunColl's enemies are the Franks, to Adolf Hitler's Jews. His Final Solution is to revise history and purge all connections between the English and French, the English being Aryan and French being Semitic. It doesn't phase him that the Franks were among the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Roman Britain, that all traditional books make a reference of this and it is supported by archaeology in that time period. It would appall TharkunColl to accept the Greco-Roman contributions to the English identity and culture, but we all inherit something some of us consider Black sheep (term) in our families."

I have never said that cultural exchanges did not cross the Channel, because they clearly did. But cultural exchanges do not erase ethnic differences. Your talk of prehistoric cultures is irrelevant in an article about the English. Furthermore, London is far more North Sea focused than Channel focused (look on a map). I won't even bother refuting your accusations of my being a Nazi, or a Socialist, or whatever - those who resort to personal abuse have invariably lost the argument. And, incidentally, I did not call you an aristocrat. You are just a fantasist.

"TharkunColl believes that there is no organic, symbiotic relationship between royalty and subjects in all parts of the world, but this only changed since constitutional monarchy was created in the British Isles. Everybody can claim royal heritage, depending on how long ago they get it and it is widely known that the monarchy has historically been iconic for English identity. Recent British Republicanism should not be confused with precedent and connection, which is largely based on a recent influx of Bolkshevik (or what, Jacobin a la French Revolutionaries? How surprising!) ideology as a result of the Cold War. To be English is to be anti-Communist, as exemplified in the James Bond films. This guy thinks he is a "True Englishman", but he gets it wrong almost every time. Subjects are forbidden from using the royal arms without permission, but it is a symbol of ethnic identity traditionally found throughout Europe. He has Bolshevik fantasies, as evidenced on his various edits to Wikipedia articles in which he shows disdain for the survival of our common monarchy. He tries to remove French as the Englishman's lingua franca, but how often do Englishmen or Anglo-Americans not visit France and mingle with the people for their chief/number one international experience? He asserts that my descent from John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster is just a Mediaeval fantasy because the ancestor is Anglo-Norman and preposterous that the majority of Englishmen who have royal descent is from that man just happens to be irrelevant to the Plantagenets breeding with their subjects. You think that ignoring the Scottish and Irish about their objections to a close identification with the English are irrelevant, yet they are based on a series of English conquests of their lands and replacement of their identity. You hypocritically think that is a moot/negligable point, but not in the French case towards England--which was more organic in every sense. How have the Celtic languages affected English?"

What on earth is an "organic, symbiotic relationship"? You are exposing your royalist fantasies yet again. In fact, a monarchy is a system of government, and like any other it has its advantages and disadvantages. When the people tire of it, they replace it with something else. And to say that to be English is to be anti-Communists is simply factually incorrect. Three of the most notorious Communists of the post-War era - Burgess, Philby, and Maclean - were all English. And to equate true Englishness with James Bond is truly laughable, and really shows the level of your argument. James Bond is a work of fiction, you know. And there you go on about coats of arms yet again - they may be a pet interest of yours, but they are not really that important. And here's something that you may not have realised - when most English people go to France (on shopping trips for example), they always converse with the locals in English, because their French is so bad. And I couldn't care less if you're descended from John of Gaunt or not - have you any idea how many sad inadequates claim an aristocratic ancestry just to make themselves seem more important?

"To sum it up - by your own admission in other words, you are a self-imposing hypocrite with a lot of intolerance to the totality of what makes the English people tick and thrive. I bet you hate the Londoner-Parisian fashion shows that go on every year. Canada retains an Anglo-French culture that your government tried to rip the heart out of in the British Isles; we have recreated it here in North America. You may be hostile to that, but have no right to do so as the Canadian people are a subdivision of the English people. You mate, are the only one insecure (aside from Enzedbrit) about his identity. I couldn't be more proud than I am right now. If I could be there to guard King Henry VI of England recieving the Crown of France, I would put my life on the line to secure his succession. You have no fucking idea what it means to be English; you are some "British establishment" newcomer with entirely different standing/ties to the aristocrats who welcomed the Princes of Orange and Hanover. Your pretence and condescension are contrived and so heartily false that I laugh, because you think you can intimidate a Colonial as somehow inferior as English. I'm not apologising for my English and French surnamed family members, whom are all derived from the lands once de jure and de facto ruled by the Kings of England and France, Norman and Plantagenet. You my friend, are a poseur wannabe--a Liberal posing as Conservative. Lord Loxley 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lord_Loxley"

Your insults bore me. Why on earth should I be interested in London fashion shows? And please feel free to go back in time to the coronation of Henry VI if you like - I doubt that you'd last two minutes in the brutal reality of medieval life. As for me having no idea of what it means to be English - I'll ask a simple question: I'm English, and you are not. Who's likely to have a better idea, do you think? TharkunColl 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being unfair to me: I've never said anything against the English (indeed I have a much closer connection to England and Britain than most foreigners); you, on the other hand, have clearly said that you don't like the Germans. Ergo, it is your edits that are suspect. (Stpaul 11:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm not editing the German people page, so whether I like them or not is irrelevant. In fact, I don't dislike any specific individual Germans. What I dislike is autocracy, fascism, and the sort of people and political mentalities that support it. TharkunColl 11:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you're willing to leave them out on prejudice then that's obviously wrong. Incidently, you really seem to rub people up the wrong way, but I suppose it's made the Englsh people page the most exciting on the site:-) (Stpaul 08:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for editing my text on English people. I could see that it wasn't well written, but was struggling with a better form of words (I was quite tired when I wrote it). You have managed to make it more readable, while retaining the changes I had made. I have further modified the second part of the section, I hope it is now more neutral in tone. I have also added a few references. Alun 10:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Falkland Islands[edit]

Hello. Would you mind keeping a watch on this article. I recently removed Argentine flag images placed on this page by an anon vandal. However, a rather unpleasant user, User:Mais_oui! has reverted and will probably take it to 3RR limits judging by his behaviour in the past. Thanks. Astrotrain 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on British Isles[edit]

I have reported you for a violation of the three revert rule. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:TharkunColl_reported_by_User:Damac_.28Result:.29 for more details. --Damac 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again your at it..removing relevant information.....

Your information is bias and a mark of a bigot...I am jus t stating clear facts on the Irish Government's stance

Civility[edit]

Please re-read WP:CIVIL; I feel you may not appreciate that some of your comments can be quite harsh and uncivil, even if you feel you are reacting to provocation and unreasonable behaviour. Zinedine Zidane learnt that this is not the way to act. --Robdurbar 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

If you and Nkcs don't tone it down I'll have to block you both for Personal Attacks. Please keep it civil. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I left the same message in Nkcs's page

English people[edit]

What do you think about trying to get English people semi protected? At least then we could stop an edit war by the anonymous user who just wants to peddle their own POV, anyone without an account or not logged in could not edit the article then. Do you know a friendly admin? I might be able to impose on one. Alun 19:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same anonymous user is at it on Welsh people now!!! Alun 19:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be protected from your own biased POV, Wobble. 69.157.126.241 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments[edit]

Feel welcome to add your statement to Talk:English people#Request for Comment: Peoples related to the English. This is a necessary step in dispute resolution. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thar, I really think that you should retract what you said on the BI talk page and apologize. Hope you are man enough to do that, and you will win respect for doing so. MelForbes 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs of England and Great Britain[edit]

Please stop what you are doing. By coping and pasting from one article to another, the edit history and talk pages are not preserved. If you want to merge articles or make radical changes to them, you should discuss the matter first on the talk pages. Thanks. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply retitled it in the first place, but you moved it back and I don't know how to revert your move. TharkunColl 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall continue to revert by copy and paste because I don't know any other way. I have done a lot of work on tjis article today and it is clear that you haven't read it. TharkunColl 02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert all your changes, just your merger of two formerly separate articles (and also the sucession section that was deleted. Any reason for that?). The Kingdom of England is different from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. There are a whole series of interconnected articles on these topics. You can't just willy-nilly merge two of them without discussion. There are Request for Merge and Request for Move proceedures you should use if you feel a change should be made. Thanks, --JW1805 (Talk) 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not merge two articles. The Kingdom of England article has often contained the monarchs to the present day, I simply retitled it. I touched no other article. But now, because of you, its talk page and history is lost. TharkunColl 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. There is no longer a Kingdom of England. Listing the House of Hanover and House of Windsor as the monarchs of the Kingdom of England is not correct. The article was List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England. That is where the page history is and should be. {By the way, when I say you merged two article, what I meant was pasted in the content from List of monarchs of Great Britain....technically not a merge, I grant you). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British state is the successor to the English state. It makes no historical sense to draw an arbitrary line at 1707, because very little changed in that year. Some of the very earliest kings of England were also kings of Britain - please have a look at the article. PS I was the one who wrote the Great Britain article! TharkunColl 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British state is also the sucessor to the Scottish state as well. It most certainly makes sense to draw the line in 1707 when the two kingdoms merged. If you disagree, start a discussion on the Talk pages and everybody can discuss. But, please stop moving my cut-and-paste. This is against policy and really messes things up. Please see Help:Moving a page. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All reference books list English and British monarchs in one list. Scotland was annexed by the English state - it was not a merger of equals. Anyway, I'm going to bed. I shall continue to revert tomorrow. TharkunColl 02:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting viewpoint. Maybe you should read the text of the 1707 Act of Union to learn about what really happened. You should also read Wikipedia:Concensus and Wikipedia:NPOV to find out how Wikipedia works (also check out Wikipedia:3RR). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Excuse me, but why? It is very inconvenient to anybody who wants to leave a message for you to click on your name and arrive at an edit page. If it's just the color issue, and not the issue of having a user page, I believe you can change the color to red without deleting the page, but I'm not sure how to do that - it would be something you do in your preferences. You could ask User:Gryffindor, who has done this. If you just really really don't want a user page, I'm not sure what to say. What's the issue, exactly? john k 11:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the color, rather than the existence of a user page? I could ask User:Gryffindor for you, if you'd like. john k 11:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perosnal Attacks[edit]

Tharkcun - whatever the provocation, personal attacks such as that on British Isles (terminology) are unacceptable; please desist. --Robdurbar 18:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it tru british peeople have ugly crooked teeth? i luv british dudes smile & you can tell teir teeth are awful! gross! cant tey get it checked like twice a year? no shit. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH! come & get me wiki!

Whoever wrote the 'sentence' above (is it tru...) is practically illiterate and obviously has no idea what true British people look like. I would like to delete their comments but I will leave them in place so that people can see what they have written. 86.142.110.105 19:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland/Malvinas[edit]

Dear Tharcun:

May I kindly ask you to remove your recent comment on the "Malvinas" from the section "Islas Falkland" in the Falkland Islands talk page, possibly opening a separate section? The two issues are naturally related but not the same, and I am afraid that messing the two discussions together may further diffuse the argument which is complicated enough even without that. Best, Apcbg 11:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad[edit]

Please do not engage in trolling on article talk pages, as you appear to have done on Talk:Muhammad. I suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:Etiquette. -- ChrisO 14:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Calendar Conversion Tables[edit]

As the generator of the reconstruction which is the basis of the tables you have added to this article, you have placed me in a very dificult position. I do not wish to appear possessive of my reconstruction of the pre-Julian calendar, so I am not going to just delete them, but I also strongly believe that they really should not appear here, and that they are entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. There are two reasons for this:

-- You give no indication of how uncertain, indeed controversial, these conversion tables are. I have gone to a great deal of trouble in my source tables to indicate the basis for each conversion, so that the user can judge for themselves whether to trust it. This is completely lost in your table.

-- They bulk up the article without adding much value

I have other concerns. For example, the selection criterion for "significant events" appears to be arbitrary, since their significance (calendrical? historical?) is almost entirely non-obvious. But the basic issue is why should these tables appear at all in a Wikipedia article.

Please reconsider this matter carefully.

--Chris Bennett 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I understand that your main intent is to convert pre-Julian dates of significant historical events to Julian dates. I agree that this would illustrate in a concrete way how different the two calendars are. I'd like to suggest a slightly different approach: identify a list of important non-calendrical events that have precise pre-Julian dates and set up a table listing just those events, with their pre-Julian dates and the Julian equivalents. I'd suggest confining yourself to 190BC-AD1, and focussing on events before 45 BC, although there should certainly be events such as the fall of Alexandria. Such a table should have an introductory statement that your conversions are based on my reconstruction (with a link), and a caveat that this reconstruction is not certain, but that it is based on an analysis of the available evidence.

--Chris Bennett 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophobia[edit]

Hi, you might be interested in the discussion over at Talk:Anglophobia, much of what is included in this article seems to me to be little more than a list of justifications for anti-English feeling in various parts of the world, rather than an article about Anglophobia. Thought you migh have some constructive insights. Cheers, Alun 16:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Hello. You are not permitted to say "it now transpires that there actually are Muslims who are prepared to admit that sex with children is wrong." You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours for that provocation. You must ensure that such exclamations are not repeated. Thx. El_C 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Mercia.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flag of Mercia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARA San Luis[edit]

Hey, I don't know if you seen the recent actions over at ARA San Luis- an article about an Argentine Navy submarine that saw action in the Falklands War. A recent edit war saw me banned (wrongly I might add!) for 3RR in removing/amedning an incorrect Spanish insertion of the word "Malvinas". Whilst I agree with the inclusion of the word in the main Falkland Islands page (mainly to avoid edit wars etc)- I am uncomfortable with its widespread use in the English wikipedia. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks Astrotrain 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of founders of major religions[edit]

You just added ? Gardner to the list, as the founder of Wicca. I'm not sure that many people would agree that Wicca is a major religion, or that Gardner founded it. This is not an area of expertise for me, but I have the strong impression that many people were involved (and still are) in developing Wicca, which is far from a unified movement. Declaring one person as the "founder" might be construed as POV by people who don't follow him. Zora 08:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Stop adding POV, and misleading statements to the QEII article, you are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on an article. Just because you don't like the truth, does not mean you can ignore policy and disregard talk pages, where you should be talking about this civilly. Brian | (Talk) 23:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to deny that Her Majesty IS Queen of New Zealand, and that roll is completely separate from her UK roll, why should only one of her rolls to mentioned, when she is Queen of 16 Realms? While she resides in the UK and has more direct daily contact, that is no excuse to mislead readers in the intro. IMO the title of this article needs changing as well. Brian | (Talk) 23:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesties other Realms will not become republics, I, who lives in one of her Realms, is horrified you would even suggest that we would become a Republic.

TharkunColl, Why are you trying to offend people in the other Commonwealth Realms? I find it disturbing. Please stop this. Bailrigg 04:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But a growing number of us aren't Brian... --Lholden 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One day we'll get rid of the lazy greedy freeloading bunch of hangers on in Great Britain as well. Elizabeth Windsor can then go somewhere else to be queen if she wants (and more importantly if any population is so deluded as to want the useless bigots). To paraphrase Monty Python strange women [distributing swords at random] is no basis for a system of government, what you want is a mandate from the masses not some farsical...[quasi religious] ceremony. I enjoyed Johann Hari's God save the Queen?. Alun 20:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to offend people in the other Commonwealth Realms? I find it disturbing. Please stop this.

List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England[edit]

This list is an article which I believe could become featured. Quite rightly, you reverted my addition of the table, which I should have discussed first. After looking at two other featured lists, List of French monarchs and List of Portuguese monarchs I believe we can do better. Obviously there would be a set style for every house, not just Normandy (I chose Normandy as that's what I have most info about). Are you interested in improving the article? If you are let me know! Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'll continue today, with the tables, which will be in my sandbox if you want to see/help. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 12:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly take a look at Talk:List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England#Location? I personally think it would be better with the name List of English monarchs. --Alex (Talk) 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to be doing any sections in my sandbox? I don't want to edit conflict you! --Alex (Talk) 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time to do the full boxes, I'm just editing details at the moment. TharkunColl 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit the sandbox for a bit, I'm sorting out the widths. Thanks. --Majorly (Talk) 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's pretty much done. There are probably a few errors here and there, but I think it's ready to move onto the article. I'll do it house by house later. --Majorly (Talk) 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list at the bottom where you're getting your info from? --Majorly (Talk) 22:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the archontology site: [3]. TharkunColl 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's probably best not to remove dates, so they are just months. Change them by all means, but don't remove any that are there. --Majorly (Talk) 22:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases where the dates are not known, we can only in all accuracy give the month based on the predecessor's death. Proclamation may have been a day or more later. TharkunColl 22:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are known for various monarchs, according to my sources. It's better to have a full date than no date. --Majorly (Talk) 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's wrong, or just based on the predecessor's death. TharkunColl 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three published books are unlikely to be wrong. And if the accession isn't known, the coronation date, or the date of the predecessor should be used. --Majorly (Talk) 22:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did those 3 books all agree? And what is their level of academic thoroughness? Giving wrong dates is worse than giving no dates. Death of predecessor and coronation are not the same as proclamation, which could coincide with either or neither. TharkunColl 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They agreed on most dates (they are listed at the bottom of the article), and when they didn't I used the date which two or all had the same. Anyway, I have an idea: if the exact date isn't known, the next best date (i.e. coronation, date of predecessor) can be used, and a note could be added explaining. It's just I'm not keen on dates like "July 1189" which to me look too vague. --Majorly (Talk) 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly more vague than we might wish, but the fact is that during the earlier part of our period proclamation dates have simply gone unrecorded. By giving a spurious concrete date such as predecessor's death or coronation, we are, in effect giving false information - in addition to giving inconsistent information as well (i.e. we could easily give coronation dates for all of them, but surely not a selected few). It was only the Act of Settlement of 1701 that made accession instantaneous upon the death of the predecessor. TharkunColl 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off the English monarchs page.[edit]

Unnecessary deletion of parts does not help anyone.

Please leave it be.

Tharkie:)[edit]

Tharkie, I have tried to mail you, did you get my mail? Please don't be a stranger:)Merkinsmum 08:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands Sovereignty[edit]

Ok then, so what's the problem? Last time I looked talk page discussion was not a prerequisite for adding properly sourced points. The point is valid, the source satisfied WP:RS, what are your grounds for reversion?

Xdamr^talk 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ac.thequeen.jpg[edit]

Hello!

I noticed that you restored Image:Ac.thequeen.jpg in List of English monarchs (diff). Since Image:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.jpg is a free image it is prefereable over Image:Ac.thequeen.jpg, which is a fair use image.

If you could figure out a way to provide proper attribution to the photographer in the table that would really help out. I have also considered cropping Image:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.jpg, but I am not sure how to do that technically.

Sincerely, --Oden 14:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted once again and wrote: "Restored the much better picture" in the edit summary (diff). The first fair use criteria, which is policy, says " Always use a more free alternative if one is available". There are many free images to choose from at Commons:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I will leave it to your judgement as an editor to choose the free image which best illustrates that article. --Oden 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles"[edit]

I have twice removed this term from the Template:English dialects by continent box and will be doing so for a third time after posting this notice.

Ireland is not a "British Isle." It is an Irish Isle. The term "British" refers to "Britain," the larger island just east of Ireland. Just because the term "British Isles" is more concise than "The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man" does not make the term acceptable.

Perhaps I can explain why applying the term "British Isles" to Irealnd is so offensive. In past years, Asians were called "Orientals." Oriental means Eastern, and implies that Asian people are defined, not by their own culture, but by their relationship to Europe(ie. they are east of Europe.) The term is Euro-centric and entirely unacceptable. I could point out a litany of such terms to define a people that were once acceptable in polite society but are no longer. (African American wikipedians will instantly recognize the specific term that I am implying.)

Frederick Douglass told us that slaves and dogs are named by others, but that free men name themselves. The Irish, and Ireland, are not defined as a variation on Britain, or by their relationship to Britain.

Please stop reverting to "British Isles." It is offensive.

To debate this issue further, visit Talk:British Isles Windyjarhead 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "And nor is the term offensive to most Irish - it is used in a purely neutral, geographical sense by Irish government ministers and members of parliament, for example." I wonder, what do you base that statement on?

It is my experience that the term is officially used neither by the Irish government, nor by the British government.

By the way, if I were removing anti-Semitic language from articles, would I be "pushing a political agenda?" Windyjarhead 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Tharkie. I won't say anything except LOL:)Merkinsmum 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thark, are you on the wine? Hope you have a nice new year! MelForbes 00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles (controversy)[edit]

Thank you for your contribution, It's a good article :-) ShakespeareFan00 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I created it because the British Isles article was getting too long. TharkunColl 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I nominated it for Did You Know. --Majorly 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot take credit for writing most of it, I simply put it into a new article. TharkunColl 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, sorry for the text on the other page. Totally my mistake. Second, the main point..

Will you also move all the links that pointed to the sections of the British Isles page that you have unilaterally moved? If you are not prepared to do that, I will revert the British Isles page to its original messy but evolved state.

Even if you are prepared to do that, such a major unilateral edit to the page is unjustified. Please get consensus BEFORE such a change. Hughsheehy 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What links? Anything that pointed to British Isles will still go there, and a link to British Isles (controversy) is in the first paragraph. Why is there a problem? If you know of any specific examples (which I don't), then please feel free to edit them yourself. TharkunColl 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language[edit]

Can you source this very interesting statement and then, once sourced, add it to the article (which has no mention of 1066) SqueakBox 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your hate of 1066 and all that...[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Roman_Empire_about_395.jpg

Well, it looks like it had happened before. The Diocese of Britain was included within the Prefecture of Gaul. Oh, the tragedy! If I were you, I would keep extremist comments about the Battle of Hastings to yourself. Rhode Islander 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sir, are absolutely fantasizing. The Christian Anglo-Saxons hated the pagan Northmen, from Alfred the Great, to Ethelred the Unready, to Harold Godwinson. The Normans were barbaric and semi-Christian Northmen, not the cultured and devoutly Christian Franks. The Anglo-Saxon/French trendsetting in Europe was disrupted in 1066, the pact between Offa of Mercia and Charlemagne lapsing later as a result of the Angevin dynasty's success. Please don't insert pagan fables. Your "religion" is a 20th century form that has nothing to do with reality or the past. Your revanchist dreams will not suffice a "serious encyclopedia" such as this website. We compile from Classical and Latin sources, without regard for your fringe element. Rhode Islander 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleister Crowley would be proud of you, my friend. I don't think that people in the real world give a **** (expletive deleted- User:Merkinsmum) for your revisionist Anglo-Saxonist piety. You lost all that when your empire took liberty from others to fill your own pockets, run by German dynasties out of Saxony. Evil Normans, indeed? Not if the Anglo-Saxonists pursued the same oppressive attitude towards others. Your ideology is a sham. There is no good=Anglo-Saxon, evil=Norman reality. There never is between tribal, regional or ethnic conflicts. So what if your fantasy side lost? Rhode Islander 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Mary I of England, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Lcarsdata 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Lcarsdata 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kings of Mercia[edit]

Since I was making monarch templates, I thought I'd better make {{Kings of Mercia}}. I've also made {{Kings of Wessex}} and {{Kings of Northumbria}}. I haven't added the Mercian one to any articles yet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I much like stress accents, and I'm apathetic at best about eth and thorn. However, one thing that has to go from your changes is Ceolwulf the Foolish. Not very NPOV. I've updated Ceolwulf II of Mercia. I think the template needs changing to Ceolwulf II. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be picky, Athelstan was the last king of Mercia who wasn't simultaneously king of Wessex, even if only for a year or so, but since the Burgred article says that he was there's cleanup to be done. Ceolwulf is not referred to as "the Foolish", but as Ceolwulf II, in modern sources. There are no ghits for "Ceolwulf the Foolish". Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no[edit]

On Maeoniae, you seem to be confused about two things. First, the external links section never contains sources. Those belong in the references section. Second, Wikipedia requires RS reliable sources. Sites on free hosting services like angelfire can't be used as sources. And they don't really meet the external linking policy either. That's why I removed them. For one, they're not reliable source, and two, they have popups. Please don't put them back again. A Ramachandran 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tantalis.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tantalis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Serpent's Choice 09:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maeoniae[edit]

Is amputeeism some sort of erm, special interest of yours?:)Merkinsmum 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfhere of Mercia[edit]

Happy New Year! Nice map you did for Hwicce. Do you have any ideas on illsutrations for Wulfhere of Mercia? All I've got is a crap bog-standard map. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do nicely. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report[edit]

I didn't have time to get round to it earlier, but 16-17 Jan you did more than 6 reverts within 24 hours on the United Kingdom infobox map, so I have reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You don't have the right to abuse the rules of Wikipedia, no matter how heated up politically you get. MarkThomas 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were not all reversions to the same map. In fact, I created three different maps based on the discussions and suggestions at Talk:United Kingdom over a period of three days. At no time did I insert the same map more than three times in 24 hours. You, on the other hand, kept reverting to the same map, and did so at least four times in less than 24 hours. TharkunColl 09:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles[edit]

This article has a new Ancient terms section. You had points on the use of pretaniki etc, comments on the geographical/political origins of the term. As far as I recall, we disagreed. But this section looks very useful and well sourced, maybe better than any other encyclopaedia. Thumbs up for WP?--Shtove 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map Creation[edit]

As you are a superb map creator, can you create one for Questenberg after looking at the German Wikipedia entry for this area. You may need to slightly translate bits to get it accurate. Thanks! Robert C Prenic 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo order[edit]

First it's because Birmingham is the biggest city. When I point out that's not what the page is for, you come up with some other reason. Have you ever considered maybe listening to another editor's viewpoint? MarkThomas 11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaking the aim of the article but it's clear to me at any rate that you are also not particularly interested in understanding it, and in fact that you do understand the point but because you resent it, refuse to engage. Other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you that the term "Second City" does not just reside on objective grounds, and the article explains this, yet you persist and persist in your POV that it does. To be honest, I don't see any point really in having discussions of any kind with you, and will not further respond to any points you make, other than to revert your edits wherever (as they so often are) they are pure POV. MarkThomas 15:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mohamed (sbuh)"[edit]

If I see this again you will be blocked. gren グレン 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Extraordinary People'[edit]

Due to the Maeoniae etc, I was wondering if you enjoy the telly show Extraordinary People? it's one of my faves. Hopefully my attempt at an article will survive this time:)Merkinsmum 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon trivia[edit]

Do you have a source for this dif? Otherwise it's WP:OR. Jeffpw 05:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad[edit]

You seem to like to toe the line. But, don't cross it. Trolling on Talk:Muhammad does not help. It may not have been intentional but bringing up terrorism in such a flippant way will only provoke further annoyance. After your SBUH incident I really don't think I think good faith is running out. Stop. gren グレン 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. I do view it as a really bad idea. In any case, it's not a big deal... but you do understand that such comments are really not helpful and could provoke reaction and accusations and that it's better not to have them there? gren グレン 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report this to WP:AN or some other arena. However, there is no concept of free speech on Wikipedia. We try to avoid trolling, incivility, and other things and as we have removed comments from VirtualEye among others we will remove them from you. Please try to be productive. Touting free speech does not help write an encyclopedia. On my talk page you can say what you will but on article talk pages we try to solve article related issues. gren グレン 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Why don't you edit on Depictions of Muhammad instead of continuing in this line of trollery? Here's what you can do: add this image and this image that I added to the Wikimedia Commons today of Muhammad to the article and help improve it? (→Netscott) 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate suggestion: go to this site and on the right hand side of the form click the radio box, "Les images numérisées" then enter into the "Légende" area the word "Muhammad". Download what you find and upload to the Wikimedia Commons. You can also enter into the "Légende" area the word "Mahomet". There are both Middle eastern as well as western images of Muhammad there that could do for uploading. (→Netscott) 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link for you[edit]

I was wondering if you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship?:)Merkinsmum 03:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! TharkunColl 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

I am not going to edit war with you, I will not revert you again. We are trying to work out a consensus on the mediation page, and you are disrupting it. The discussion in question is under subheading "Undue weight" on the mediation page. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

Since you have stated your views, you might want to also list them at the two polls ongoing. [4] [5], lest anyone get the idea that the new polls have changed the situation. --Alecmconroy 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Muhammad/images. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 have made a number of different edits to that page today, but on no occasion have I made the same edit more than three times. My first edits placed the Al-Biruni picture in the lead, and my later edits placed a different picture in the lead. I have not broken 3RR. Furthermore, I have received no official warning about breaking 3RR, which, as I understand it, comes before an actual block.

Decline reason:

As per below. — Yamla 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 am not going to process your unblock request because I am involved with the page in question, but I will point out that the WP:3RR policy which you were blocked under says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case no one can make more than three edits to a page in any day, no matter how different. That is not how 3RR works. TharkunColl 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. The policy is: 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. It further states that the policy is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Your edits were cleary edit warring. IrishGuy ^talk 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why haven't the other participants in this so-called "edit war" also been blocked? I was not the only one reverting - on either side of the argument. TharkunColl 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted by 3 different people. You see, if there is a consensus for an idea, you do not need to violate 3RR to make the change. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 3 people were involved, but at least one of those made numerous reverts. TharkunColl 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When your block wears off you can make 3RR reports where appropriate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in the meantime, I am to be singled out and gagged? All I was doing was reverting to the overwhelming consensus as expressed in a free vote of editors. TharkunColl 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a close look at the history of the article after I blocked you. As far as I could see, no user except you reverted more than three times in 24 hours (although many came close, which is not something to be encouraged). Heimstern Läufer 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reverted four times on 6-7 March (not counting one for vandalism), but I saw no purpose in reporting it (and still don't - it is only an observation.)

I understand why TharkunColl is upset that the consensus developed during mediation isn't being followed - however, speaking as one who had reverted him - counsel greater moderation in approaching this matter.

TharkunColl, as the attempted censorship has slowly come to the attention of the wider community, it is being rejected by greater and greater margins. Getting blocked doesn't help, while inflammatory comments (from which I note you have indeed refrained as of late) simply give a bad name to the policies we mean to uphold, and make editors who oppose the presence of depictions look like victims. This is (or should be) a respectable academic enterprise, and it falls upon us to conduct ourselves accordingly. Keeping a cool head isn't always easy, and this discussion which has dragged on for over four months as new against depictions are constantly invented, is admittedly taxing, but flying off the handle, verbally or edit-wise (3RR) only makes things worse.

I invite you to admit your responsibility here, and pledge to mind 3RR and avoid edit-warring in the future.Proabivouac 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I notice you've the talent and inclination to create maps. As it happens, we need a map showing Muhammad's migrations and conquests. Is this something that would interest you?Proabivouac 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My block should have expired 5 hours ago, but it is still in place. It was imposed at 20:33 UTC on 11 March for a period of 31 hours, and should therefore have expired at 03:33 UTC on 13 March (today). TharkunColl 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 82.37.234.110 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 10:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

awards[edit]

Have you seen the awards I put upon your user page? Someone told me afterwards I should really put them on this talkpage instead so you can do with them as you will:) But I hope u like them:)Merkinsmum 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation[edit]

You have violated Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on The Great Global Warming Swindle. Please see WP:AN/3RR. Lurker ^oi! 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. The first two on that list could have been made with a single edit, and in any case are nothing to do with the second two on the list which refer to a totally different part of the article. TharkunColl 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TharkunColl, the WP:3RR policy states the multiple uninterrupted edits by a user are considered to be only 1 revert. It looks as though there have been 3 reverts by TharkunColl, not more than 3. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However TUC is wrong to think that the "unrelatedness" matters William M. Connolley 10:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

After looking at the 3RR rules, it seems as though I was wrong to report you. I misunderstood the policy and thought the first two edits I reported counted as reverts. It seems they didn't. You have my unreserved apology Lurker ^oi! 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English monarchs[edit]

I'm changing the date to follow what the source says, not my own knowledge. I cannot find a single source saying he acceded on 24 November, however I found many saying 23 November. If you cannot find a source for it, I'll have to change it back. Btw I'm not singling it out, I'm referencing the whole list monarch by monarch so it can become featured. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the monarchs are listed on the Archontology website. Using a different source for each monarch makes the list inconsistent. TharkunColl 15:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find Edwy on it. It makes it even more accurate if a variety of sources are used. If you can find the Edwy page, can you please add it to the references? Thanks. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every monarch on our list can be found on the following pages at Archontology:

871-1066 [6]
1066-1649 [7]
1649-1660 [8]
1660-1707 [9]
1707-1801 [10]
1801-present [11]

The Archontology website, with its lavish references, is clearly a far superior source to most other lists, which in many cases just copy each other and perpetuate erroneous information (such as the idea that early medieval monarchs succeeded immediately upon the death of their predecessor, which is in fact a modern invention). I suggest that to keep the whole thing accurate and consistent, we use the Archontology website as our primary source throughout. TharkunColl 17:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it as far as I can. It doesn't, however list parents' names, marriages etc in all cases so I've had to use other references for those things. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mail[edit]

Tharkie forgive me the off-topic thing but I just wanted to say I have mailed you at one of your yahoo addresses. Because I'm not sure how often you check there but I know you look on here:)Merkinsmum 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad/images[edit]

There is a current consensus here: Talk:Muhammad/images#New_Version. Please respect this consensus. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one respected the old consensus, which was overwhelming. It is not democratic to keep taking votes until you get the result you want, by driving people away with fatigue. I do not respect any so-called consensus created under such circumstances. There is a very important principle here. TharkunColl 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, there are plenty of depictions including one at the very top, the unveiled one is just below it. This is not a censorship issue anymore, and even if it was that would not justify edit warring. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceolwald of Mercia[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ceolwald of Mercia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Meyer 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the "propose deletion" template after you deleted it because the two reasons you cited for retaining the page don't hold:

Red links on the list page are easily mended by removing the brackets. Inclusion on a list doesn't mean the subject is notable enough for its own page.
The one book referenced in this article, Ashley's The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens (also referenced as "British Monarchs"), is noted by other WP editors for not referencing its sources (see Eanfrith of Hwicce). If the one cited source isn't verifiable, you can't justify the subject's notability.

--Meyer 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Mike Ashley. To dispute him would be to indulge in original research. Please refer to my comments on your user page. TharkunColl 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles intro[edit]

Good edit! I dropped the brackets, hope that's OK with you. I predict this edit, whilst accurate, will be reverted by others for unclear reasons. Happy to help with it. MarkThomas 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks - yes, that's fine. TharkunColl 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TharkunColl. I´ll ask here rather for you to produce some references rather than repeating again and again on the BI talk page, although I may continue to do that. If you, or someone else cannot produce citations, then they must be presumed NOT TO EXIST. I haven´t found them. You aren´t producing them. Presumption for WP ...that they don´t exist. Hughsheehy 08:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for what? TharkunColl 08:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also would find it helpful if you would say exactly what it is you want citing Hugh, I've got a little lost in the maze of referencing demands! :-) MarkThomas 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have both asserted that the objection in Ireland is minority and that the term is used "generally" elsewhere. You have not provided any refs to support either position, yet you continue to insist that it is so. Without refs you have no ground to stand on. Also, there is no maze (which point I will put on MarkThomas user page also), simply a consistent - and so far unanswered - request for citations to support your position. Hughsheehy 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not asserted that the objection in Ireland is held only by a majority. What I have said, repeatedly, is that we simply don't know. As for "generally", it doesn't need a citation because it is not saying anything specific. TharkunColl 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRA killings[edit]

You might be interested to see what is happening here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9 Check my user logs and you will quickly see the agenda here...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast merge[edit]

I made a merge of the Irish breakfast and the Full English breakfast pages at Full breakfast. Is it okay to blank the Full English breakfast and Irish breakfast pages and redirect them (and Scottish breakfast and Welsh breakfast) there? I included references to Ulster fry in the merged article but as discussed that page will not be merged. (Please reply on the talk page). --sony-youth^talk 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this is acceptable. TharkunColl 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image on monarchs list[edit]

The image at the top has been deleted, do you know of a suitable replacement? Majorly (hot!) 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why the image was deleted? I don't know of any replacements unfortunately. TharkunColl 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was available on Wikimedia Commons, but it got deleted there. Majorly (hot!) 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh[edit]

I think its time we took this article to some form of Mediation as the determined POV pushing by User:An Muimhneach Machnamhach, various anons and unnecessary weasel worded attempts at compromise by the well meaning User:Doops simply will not stop. Quite frankly the "Ireland isnt in the British Isles" brigade do not have a point and all the evidence shows quite clearly that this is a purposefully nationalistic POV without legitimacy and any mediation should be pretty straight forward affair. What are your thoughts? siarach 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merkinsmum has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sectarianism in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

Simply on a personal note, I'm interested in what you meant when describing the Republic of Ireland as a "sectarian state" (although on a non-personal note, I think it was in bad form from someone who should know better). From your comments about the Republic being "a gerrymandered state created to have a massive Catholic majority" and "whoever thought of it first ... partition was gerrymandered to create two sectarian states", I get the feeling that you think that Irish Nationalists sought partition in order to somehow 'keep Protestants out of Ireland.'

Certainly, on the part of Nationalists there was no, and remains no, desire for partition. It was not, as you seem to suggest, a plan to construct a religiously homogenous state. With regard the 1914 partition, the Irish Parliamentary Party opposed partition, which was foisted by the Irish Unionist Party, and felt they had been cheated by it. The All-for-Ireland League (a subset of the Irish Parliamentary party) abstained from voting in protest that not enough concessions had been given to quell the concerns of Ulster Protestants. Partition in that act was "temporary", but with no timeframe or means for reunification. In the mean time, the six counties were to remain a 'normal' part of the UK (i.e. no separate parliament).

Nationalist participation in the 1920 partition was minimal (non-existent?), as the Irish Republic (based on opposition to "the contemplated mutilation of our country by partition") had been declared, and partition was designed along the desires of the Ulster Unionist Party without the opposition of nationalists. Partition this time was no longer temporary, and Northern Ireland was fixed as the six counties, the maximum area that could retain a Unionist majority, with a separate parliament. The 1920 act formed the basis for the 1921 Treaty, and the acceptance of partition as a part of the Treaty was a major cause of the civil war in the South. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say is correct. Partition came about because of a weakness and lack of moral resolve of the British state at this time. Partition was dishonourable and - as has been proved - unworkable in the long run. The government should have compelled, by force if necessary, a negotiation between the two fundamental factions in Ireland. A federal-type union between the nations of the British Isles - as the Liberals had already proposed - would probably have been the best option. But that is impossible now, so the peoples of our isles must remain forever sundered. TharkunColl 00:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... so, what did you mean by a "sectarian state"? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the nationalists wanted it or not (and I'm sure they did not), what happened was that Ireland was divided along religious lines. The two states that emerged were, ipso facto, sectarian. TharkunColl 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, although I had to check a dictionary :) Usually pertaining to the partition of Ireland "sectarian" has an althogether more sinister connotation, as you're aware. Maybe you could think a little more about context when choosing your words - really, it does define meaning. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

Hello, TharkunColl. I'm in agreement with you, that the opening lead, should be Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth of Nations (putting UK first). However, I've sorta given up the fight. Conflicting editors and battlefield pages only get blocked editors and protected pages. For now, I've called a truce. GoodDay 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Coll – I too am pro-UK-emphasis in the lead, and I agree that it should be "UK and 15 others", BUT, I know it gets incredibly frustrating, but please, please try not to lose your temper (as exemplified by your latest edit summary). Remain calm and rational, or all you will do is ruin our case. Cheers! D B D 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like, we're stuck with that redicules sixteen.... I tried. GoodDay 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a POV and incorrect. It is 16 countries; the UK is one of those realms (well, is the 'main' one as such, and that is covered in that sentence).

'Queen of 16' is the same, if not better than saying 'Queen of UK and 15' Also having 'UK' mentioned many times in one sentence, starts becoming tongue-tied

We had covered all this months ago, you have been constantly trying push the bounds of that agreed consensuses Brian | (Talk) 23:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version I wrote a few days ago only mentioned the UK once. If you cannot see why the queen is more the queen of the UK than anywhere else, then I despair. TharkunColl 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I will respond to you here. This is your last comment:

'A monarchy where the monarch only visits once in a blue moon, where the monarch has no power or influence whatsoever, and where the monarch is head of state of another country on the other side of the world, is no monarchy.'

OK. So from saying that the monarchies of the non-UK realms are true, but inferior, nay 'preposterous' monarchies, you are saying they are no monarchies at all. Let us put aside the issue of your ignorance. Let us put aside the issue of whether a monarch is any less a monarch because her realm is 'on the other side of the world'. (By your logic, HM is only half ruler of Gibraltar and hardly at all of the Falkland Islands) and ask ourselves how much influence the Queen has in the United Kingdom? Not a lot, I suspect.--Gazzster 10:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've changed my mind. I think your gem of a comment should be responded to on the article talk page.--Gazzster 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

Hello again TharkunCull, I completely understand how you feel (about the opening line) at Elizabeth II. However, we should accept the compromise (as it's the best we can get). It's frustrating to be in the minority (on this issue) at that page, but we are. Thus is the price we pay, for a publicly edited encyclopedia. Again, I understand your frustration. GoodDay 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better than a University tutorial[edit]

Please don't blush, but I've really enjoyed following the debate between -sony-youth, TharkunColl and MarkThomas typified by this exchange: Talk:British_Isles#British_foreigners Much nicer and so much more informative than the vulture pit I've been stuck in.W. Frank ✉ 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I think you mean to say, 'you didn't give me the answers I wanted.' And I do not trivialise. That is what your arguments sound like. And isn't it hypocritical to accuse me of that when you 'trivialise' the dignity of 15 sovereign nations, many of whom are represented by editors on this page? If you're waiting for an answer, this article is about Queen Elizabeth II. Her full-time job is being Queen of 16 realms. No, she isn't part-time monarch of Australia and Canada. If you need to continue, I invite you to go to my talk page.--Gazzster 04:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC) I don't call a few days visiting every couple of years a "full time job" - do you? And please provide an example of when I contradicted myself, because I assure you I haven't. The Queen and her family live in the UK, and are in the news every day. The nature of the monarchy in the UK is qualatively different from that of the monarchies in the other realms. In fact, as far as the other realms are concerned, the Queen is an absentee monarch. TharkunColl 12:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Blood pressures rising a bit too much, perhaps. Right, let’s remember we’re editors of an online encyclopedia. I wanted to respond to you on your talk page rather than take up space on the EII Talk Page. Most editors are probably bored of us, I’d say.

First, to answer you: 1) Being a monarch is not a position that can be measured by hours, like a butcher or an architect or a checkout girl. It is a state of being. So, from this point of view, a monarch is so 24 hours a day. Even an absentee one. After all, a landlord who never or rarely visits his properties is still a landlord, albeit an absentee one. That does not reduce the landlord’s status, rights and duties in law one iota. So for all practical purposes HM is ‘full-time’ monarch of the 15 realms. Her most important function in those realms is to guarantee the constitutional status of those nations. Does she actually physically do much? No, I agree. But her power lies in the power she denies to others. That is fundamentally why she is so important in the 15 realms. 2) Instances where you contradict yourself: you claimed Australia was a ‘practical republic’ on the grounds that its GG is ‘appointed by elected representatives’ (which is actually incorrect- he/she is nominated by one elected rep, the PM, and appointed by the Queen of Australia). You believed that the Queen following the advice of the PM as a figurehead was further evidence of this. I pointed out to you that the Queen does the same in the UK, and you had to say that the UK monarchy contains ‘elements of a republic’. I rather thought a republic was a state where the head of state was not a monarch. Saddam’s Iraq was not a democracy. It was a republic, though. 3) You referred to the 15 realms as realms in law, albeit ‘preposterous’. Then you said they were ‘no’ monarchies at all. There are other instances. I will go through them if you like, but is it really necessary? 4)The ‘ nature of the monarchy in the UK is qualatively (sic) different’? Never in dispute. No editors have disputed that. I have always conceded that. I still do not see why that demonstrates that the 15 realms are part of, subservient, inferior to the UK Crown, or ‘no’ monarchies (I’m not sure which one of these options you’re actually arguing). Please explain that as clearly and as technically as you can.

I can respect someone who has the courage to argue their convictions and who is respectful about it. But can I say that your language is often contemptuous, condescending and demeaning (words like ‘preposterous’, ‘no monarchy’, ‘colony’). At several points in debates with me, G2bambino and others, you drop your guard and show us, in ringing tones, your contempt for the 'former colonies'. You obviously have an agenda. Please tone it down, and try to be clear, succinct and respectful..

You are incorrect. I have no contempt for the former colonies whatsoever - in fact I like them. What I don't like is certain editors trying to push a POV agenda. TharkunColl 09:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But you don't seem to realise that editors think you have a POV agenda. And I have to say your language heavily suggests this. That is why I suggest you modify your language and become clearer. Speaking for myself, I do not argue in favour of the equal constitutional status of the 15 realms from unjustified bias. I argue from the law and constitutional reality, and the experience of my nation. You seem to argue from a limited sight. Perhaps if you could put yourself in our shoes of those monarchies which have constitutions. Constitutions are the dearest things nations have. They (good constitutions, of course) guarantee our integrity, our freedom and our dignity. Elizabeth II guarantees all those things. Sure, she doesn't do a lot, but by simply being there she gives our nations pride. Surely you can understand that? If you just acknowledge that, you will become more respected on the talk page and people will be more inclined to listen to you. Sorry to say this mate, but right now, you piss people off. Respectfully,--Gazzster 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A constitution is a burden, and I am very happy that the UK does not have one. But leaving that aside, you accuse me of lack of sight, but it is you who clearly do not understand the role of the monarchy in the UK. It is not a constitutional embodiment, but a living thing, a thing that interacts with the people. You talk about law, but law does not define realty. But even the law recognises the difference, otherwise there would be no need for GGs. You say she doesn't do a lot, but she does - in the UK. She does things all the time. And a final question - why do you take pride in retaining as your head of state the monarch of your former colonial power? TharkunColl 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a)'A constitution is a burden, and I am very happy that the UK does not have one.' A constitution is not a burden. That is a POV statement. It is a definition of how a nation is to be governed. On the contrary, it prevents abuse of power and protects the liberties of the people. The United Kingdom relies on tradition, but consider how much blood was spilt to write an unwritten constitution, a fact which you have acknowledged. Why should we have to go through that? The constitutions of realms are, in any event, mostly a codification of traditional English law and practice. And in any case, your government rests on documents, which, though not called constitutions, act as such. I refer to the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement (1701) and others.

Yes, it's a POV statement - this is a talk page, and POV statements are fine. An entrenched constitution - one that cannot be altered or repealed by a normal act of parliament - is most definitely a burden. The lack of one has given the UK the flexibility to evolve whenever it needed to. Look at our ex-colonies - the USA has a bicameral parliament with a strong, completely separate executive - just like Britain did in 1776. Australia has a bicameral parliament with the executive chosen from it - just like Britain in 1901. But Britain now has a bicameral parliament where the upper house is very weak, and on the verge of abolition/total reform. In other words, we have evolved still further, but a written constitution prevents one from doing so. TharkunColl 11:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(b)'But leaving that aside, you accuse me of lack of sight, but it is you who clearly do not understand the role of the monarchy in the UK.' On the contrary, I have never misrepresented the role of the monarchy in the UK. Please quote to me where I have.'

(c)'It is not a constitutional embodiment, but a living thing, a thing that interacts with the people.' No argument. You are right, with a small qualification, if you refer to the last point of reply (a). I have never argued that the contrary.

(d) 'You talk about law, but law does not define realty'. Strange point. PLease explain it. And I'm not sure what it is meant to prove,. Are you saying law does not necessarily have any relation to reality? It does in my country.

Law is only one aspect of reality, to which it doesn't always conform. According to law, the monarch has a vast amount of power. Yet we all know that she doesn't. If we were writing the article according to the letter of the law, we should state that the monarch is very powerful. But we don't, because we know the difference between law and practical reality. So why can't we apply the same eminently sensible logic to describing her roles as monarch, and single out the one monarchy where she really does have a practical role? TharkunColl 11:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e) 'But even the law recognises the difference, otherwise there would be no need for GGs.' The law in Australia does not say that the Crown of Australia is not a true or equal Crown, with or without a GG. PLease show me where it does if I am mistaken.

That's not what I said. The mere existence of the GG proves that her role is different, that is, much smaller. TharkunColl 11:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(f) You say she doesn't do a lot, but she does

- in the UK. She does things all the time.'

I have never said she doesn't. As I have said, I have always conceded that. But I was arguing from Australia's viewpoint, not the UK's.

And again, that's the crucial difference. TharkunColl 11:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(g) 'And a final question - why do you take pride in retaining as your head of state the monarch of your former colonial power?' TharkunColl 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Let me ask you a final question, why should I not? But I will assume there is genuine curiosity behind the question. Because HM, even as a figurehead, guarantees our constitutions and prevents the abuse of power. She prevents anyone assuming presidential-style powers and subverting the constitution. And for many people, she is a cultural link with the UK.

There? You see. I answered calmly, without bias, using measured and reasonable arguments. I think we might be getting somewhere.--Gazzster 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) ':Yes, it's a POV statement - this is a talk page, and POV statements are fine. An entrenched constitution - one that cannot be altered or repealed by a normal act of parliament - is most definitely a burden. The lack of one has given the UK the flexibility to evolve whenever it needed to. Look at our ex-colonies - the USA has a bicameral parliament with a strong, completely separate executive - just like Britain did in 1776. Australia has a bicameral parliament with the executive chosen from it - just like Britain in 1901. But Britain now has a bicameral parliament where the upper house is very weak, and on the verge of abolition/total reform. In other words, we have evolved still further, but a written constitution prevents one from doing so. '

Right. Qualification first. The executive of Australia is not chosen from the Parliament. He or she (no she yet, unfortunately) is chosen by the PM, and the candidate is someone who is not presently a member of Parliament. Usually a judge or a military officer. Now, I would not deny the strengths of the UK traditions of government. And I know what you're saying. I have often commented on the inertia of the US Constitution- right to bear arms an all that. But remember, you have the luxury of centuries of tradition- we do not. And in any case, the Aussie Constitution has the mechanism to amend itself, and has done so many times in 106 years. And consider the advantages of a constitution: we don't have to go through civil wars to change them and chop off Charles I's head at regular intervals.

By executive I was referring to the Australian PM, who is a member of parliament. The executive in Britain in 1776 was the king (helped by his PM), but by 1901 it was the PM himself. It's true that we have centuries of tradition, but that tradition can be - and has been - drawn upon by the ex-colonies as well. Charles I's head, by the way, was only chopped off once! TharkunColl 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In Australia the executive, as defined by the Constitution, is the Queen, Parliament and the Governor-General, who acts for the Queen. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and actually is not even mentioned in the Constitution. A technical point perhaps, but important, since the Prime Minister does not call Parliament, appoint ministers or call elections. He or she (again, not yet, unfortunately) advises the GG on these matters, which, as you have said, is a legal euphemism. An important one nevertheless, to maintain the separation of powers. Your second point- yes, I had already remarked on this. Your nation has already the done the work for us, so to speak. So that is why our nation's fathers could come up with a Constitution that has served us well for 106 years. They drew upon their cultural heritage: Westminster, Magna Carta, a monarch who reigns but does not rule. It is true they also drew from the US Constitution, eg., in having a federation of states with their own executives and legislatures. Of course I know Charles I had only one head! My point was that we do not have to perform period acts of violence to ensure our freedoms. The Constitution was established without a drop of blood being shed, and we have the traditions of the British Isles to thank for that.--Gazzster 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) :'Law is only one aspect of reality, to which it doesn't always conform. According to law, the monarch has a vast amount of power. Yet we all know that she doesn't. If we were writing the article according to the letter of the law, we should state that the monarch is very powerful. But we don't, because we know the difference between law and practical reality. So why can't we apply the same eminently sensible logic to describing her roles as monarch, and single out the one monarchy where she really does have a practical role? '

Righto. In a constition, law does always conform to reality. That's the point of having a constitution.Should we write articles according to the letter of the law? No, I agree, not when reality contradicts law. But the law in Australia does not contradict reality. According to the Australian Constitution, the Queen of Australia is Head of the Commonwealth (of Australia). No bill passed by the Aus. Parliament becomes law without her consent, usually, but not always in the person of the GG. She has the power to veto any bill of the federal Parliament within one year of it being passed. That is the law. That is the reality. No conflict.

This is absolutely my point. The Australian constitution gives the Queen the right to veto an act of parliament (and I'm talking about the Queen in person here, not the GG). Do you ever think, in a million years, that she would? The constitution, therefore, does not describe the situation as it actually is. TharkunColl 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there have been instances where the sovereign has vetoed an act of the federal Parliament. I would have to do some research. In any case, it was before Australia was a sovereign state. But I can certainly think of instances where I would hope the Queen would veto a bill: in the unlikely event that the Parliament, against the wishes of the governing party (in the event that the government found itself in the minority), passed a bill that was unconstitutional, illegal or criminal, and the GG signed off on it. In that case, I would hope the PM would advise the Queen the annul the GG's act. I'm not sure why you're making this point. What has it to do with our discussion? In any case, the last sovereign in the British Isles to refuse the royal assent was Queen Anne. Do you think it is ever likely that the Queen would refuse the royal assent again? You have there a situation where,according to your understanding, the (unwritten) Constitution 'does not describe the situation as it actually is'.Why not take that power away then, and make acts legally binding as soon as they are passed by Westminster? I ask the question rhetorically. I know it would be a disaster, as do you. It would give unlimited, unchecked power to Parliament, and in effect, to one person, the leader of the party who held the majority in the House of Commons. Similarly, it would be a disaster for Australia. Simply because a power is rarely or never used, does not mean it is an unecessary or superfluous power. Why has the sovereign rarely (if ever) annulled an act of the Australian Parliament? Because the executive and legislative power understands that any bill that could be easily judged unconstitutional or illegal would be quashed by the sovereign. There is an instance in which George V intervened in the politics of the constituent state of Western Australia. The electorate of that state voted for secession from the rest of Australia in the 1930s. But as the singular states are under the individual sovereignty of the Crown, the King annulled the decision and there was no secession. King George, or more probably his advisors, believed that secession would harm the Commonwealth. Might our Constitution change? Personally, I hope so. But I love the Constiution more than I do the Queen. So I do not want it replaced until we have safeguards that fulfill HM's present role. That said, many fellow Aussies disagree- they are emotionally and culturally attached to the House of Windsor, and want no change whatsoever.--Gazzster 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) 'That's not what I said. The mere existence of the GG proves that her role is different, that is, much smaller.'

The problem you have here is to define 'smaller', and in a neutral way which can be accepted by others as a basis for editing. As it stands, it is open to interpretation. If by smaller, you mean that the GG does not fulfiil the public role of the monarch in the UK, you are just plain wrong. He opens Parliament, reads his red boxes, attends charities, etc. If you mean the Queen herself does not perform these functions in Aus, you are evidently correct. The point is, does that make her an inferior monarch in Australia? That is where you wander into the realms of assumption, and where other editors challenge you. You need to define as clearly as possible your concept of 'monarchy.'

I'm obviously talking about the Queen, not the GG. Inferior? I never used that word. She just isn't there. TharkunColl 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that you are arguing that the monarchy in the UK holds a pre-eminent place amongst the crowns held by Elizabeth II. If that is so, the other monarchies are, in contradistinction, inferior. If I misunderstand you, please correct me. If you are saying that, you need to define what you mean by 'monarchy'. What makes a monarchy according to your understanding, and what about the UK monarchy makes it superior to the others?--Gazzster 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) 'And again, that's the crucial difference'.

Do you mean that I am arguing from Australia's viewpoint and you are arguing from the UK's viewpoint? Why then, should the UK's viewpoint prevail? Surely an Australian viewpoint cannot speak for the status of the monarchy in the UK, and the UK's viewpoint cannot speak for the monarchy in Australia. Why then, are we having this exchange? --Gazzster 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the crucial difference between the role of the Queen in the UK, and her role in Australia. TharkunColl 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a difference. What is your point?--Gazzster 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum[edit]

I have removed the discussion you started on Talk:British Isles as it was not related to improving the article, but a general discussion. Please note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and using talk pages for general discussions is a breach of the talk page guidelines. Thanks. Waggers 09:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Muhammad for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quran[edit]

Quran never ever said to kill non-Muslim who are peaceful towards Islam. I really wish to act on each and everything mention in Quran and so many more Muslims. It tell to kill them who go against Muslim like in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Infact it go strongly against killing innocients many times. for example "God forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them, for God loves those who are just." [60:8] It is pity and shame that racist non-Muslim use following verse to misguide people like you. They quote that see Quran says "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191)" and put in your mind that Quran is telling to kill all innocient non-Muslim who are even peaceful. Those freaky racist even do not mention verse comes just before it and hide the context. The verse come before it says "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors" (that means only to fight those who fight you). Now show me pleeesee one verse where Quran say to kill non-Muslims who are peacefull and not fighting against Islam? Stop going to faith-freadom and company that are spreading hate by showing half picture only. --- A. L. M. 10:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your own words you have condemmed yourself. TharkunColl 10:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean condemned? I am not a racist. I hate racist. I will never stop myself to do good with someone because of his religion. I will never harm anyone because of his religion. -- A. L. M. 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that not all Muslims share your views. TharkunColl 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad[edit]

TharkunColl, a great number of posts to Talk:Muhammad as of late have been unhelpful. Generally, you've not instigated these threads, but often you've responded to the off-topic comments of others. However, your responses tend to inflame the situation, if only (at least) by continuing the disussion. As you see, I've been removing these in order to restore the functionality of the talk page as the place to discuss improvements to the article. You can cooperate with this, if you like, by not responding to ridiculous posts, such as the one in which someone said that Muslims had never (!) harmed anyone, to which you linked to 9/11. These kinds of exchanges upset everyone while contributing nothing. Let off-topic comments pass without commentary, or better still, remove them. What do you think?Proabivouac 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that one was not supposed to delete items from a talk page. Those who threaten violence condemn themselves by their own words, and it is unreasonable to ask that no one respond. TharkunColl 08:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA about whether and how to respond to threats of violence. --Coppertwig 14:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam: "Circumcision" vs. "non-voluntary childhood genital mutilation"[edit]

I believe that it is more appropriate to use the term "circumcision" rather than "non-voluntary childhood genital mutilation" on Islam. Wikipedia has a goal of being a neutral encyclopedia, and thus all editors are required to abide by the neutral point of view policy. "Non-voluntary childhood genital mutilation" is clearly a term which is biased against the practice of circumcision, and thus it violates this policy. "Circumcision" is a neutral term which neither supports nor opposes the practice. Even if you don't agree with circumcision, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy and we should stick to it at all times. Andrew_pmk | Talk 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia policy[edit]

Re this message you posted: [12] Please review WP:NPA e.g. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Coppertwig 12:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Page[edit]

Since you seem to be interested in Muhammad, perhaps you would consider expanding the page on Islam somewhat. There is surprisingly very little mentioned of terrorism, forced conversions, and honor killings. I intend to add some relevant information once I have located proper citations, but if you are already familiar with appropriate sources, perhaps you might want to make some constructive improvements to the article. Talmage 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your contributions considering some important Frisia-related artices. There is currently a Frisia-related project requested at a proposals page. Interested? You might also be able to help me with the B-class article Pier Gerlofs Donia. It was a former GA-class candidate. It is about a legendary frisian freedom fighter andfolk hero. Able to help me here, to improve the lenght and overall quality (so it will be fit for GA-class)? -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 06:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Queen[edit]

Well, that seems to be your interpretation of my words. Everyone knows why she lives there, and it would be slightly absurd for her to live anywhere else, given her family's history. Nevertheless, this doesn't make the UK her "primary realm". She does have a greater role to play there, admittedly, than anywhere else, but in Westminster Charter terms the UK per has no superiority over any of her other realms, not even over the most insignificant Caribbean backwater. There is a distinction to be made between the absolutely equivalent constitutional position of each of her 16 realms, and the differing cultural/historical status of each of the countries that they comprise. -- JackofOz 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New edits[edit]

I wonder what you think about them. 68.110.8.21 01:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Edward the Confessor and the House of Wessex for inviting the Normans and Bretons to England, as an alternative to the barbarous Danish faction. Do you know that the ("evil") French King was invited by the Magna Carta Barons to depose King John in much the same manner as ("good") William of Orange's Whigs who engineered the Bill of Rights? 68.110.8.21 08:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won my admiration, Englishman[edit]

Thanks for your last English people edit. In all honesty, I did not infer that English people were intimate relations with Spaniards, Portuguese or Italians anymore than with Belgians, Dutch or Germans. Nobody would understand that, but English being related to the French is another matter entirely. Whereas the Greeks and Romans established ancient and Mediaeval Europe, the French and English together have molded modern times and the future yet to come.

I have nothing left to say about an imbalanced POV. I wish you well in every editorial battle you have about the Monarchy in Canada, the British Isles and Falkland Islands. Furthermore, I never had a rotten opinion of post-Pendragon Loegria/pre-Norman England. I think fair treatment for all periods should be the rule, including the Hanoverians. Did you know that they were Papal in the Church/State wars of the Holy Roman Empire? That is English IMHO; a personal history every Fidei Defensor would desire. 68.110.8.21 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English people[edit]

With regard to this in your edit summary - "Those people are closely related, whether you like it or not", you appear unfourtunately to have either not read my comments in the talk page, or my reasoning has not come across to you as I had intended it, having read it. If you check, I quite clearly and quite obviously do NOT say (nor imply - nor do I even remotley believe) that the various peoples are not related. They are all quite clearly related, and I would never either say they weren't nor would I dispute it, and nor do I "dislike it" as you seem to think. "Whether you like it or not" is uncalled for aggression, especially given that is not my belief and that I tried to explain my edit had nothing whatsoever to do with them not being closely related in the talk page. I said that the reason for removing them was because the standard certainly on the articles on Scottish, Irish and Welsh people seems to be that the "See also" section only contains wiki links to articles specific to each people in that article - and not because "I don't like it". See - Scottish people#See also, Irish people#See also and Welsh people#See also - and on none of those articles is there a link to any of the other related peoples - none of them link to the English people article, nor to each other. Yet you comment that "Those people are closely related, whether you like it or not" for an edit where I explained my reasons, where that was not my reason for the edit at all, and where I said that "I realise that articles on wikipedia should not be edited simply on the basis of doing so because it is done elsewhere" and that, "No doubt some will disagree, but no matter what my own personal view, I also believe that keeping the links to English related articles only in See also, is as neutral as we can get it. I realise that some will disagree with either some or all of the edit I have just done" yet you seem to have taken offence. For which I apologise, but I did try to explain my reasons. If however it is so important for the links to appear on the English people article then the same links should appear on the Irish, Scottish and Welsh people articles, for the same reasons as in your edit summary, "Those people are closely related". Unlike your edit sumary comment, I won't be criticising you for adding those links back in in either an edit summary or here, nor will I be reverting it back again. I did though put the section into alpahebtical order, which regardless of putting the removed articles back in, could at least have been retained. There was no reason whatsoever to change that, it could easily have been changed and the links I removed put back in whilst retaining the alphapetical order. However, given your comment that all those people are closely related then I would suggest that the same should also apply to all of the articles that have been added. Thanks for reading and as always have fun on wikipedia. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Face of Boe & Jack Harkness[edit]

Hi, I reverted your edits to the aforementioned articles for the following reasons:

Face of Boe - it is not confirmed in the episode, nor by Russell T Davis, that Jack IS the Face of Boe - it is a theory. In any way, infoboxes should be kept simple, and the Face DOES have his own species - Boekind. In the same way that we are homo sapiens, even though our ancestors were homo erectus, we would not say that Tom Cruise was "originally homo erectus".

Jack Harkness - The introduction to an article should be kept simple. There is no need to mention his childhood nickname in this section - it will only confuse casual readers to put it there; and it's not "vital" information about the character.

Thanks. mattbuck 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to suppress this information - it is mentioned later in the article, as it should be. But that he was once known as the Face of Boe is not really relevant in the brief summary that the lead section should be. It is not a major character detail in that it is utterly irrelevant to 99.9% of the stories he's been in. It doesn't matter that he's Boe in any Torchwood episode, or in any of the DW episodes - it's an amusing aside mentioned in passing in the final minutes of the story. mattbuck 11:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad[edit]

Trolling is not acceptable behaviour. If you restore trolling posts again, you'll find yourself unable to do so in the future. Cheers, Wily D 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a trolling post - it was a reasonable point. Are you trying to gag me? TharkunColl 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for repeatedly restoring trolling posts to Talk:Muhammad, after receiving specific warning about it this time, and after being warned about trolling that page in the past (and having been blocked for trolling that page in the past). If you want another admin to review the block, you can put {{unblock|the reason you feel you should be unblocked}} on this page to have the block reviewed. Once your block expires, you'll be free to edit Talk:Muhammad again, but further trolling will result in increasingly longer blocks, and not necessarily the generous amount of warnings you've gotten in the past. We're trying to write a good encyclopaedic article about Muhammad there, not badmouth Muslims. Cheers, Wily D 23:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The point that you didn't have time to read the specific warning before you reverted the second time is reasonable, and I've decided to reduce your block to "time served" given this. Realise that this does not mean your actions were appropriate - they weren't. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, you can try to change them - but you can't flout them against consensus without repercussions. TharkunColl, you've already been warned in the past about inappropriate behaviour at Talk:Muhammad, and you shouldn't expect this kind of leinency in the future. Cheers, Wily D 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Wily D 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still, however, appear to be blocked... TharkunColl 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log shows you as having been unblocked - see [13]. It's possible there's an autoblock in play - it'll take me a little while to sort that out, if it's the case. Cheers, Wily D 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like your IP address remained blocked while your username was unblocked. Sorry about that - I've never had occasion to unblock anyone before. It should be free now. Cheers, Wily D 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. TharkunColl 14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of talk[edit]

Seriously mate, calm down. Freedom of speech is worth fighting for, I agree, but saying things in anger does more harm than good to the free speech cause. Freedom of speech carries responsibility. mattbuck 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot betray what I hold sacred, namely freedom of expression. If that means a banning from Wikipedia, then so be it. Sorry about the Dr Who argument by the way - seems so trivial now. TharkunColl 00:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. mattbuck 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even receive his first warning until after I'd reverted the second time (he must have placed it while I was still editing) - and I don't think the term "repeatedly" is appropriate for just two reversions. Furthermore, what I reverted was not trolling, but a valid point that someone had made, which was being arbitrarily deleted. Oh well. TharkunColl 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British monarchy and 3RR[edit]

Please try to calm down and work civilly together towards a consensus. I have protected the page to avoid more edit warring. Please use this time to work out your differences on the talk page. If you can come to an agreement before the protection time is up, please contact me or request for unprotection. Thanks for your consideration, and please do not edit war in the future.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TharkunColl. I think it would help toward settling this if the consensus were made altogether plain. I'm sure we've got a consensus, but it is now spread over a long discussion and so less obvious than would be ideal. With that in mind, I've made a concrete proposal on the talk-page, as a subsection of the long argument. Assuming you agree with the proposal, please say so just below it. If you and other parties to the consensus do that, it will make the consensus -- and I'm quite sure there is consensus -- really obvious, whereas it is now smeared out through the long discussion. If you think the proposal needs refinement, that's okay by me, but please keep your (I assume) essential agreement foremost and crystal clear. -- Lonewolf BC 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. One more time on this: I've started a survey so as make separate out the relative levels of support and opposition unequivocally clear by separating them out from the mass of arguing. I hope you won't mind voicing your "Support" once more, perhaps with a very brief rationale -- though you could just say something like "according to my earlier comments." Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"[edit]

Take care in using "vandalism" to describe editorial disputes. Extreme and persistent violations of the neutral point-of-view may be considered vandalism, but it takes a lot. Editing against consensus is wrong, of course, but it generally should not be called vandalism, which rightly means making edits whose purpose to harm Wikipedia. Even an obvious point-of-view pusher is not exactly a vandal -- well, hardly ever. Just a friendly tip. Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 00:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester generally reported as UK's Third City[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia but given your interest and viewpoint on the validity of these sources [14] I would appreciate any help or support you might be able offer on helping to ensure the neutrality of the Manchester article as currently being discussed on the Manchester talk page under the heading "Revert of "constant vandalism"" [15]

Cheers195.212.52.6 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Second city of the United Kingdom, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. XAndreWx 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Second city of the United Kingdom. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. XAndreWx 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Manchester, you will be blocked from editing. XAndreWx 17:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: British Monarch[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 00:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I have opened a Mediation Cabal request; User:GrooveDog has since asked if he is acceptable as a mediator. You may want to voice your approval or disapproval there. --G2bambino 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British monarchy. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crying "Vandalism!"[edit]

Despite attempts to request that you not automatically revert the addition of cited material and good faith edits, and given your abrasive, non-cooperative responses, at British monarchy and elsewhere, I have reported you for vandalism. Please govern yourself accordingly. --G2bambino 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No browbeating there. ;-)
I don't imagine you were nibbling your nails about it but (just in case you don't already know) the "report" lasted all of seven minutes before it was duly punted off the page. This just goes to show what I advised you before: "vandalism" does not rightly apply to content disputes. So don't make the same mistake as Gbambino (any more). It only makes you look bad -- meaning no offence. -- Lonewolf BC 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

Greetings and salutations. You have violated WP:3RR on British monarchy. This edit warring has become very disruptive to the article. Please stop. Thank you. --Son 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on [[:on [[:{{{1}}}]]]]. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. _→AzaToth 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Monarchy[edit]

Tharkuncoll, please do not edit the article on such an important point without discussing it. You seem to think that a discussion, which has not finished, on the British Monarchy page justifies you editing other articles. And you haven't made a parallel edit to the dablink on British Monarchy. Possibly because you know your edit would be disputed. I reverted your edit.--Gazzster 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second City[edit]

I have responded to your comment at Second city of the United Kingdom. Regards, Mr Stephen 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP[edit]

Actually, the edit history of the anon IP greatly resembled your own, thus it strongly appeared that you and the anon could be one and the same person. I shouldn't have jumped so quickly to the conclusion, however, as this edit would make it appear you were talking to yourself, which I doubt you do. I apologise for the misidentification. --G2bambino 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some vandalism etc[edit]

Hi Tharkie, I was bored and removed some of the vandalism, (some of which seemed to have been added near the top) swearing directed at you personally etc. from your talk page. Still working on it- back later. But if you prefer to have it here for a laugh- please feel free to revert:)Merkinsmum 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All doneMerkinsmum 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks! TharkunColl 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on English people[edit]

It hasn't been broken yet by either one of us. Be that as it may, you ought to step back anyways. I charged a POV problem on this article and almost the whole talk page is filled with disputes over the presentation of the English. Your predilection for myopic revisionism and using the Whigs as the mainstream from which to draw perceptions of who the English are, is obviously not NPOV. Please, be reasonable. The English people are more than tribal factions. 68.110.8.21 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to your edit. Try and stay clear of 3RR. GoodDay 19:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At it again? You can't rewrite English people by excoriating segments of the population and try to wipe them out with your words, which is all a blend anyways and not different as they were before the status quo of almost a millenium in the making. You attempt to harm all English people who are not of one tribe, which is impossible to isolate because of the great big English family. You the Anglo-Saxonist, rather than the inclusivist, would know everything about the conglomeration of tribes to have constituted the English people. You go out of your way to exclude tribes which have provided the blend of English people we have today, not before 1066. Why hate some ancestors and love others, unless they were murderers and paedophiles? Designating certain tribes as wholly evil and other ones as innocents of all sin, is horrible revisionism and not mainstream or fair. Neutrality, not partiality, is Wikipedia convention. Stop revert warring every article you come across! 68.110.8.21 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop this horrendous POV edit warring. You do it with everybody. I think that speaks for your legitimacy. Let others edit too. It isn't your website. Lord Loxley 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Manchester[edit]

I note that you reverted my inclusion of a city population figure for Manchester. I have now readded my edit onto the page and included instructions for you on the talk page so that you can see it for yourself. EarlyBird 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Second city of the United Kingdom - Request for Rational Debate[edit]

As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Olde Talke Page[edit]

Hi Tharkie I was just wondering if you had thought of archiving some of your old talk page discussions. You could hide the evidence of any previous flaming etc! lol just joking, but past debates no longer so relevant you could archive so people could easily find them, plus it would be easier for others (and arguably thyself) to use the page. If you start editing this page, at the top it recomends archiving. If you like the idea, here are some ideas about how to do it- Help:Archiving_a_talk_page Merkinsmum 11:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I should. I've never quite got round to it though! TharkunColl 11:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppetry[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TharkunColl, and leave any comments you may have on this matter there. Thank you, Giggy _U^CP 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tharks, I chipped in and commented upon this. Hope you don't mind.:)Merkinsmum 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - this accusation did indeed come as a bit of a surprise! TharkunColl 07:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm your 'Sock' old bean - I don't like the thought of it one bit - I've replied to Giggy on the suspected sock page, and posted the reply on his page and my own - just to keep things nice and fair. Any comments welcomed. Sprigot 10:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Commonwealth Realm[edit]

I've removed my comment for reasons given in the relevant edit summary; I did this, I thought, before you had replied. You may wish to do the same. --G2bambino 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a policy of not removing my comments. Warts and all. TharkunColl 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is up to you, then. Do not presume to control mine, however; I do that. I should not have inserted the comment in the first place, and removed it to rectify my error and to avoid undue conflict. If you persist in attempting to reinsert my own words, against my wishes, you can only be seen as promoting and fuelling mêlées. --G2bambino 15:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Did you not read what I wrote above? I do not like removing my own comments. TharkunColl 15:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then; I won't give you the battle you desire. Let's therefore leave the comment on the talk page so everyone can read that I think you're a troll; from my reading of your talk page, and those of other articles, there are a good number of people who'd agree. Perhaps your desire to keep the label public demonstrates a certain pride in your aggrivating, confrontational nature. --G2bambino 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it actually demonstrates is my distaste for censorship. TharkunColl 16:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is your penchant for disruption, not censorship. --G2bambino 16:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I tried to point out in my reply to your comment, it is only "disruption" if you happen to disagree with it. Otherwise it is constructive editing. TharkunColl 16:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. I removed my words from Talk:Commonwealth Realm to avoid causing undue conflict. You, had two choices: 1) respect my retraction and remove your no longer pertinent response, or 2) disrespect my retraction and reinsert my comment to not only try to fuel a fight on the talk page, but also a fight over keeping my words on the talk page. One route leads to greater productivity, the other leads to greater disruption. You well know which you chose. --G2bambino 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Realm, when? I found your question at talk: Commonwealth Realm interesting (even though I couldn't answer it). I'd suggest you request a 'page move' if you disagree with the article name OR hold an Afd, if you prefer the article deleted. Again, whatever you want. GoodDay 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I also can be persistant when trying to convince people of things. However, it ususally comes to nothing (leaving oneself frustrated). See my diacritics arguments at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey, I had to give that one up. GoodDay 21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tharky, ya gotta stop coming up with those intriguing 'points'; they're making me look bad. ~~Anyway~~ Swaziland and the other 'Commonwealth monarchies' are a 'murky' area for me. GoodDay 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second city of the UK up for deletion[edit]

Have you an opinion and fancy chipping in? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom Merkinsmum 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration[edit]

You have been named in a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Commonwealth_realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote![edit]

Hi,

Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, your vote would be appreciated on this proposal. Thanks. -- Hux 09:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TharkunColl,

Would you consider changing your vote at Talk:Commonwealth_Realm#Support in light of the new evidence presented?

Thank you for your consideration. Jonathan David Makepeace 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

For the sake of not wasting any more of your effort, I suggest you quit with the silly 3RR warnings. There's no breach of 3RR at Passport, and you know it. Further, don't dare to command me on what I can and cannot do at my Talk page.

It's you who's been asked twice to discuss your contested edits at Talk:Passport, and it's you who continues to do so. I wonder who ends up looking worse in this situation. --G2bambino 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said: "you who continues not to do so." --G2bambino 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:G2bambino[edit]

Please do not keep readding the warning to G2bambino's talk page, by removing it, he accepts that he has seen it, he is completely within his right to remove that warning. Please also note that you are youself open to be blocked for a 3RR violation if you continue to revert G2bambino on his own talk page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR doesn't apply on talk pages. And as for removing the warning, that is undoubtedly against Wikipedia policy. TharkunColl 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR doesn't apply on your own talk page, but you reverting on someone elses talk page is a violation of 3RR. Removing warnings isn't against policy, trust me. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he has acknowledged the warning, what does he intend to do about it? TharkunColl 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he reverts the page you warned him for again, he can be reported to WP:AN/3RR - a removal of a warning simply means that the user must have read it so understand the consequences of a further revert on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to do absolutely nothing, there isn't a shred of evidence that I've reverted more than twice in 24hrs, and even those two were to roll-back edits made without substantiating explanation and a complete lack of discussion at Talk:Passport. In fact, the only action I've taken is to request the page be protected to cease the edit war you reinvigorated.

One more posting of your 3RR warning on my Talk page and reporting you for WP:HAR is the action I would have taken. --G2bambino 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that "there isn't a shred of evidence" that you have reverted more than twice - well, apart from the edit history, where your name appears quite a few times today. TharkunColl 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought 'only' Administrators, could issue such warnings? GoodDay 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't fan the flames of personalism[edit]

Hi Thark. Please re-consider your posting of this material. I agree that the remarks it concerns are objectionable, but publicising them thus shan't help sort out the editorial disagreements. It shall only inflame matters and otherwise cause distraction. Please self-revert your posting of that stuff, before it causes more useless fighting. -- Lonewolf BC 00:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm[edit]

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passport[edit]

You had eight days to offer comments on my proposed composition for the section in Passport that deals with Elizabeth II and previous monarchs. You offered none. Therefore, if you now have concerns, I suggest you raise them at Talk rather than simply reverting without reason. --G2bambino 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in replying to the same old POV over and over again? TharkunColl 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would do us all a world of good if you considered that it may be you who's adamantly stuck on one POV. One would think the general unacceptance of your arguments would be a good hint that they might not be right. --G2bambino 22:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought it was you who always championed the idea that correctness beats consensus. Oh well, I suppose only when you don't like that consensus, eh? TharkunColl 22:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have to prove yourself correct; nobody's going to just take your word for it. --G2bambino 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is - a 'locked' article hurts everyone (all editors). Please, bring you objections to the discussion. GoodDay 22:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only done 2 reverts (with no intentions of a 3rd) - If you want the page 'locked', so be it. GoodDay 22:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thark doesn't care about process, evidence, or working with others. We'll again go through page locks, reverts, and weeks of debate, just like at Monarchy in Canada, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth Realm, British monarchy, etc., only to arrive at the same conclusion: Thark is a POV pushing tr... ah, well, I promised I wouldn't say it. --G2bambino 22:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are the POV pusher. TharkunColl 22:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "I know you are but what am I" move. Brilliant. --G2bambino 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion of words[edit]

User:GoodDay's talk page is not the place to have this discussion, so I'm moving it here.

Nobody has ever argued the statement "the British monarch is also monarch of 15 other countries" is incorrect (though it is confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject). It is equally correct to say "the Canadian Monarch is also monarch of 15 other countries." However, both sentences are infused with a POV about which country is superior to another. POV is a huge no-no at Wikipedia, so elevating the UK above all of EIIR's other countries in the wrong context is unacceptable. The sooner you come to accept this the sooner we can edit this encyclopaedia in a more productive manner. --G2bambino 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that she is monarch of those 15 other countries because she is the British monarch, so it is not POV to single it out. It would be POV to do otherwise, and it is your refusal to accept this that is causing all the problems. TharkunColl 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see? There you go again. She is monarch of those other countries because those other countries made her so upon their independence; they weren't forced by the UK to do so. There's a lineage there, yes, but that does not put the UK above any of the others. Again, this is just your POV. --G2bambino 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where did I say they were forced to? The fact that half of them have already left the arrangement proves there was no force involved. You seem incapable of understanding that this is really about your POV, and your insistence on ludicrous circumlocutions of the English language. TharkunColl 07:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is pretty silly. The Queen is the British monarch first and foremost, and the monarch of any other country only by virtue of this status.Proabivouac 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many assertions so little concrete evidence to back them up.

You seem convinced that whatever decision is made in the UK regarding their monarch will automatically have effect in every other country that shares the that same person as their monarch; what else could "she is monarch of those 15 other countries because she is the British monarch" mean? This is the clear indication that, right off the bat, you give the UK undue weight in the relationship between the countries, and it shows either a willful ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of the established provisions of equality and independence amongst the Realms.

Attempting to explain a given situation with the latter two facts in mind is not linguistic acrobatics done in bad faith, it is an attempt to make a unique and somewhat complex situation understandable to those who have no idea about it. Shit, I thought that was the whole purpose of an encyclopaedia! --G2bambino 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the very example you choose proves my point. The British decided how their monarchs should be chosen by the Act of Settlement of 1701, and this has been adopted lock, stock and barrel by all the other realms - despite its blatant and quite unashamed anti-Catholic bias. Even the Canadian courts have recognised that it can't be changed without recourse to the English courts. The only practical change the other realms can make is to abolish the monarchy altogether, as 16 have already done. TharkunColl 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is irrelevant, your second incorrect.

None of this disestablishes the provisions of equality and independence amongst the Realms. --G2bambino 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said, or implied, that the realms are neither equal nor independent. But it is equally true, as a former PM of yours stated, that the Canadan monarch (for example) is Canadian monarch by virtue of the fact that she is the British monarch. And how is the Act of Settlement irrelevent? It was an act decided by the British, and later adopted wholesale by the Dominions. They can reject it entirely and abolish the monarchy, but they cannot alter its provisions. Those were decided by the British long, long ago. TharkunColl 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you've implied the non-UK countries are neither equal nor independent. Putting them after the UK in every situation: not equal. Asserting Elizabeth is queen of them because she's Queen of the UK: not independent.

Instead of pulling singular quotations completely out of context and trying to distract with straw man arguments, perhaps you should concentrate on all the evidence as a whole. What a PM said in 1953, and the Act of Settlement being imported to other countries are part of the history, but neither undermines the multitude of other facts presently surrounding this issue. --G2bambino 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who seem to think my words imply a lack of independence for the non-UK realms, but in fact that is an aspect of your POV. Your continual claiming that this is what I'm saying is a true "straw man" argument, rather than your own apparent misunderstanding of the term when you apply it to arguments of mine, simply to belittle them and avoid having to provide an answer. A straw man argument is when you misrepresent your oponent's position, in order to make it easy to undermine. Anyway, here's a couple of questions for you:

Who devised the Act of Settlement?
Do the realms have the ability to change its provisions?

TharkunColl 15:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now, at least, you admit you don't recognize the established equality amongst the Realms. But regarding the independence issues you continue with straw man arguments.

But, okay then, I'll entertain you.

The Act of Settlement originated in England. Since that time it has either been imported as a part of a non-UK Realm's constitutional law, or other non-UK Realms have made a provision in their constitution that states the selection of their monarch is deferred the UK. These routes were chosen precisely because the Statute of Westminster said that no act of the British Parliament would any longer extend to any country outside the United Kingdom itself, and conversely any non-UK Realm could pass a law that countered any British law; clauses further entrenched with the patriation of each country's constitution. That means the UK does not decide who will be monarch of anywhere except the UK, unless another country has explicitly chosen to allow the British Parliament to do so.

This is why changes to the Act of Settlement are somewhat irrelevant; any country that has the Act as a part of its constitution may freely alter its provisions, however, there was an agreement made in 1931 that no country would do so without seeking consent from and a parallel in the other Realms. The UK is as bound by this agreement as any other country which has the SoW as a part of its constitution. --G2bambino 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you do admit that no realm can change the Act? And the Act itself is British? Yet you appear to believe that a realm still has the power to unilaterally alter the Act, simply by repudiating the agreement. Well, to quote someone else from another page, the Pope might excommunicate himself. What is possible in theory is not possible in practice. If it were, it would be possible for the British parliament to repeal the Statute of Westminster and take control of the Dominions again, because under English law it is impossible for a parliament to bind its successor, and any Act can be repealed. TharkunColl 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me highlight it for you: any country that has the Act as a part of its constitution may freely alter its provisions. This is because the countries are independent; the agreement to seek each other's consent before altering the line of succession is conventional, not required by statute. In other words, every nation is completely independent of the others; your hypothetical is possible neither in theory nor in practice. --G2bambino 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Canada (for example) can alter the Canadian succession, example: replace Prince Charles with Prince William as the Canadian monarchs heir-apparent. Then, when EIIR dies, William would become King of Canada while Charles would become King of the 15 other Commonwealth realms. Is my theory correct? GoodDay 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes; that's correct. --G2bambino 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, concerning the 'current' Canadian monarch - could Canada re-name her Elizabeth I of Canada? GoodDay 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Canadian cabinet so advised the Queen to do, yes. --G2bambino 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And it is also theoretically possible that the Queen could exercise her right to refuse to sign any act of parliament. You seem incapable of understanding the concepts of convention and law. TharkunColl 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me butting in. I find this discussion ineresting, though I dont know wny you two think you can convince the other! lol It is true that the Act of Settlement is adopted by a free and sovereign act of each realm's parliament. And yes, it could change the succession or abolish the Act, because the realms have made the Act of Settlement their own act. So, the Act of Settlement is not just a British Act, but a Canadian act, an Australian act, a Papua New Guinean act, etc, etc. It is also fair to say that a unilateral change in the Act (abolition, yes) is unlikely. Prince William would be hardly likely to accept a throne (of Canada) that had been refused to his father.It could also be remarked that the succession in Great Britain is dependent upon the other realms. Any change to a theoretical UK act changing the succession requires the consent of all the realms. So it could be said that all the monarchies are mutually co-dependent. That surely is equality.--Gazzster 03:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, such a unilatteral change might be theoretically possible, just like it is theoretically possible for the monarch to refuse ascent to a bill. But neither is ever going to happen in the real world. Here's another point: a realm can abolish the monarchy any time it likes (16 already have), and when it does its monarchy simply disappears in a puff of constitutional smoke. If the UK abolished the monarchy, however, it would still have real people, a real family with real lives and possessions, to make provision for. TharkunColl 11:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, yep i agree. To your second, ok, but i dont see the point. By the way, im not out for a fight- im genuinely enjoying the intellectual stimulation. Hope you dont mind. Go to my page if u like, rather than eating up your own cyberspace.--Gazzster 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is (perhaps purposefully?) being side-tracked. Tharkie still hasn't been able to prove that there exists an inequality amongst the Realms in terms of status under the Crown, nor that they are necessarily dependent on the UK. This Act of Settlement business is just a ruse. --G2bambino 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed, and nor has it been my intention to prove such a thing. That's your typical straw man argument again. The realms are sovereign, and as sovereign states choose to retain the British monarch as their own monarch. This does not imply lack of sovereignty. Any sovereign country can choose who it likes as head of state. TharkunColl 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not your intention to prove it, perhaps, but it's certainly your intention to create such a notion throughout Wikipedia, which is why your actions and your words above are in conflict. The 16 countries are indeed sovereign; as such they each have their own monarchy. Those monarchies are linked only by the same person being monarch and a free agreement that, to maintain this relationship, no one country will alter the line of succession without seeking the consent of, and a parallel change in, the other countries. Thus the UK is no more a monarchy than the other states, EIIR is no more monarch of the UK than of any of the other states, the UK is no more or less free to make alterations to the lineage than any of the other states. Equal, parallel, symmetrical: these are the words used to describe the present situation - not by me, but by many others. Placing the UK above the other states and implying EIIR is "more" queen of one country than any other says the relationship is unequal, divergent, asymmetrical. That the latter view has no substantial evidence to support it makes it a personal interpretation, and thus both POV and original research. To continue to move from article to article attempting to push an unsupported POV is bad faith editing. --G2bambino 15:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To continue to move from article to article attempting to push an unsupported POV is bad faith editing." Well, you said it! If you cannot understand the difference between the Queen's role in the UK, and her role, such as it is, in the other realms, then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. TharkunColl 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's role in the different countries is the same: she is queen. This does not elevate the UK above any other state. --G2bambino 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does not elevate the UK above any other state (despite your straw man version of my argument that it does). She may well be Queen, but the only place where she acts as Queen, as well as being Queen, is the UK. TharkunColl 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She acts as queen for any state of which she is the Queen. If you agree that this does not elevate the UK above any other state then why do you continue to insist that the UK be elevated above any other state? --G2bambino 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - other people act for her overseas, the governors general. And I don't insist that the UK be elevated above any other state. All I want is a bit more honesty and a bit less pedantry. This is an encyclopedia, not a constitutional treatise. Law does not describe the whole of reality. TharkunColl 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her delegates don't undermine her role as Queen - does she become less Queen of the UK when Counsellors of State are acting in her place? That you think the vice-regals make a difference is but one example of your many "justifications" for your very evident insistence that the UK be elevated above the other states. What you want is honesty on your terms; what you believe to be true or more important, rather than what really is.

As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia must present the facts. Law does not dictate all of reality, but in this situation the majority of the facts are constitutionally related. With those particular facts in front of us, singling out and elevating the UK in all circumstances and contexts is dishonest and misleading. --G2bambino 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counsellors of State are extremelely rare and purely temporary measures, and are in any case members of the monarch's family, usually the heir. Your attempt to put them on a par with governors general is yet another example of your desperate clutching at straws. The reason why law assumes such a major role in your thinking is because for you, the Queen is indeed almost entirely a legal construct. This is absolutely not the case in the UK, where she resides and interacts with her subjects continuously. I think it's possible that you cannot fully grasp this, because you have no experience of it. TharkunColl 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counsellors of State are hardly rare - they're called to duty every time the Queen leaves the UK. Regardless, yours are old, rehashed arguments, Thark. The vice-regals do not diminish the position of the monarch they represent.

When it comes down to it, neither of us is incorrect in what we say. Where the problems start to arise, though, is when you decide that tangible reality trumps legal reality in all cases and circumstances, and then scramble for justification as to why. Yes, the Queen resides principally in the UK; yes, the Queen has appointed viceroys to exercise regal duties and powers on her behalf; yes, the Queen more often travels abroad as Queen of the UK than Queen of any other state; but no claim to the contrary is made anywhere in Wikipedia, to my knowledge, and if it does it should be corrected. These points, however, don't negate the equally valid but contextually different facts that: the Queen is equilaterally shared as monarch of sixteen sovereign states; each of the Queen's countries are equal in status under her reign; each of the Queen's countries are independent of all the others. Thus, it's fine to say the Queen is more closely associated with the UK; but, it is not fine to say outside of Britain-related articles that the British Monarch is head of state; it is not fine to single out EIIR's role as British Monarch in an international context. The latter two acts, and ones like them, are confusing and misleading, if not downright inaccurate. --G2bambino 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2- Discussion being 'side-tracked'? 'Perhaps purposefully'? Ouch, Mama! Actually, it was you guys who brought up the Act of Settlement stuff. And now you're talking about Counsellors of State! I notice you didn't cut Good Day. Oh well, I'll leave you to it. You'll just argue yourself hoarse and then give up out of sheer frustration, just like you always do. Thark, nice visiting you, in the last few weeks my respect for you has grown, even tho i'm sure we'll still have our sparring matches lol. Cheers! --Gazzster 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tharkie brought up the Act of Settlement; I think it was intended as a distraction from the get-go. I didn't mean you had derailed the conversation, Gazzter. --G2bambino 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry m8. Ive misunderstood you. Still, I thought discussing the Act of Settlement is relevant. You can actually use it to demonstrate the equality of all the monarchies.--Gazzster 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts (x8)[edit]

I take it you're resorting to brutish reverts because you can't actually provide justification for your edits. It's also rather humourous that you call an edit that mirrors yours "vandalism." Which way would you like it, Tharkie?

You are the prime example of a disruptive editor. --G2bambino 15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did Canada have an empire, G2bambino? How could former members of the British Empire "retain" a monarch (the Canadian one) who never reigned over them? Your nationalist anti-British POV has led you into a grotesque logical absurdity. TharkunColl 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Talk:Passport#Can/Brit monarch. --G2bambino 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please be rational[edit]

Why you don't go to this web site http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by David646636 (talk • contribs) 22:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Head of the Commonwealth[edit]

Tharky, if you're gonna revert my changes, that's fine; However, would you please post you opinon, at the corresponding talk page? Your views are as valuable as mine (PS- I'm not gonna 'revert' again: 2 in 24hrs, is my limit). GoodDay 13:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at [[:at God Save the Queen. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Haemo 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

User:G2bambino made 4 edits to the page God Save the Queen, and I too made 4. Why is he not blocked? User:G2bambino made a major revision to the page, which is why I reverted in the first place.

Decline reason:

If User:G2bambino only made 3 reverts, that does not place him in violation for violating 3RR. Reverting a major revision is also not exempt from 3RR. –Animum 00:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:

User:Haemo ended the 3RR report with the phrase "24 hours". Why, therefore, was my block increased to 72 hours? And how come User:G2bambino is allowed 4 edits on the page?

Decline reason:

First question: it says 72 hours as shown here. Second question: because he made one initial edit and three reverts, hence he did not violate 3RR. — Kurykh 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:

The statement made by the previous editor, declining my request for unblock, is incorrect. User:Haemo did indeed initially decide to block me for just 24 hours, as is shown here [2]. Why, then, was it increased to 72?

Decline reason:

That is a question, not a reason why you should be unblocked. The unblock tag is not for asking questions. Talk page protected. — Sandstein 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikiquette alert[edit]

As per the instructions on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, I've filed an alert regarding your behaviour, which you can find here. --G2bambino 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimus noncarborundum[edit]

Welcome back, Thark. Illegitimus noncarborundum.
Please take good care not to break 3rr any more, though. That's for your own sake, as well as for the sake of WP. Don't be goaded into it. There's plenty of editors who agree with you, by and large, so let them step in, rather than risk your neck. -- Lonewolf BC 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English monarchs[edit]

Hello Tharky; are you claiming the English monarchy evolved into the British monarchy, while the Scottish monarchy ceased to exist? GoodDay 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, sorry about the major change (it wasn't meant as vandalism), I should have discussed it first (quess I was looking for the 'shock' effect). GoodDay 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How else would you describe what happened? The biggest party in the current Scottish parliament is one that seeks independence for Scotland. If the union is a union of equals, then how is this possible? The events of 1707 were an annexation, pure and simple, and the Scottish parliament was bullied and bribed by the English into voting for its own demise. The English state, with its full panoply of organs and officials, carried on as if nothing had happened. They didn't even think it worth bothering to hold a new general election for parliament - on 1 May a small group of appointed Scottish MPs turned up and took their seats, and that was that. Your suggestion, by the way, of calling the page "English and British monarchs" isn't too bad - that was the very name that I moved it to nearly two years ago. There followed extensive discussion on the subject. The current title (not one chosen by myself) was thought to be the best compromise and consensus was reached. This was when the article was massively augmented by adding photos and stuff. TharkunColl 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But (thanks to the Scottish mailboxes incidents), it's been decided to number the first British King James, David, Malcolm etc, as James VIII, David III, Malcolm V etc (to reflect the Scottish monarchy evolving into the British monarchy - like the English). Under the current view of the article - It would be James III, David I, Malcolm I etc. (PS- can we move this to talk: List of English monarchs? GoodDay 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And strangely, there never has been a James, David, or Malcolm since 1707. Do you think there ever will be? TharkunColl 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a seer - But here's facts- England and Scotland merged to become Great Britain; England did not 'overtake' Scotland (see Acts of Union 1707). PS- please have discussion at 'disputed article'. GoodDay 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British monarchs[edit]

Sneaked a peek at your sandbox for List of British monarchs; I'd suggest adding 'English and Scottish monarchs 1702-07', above 'British monarch 1707-14'. Afterall, she was 'monarch of Scotland (aswell as England) before the Acts of Union. GoodDay 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. TharkunColl 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom[edit]

I trust you'll revert your last revert as it undid exactly what you suggested I do. (Not to mention that it completely demolished the article structure.) --G2bambino 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responsible for that formatting mess up. TharkunColl 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did restore a poorly executed edit. Regardless, you are responsible for reverting my move of the personal union info to the government and politics section. --G2bambino 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --G2bambino 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Head[edit]

Actually Tharky, Elizabeth II's Commonwealth role is mentioned in the 'Government section' of United Kingdom. There was no need to mention it twice. GoodDay 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

You might want to respond to this, wherein G., it seems to me, makes his usual butchery of your real views. If I may make a suggestion, consider making a user-space page that outlines what your views on the topic truly are. You could then conveniently point to that page in any case where G. (or anyone) misrepresents your views. The page being in your user-space, G. would be unable to muddy it with his typical tedious sophistry. That is, he would not be within his rights to edit it, so he could not sow confusion within it.
-- Lonewolf BC 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loner: would you be so keen to call my analysis "butchery" after I present you with the concrete evidence of Thark saying exactly what I've said he says?

Regardless, you obviously (though not surprisingly) missed the main point of my comment you highlight above: Thark's views aren't really relevant to the problem at hand, he's entitled to believe whatever he wants. What is at issue is when someone tries to insist their unfounded views guide Wikipedia editing over and above cited material and collective decisions based on verifiable data. Creating a user-space page as a soap box would be completely peripheral to that matter. --G2bambino 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Request[edit]

Please school User:GoodDay in history of the British unification process. Lord Loxley 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. TharkunColl 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting section movements[edit]

I don't know how to quickly move large sections from one article to another. Is there a way to moved post-1707 monarchs from List of English monarchs to List of British monarchs? GoodDay 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no easy way, I've left wiki-links to the new article. Perhaps other editors will move the post-1707 monarchs to that article (and correctly out of List of English monarchs). At least we have a beginning of a transfer. GoodDay 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could move the info at your 'sandbox' to the 'new' article, that would be a great help. Howabout it? GoodDay 23:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been sorting it out. TharkunColl 23:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great; as they say down my way, you da man, you da man. Thanks Tharky. GoodDay 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to vote[edit]

You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i. 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK country etc.[edit]

Thark, a strange ally - I've been getting hell all day over the UK being a country, "not just a state", wanting to mention devolution (too confusing, apparently) etc. in the lede to the UK article. What's your take on it? --sony-youth^pléigh 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe the UK as a union of 3¼ countries. That is not to say that there is no such thing as British characteristics - they are those that are shared by the nations of the British Isles. But the UK is not a "country" in any meaning of the word except "state", and it is therefore ambiguous and wrong to use it. TharkunColl 07:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion too, but no hope of getting that through on the article. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.[edit]

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Article - "British Isles"[edit]

Why did you edit the term "British Isles" into the Ireland article? You knew if would be removed. On the bottle again were we? Wiki01916 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Lough Neagh - Sorry, Thark, reverted your edit. The references provided use the phrase "Britain and Ireland" to describe the location of Lough Neagh. Please see them. Is it really too great a compromise to make in the spirit of collaboration and NPOV? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tharky, we both know British Isles is the correct discription of Great Britain and Ireland. However, I've grown tired of the pro-Irish edit pushing (the it offends excuse, is a poor excuse). Anyways, good luck with the Lough Neagh article. GoodDay 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megalithic[edit]

If your first "edit" was, as you admitted, actually a revert of something I wrote back on 17th September then it was a revert; you did three in a hour. (Sarah777 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not only that but a quick look at your recent history reveals the same insertion of "British Isles" into several other articles; not least Ireland one (discussed above I see) where you knew it was out of order and highly provocative. (Sarah777 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Saxon Greeting[edit]

Do you have any sources for this article?--BirgitteSB 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ireland[edit]

I am concerned about the WP:POINTy disruptions in which you are participating and, imho, aggravating. You aren't the only one doing it, but if you could reconsider the approach you're taking I think it would go a long way to improving things for the community of editors who work on these articles. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British and Oirish Large Landmasses Off the Continental Koast in the Sea[edit]

I've been thinking about this and I'm sorry but I'm still unhappy with it. I think the BOLLOCKS acrynon, while welcome, still implies British dominion over the Republic. I suggest that the Archipelago of British and Oirish Large Landmasses Off the Continental Koast in the Sea and We Are Not the Kingdom of Elizabeth Regina's Subjects is much clearer. Or, if you prefer, the Archipelago of BOLLOCKS and WANKERS, for short. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the spirit of compromise, I will accept your proposal, and I think the terms BOLLOCKS & WANKERS sum up the British and Irish very nicely, in fact. How about adding a necessary rider at the end, just to make the political relationships within the islands absolutely clear - Certainly United but Not in Territorial Sovereignty, giving the snappy acronym BOLLOCKS/WANKERS/CUNTS. TharkunColl 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT BELIEVE I'm reading this. Thark, I may have to stop watching this page. (Sarah777 12:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

We're getting places - but for the sake Scots and Welsh sensitivities, could we add Scottish and Welsh Independence and Nationalist Extremists? And for the Manx and Channel Islanders, we really should include a reference to Titular Independent Territories. In sum, BOLLOCKS, WANKERS, CUNTS, SWINE and TITs?

Hmmm, but what of the English? And should we include a special mention of Northern Irish Unionist? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, we were forgetting all those other nationalities. For the English I would suggest Better And Still Teaching All other Races and Denominations Sivilisation, or BASTARDS. So, that's BOLLOCKS WANKERS CUNTS SWINE TITS & BASTARDS, or BWCSTB for short. TharkunColl 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity of United Cornwall/Kernow and English Republicians? Or shall we just forget them like everyone else does? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote we forget them, the fuckers! TharkunColl 14:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support BOLLOCKS WANKERS CUNTS SWINE TITS BASTARDS and FUCKERS. This will end those pesky arguments, once and for all. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think we have to include the FUCKERS. NPOV and all. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 15:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO! - Royalists Or Factual Loyalists Make Ars*holes Overwhemed:)Merkinsmum 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vote[edit]

Time to consolidate. The proposal so far is:

The Archipelago of British and Oirish Large Landmasses Off the Continental Koast in the Sea, We Are Not the Kingdom of Elizabeth Regina's Subjects, Certainly United but Not in Territorial Sovereignty, Scottish and Welsh Independence and Nationalist Extremists, Titular Independent Territories, Better And Still Teaching All other Races and Denominations Sivilisation, Fraternity of United Cornwall/Kernow and English Republicians, and Royalists Or Factual Loyalists Make Ars*holes Overwhelmed

This name for the islands has the advantage of being both snappy and easy to remember, and has, moreover, been decided by a committee of representatives from all interested parties. I think we can truly be proud of this example of democracy in action. I don't believe anyone could possibly argue against it. So my vote is:

Support. TharkunColl 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anything is better than the current name. (Sarah777 19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Support. Clear evidence of the triumph of Wiki consensus building in action. Eat this Britannica! Any WP:XXX-ing or any other such Wiki-lawyering should just be answered with sharp ignore all rules. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (again). In the spirit of ignore all rules I am voting twice. (Sarah777 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ignore all rules? That wiki advice was given to me on Cuban related articles when I complained about how anon-editor El Jigue used those talk-pages. GoodDay 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "anon-editor El Jigue"? Is your name really GoodDay? Huh? (Sarah777 23:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See answer at here. GoodDay 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support (again.) (It's a new section, after all.) (And Sarah started it.) (And my previous !vote was before we added "Royalists Or Factual Loyalists Make Ars*holes Overwhelmed" which is, of course, necessary to balance the POV.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came late to this discussion, neatly avoiding all the nicely bitter fights that apparently preceded it but I admit it all makes perfect sense to me. It also has the advantage of probably uniting everyone else in despising those of us who !voted on this. I'm all for uniting people. Uh, except when they don't want to... (uh-oh, I'm treading dangerous territory here... Wait, I don't mean territory like... (just shut up, Pigman)) Pig^man 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support x ∞^∞ TharkunColl 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC) — TharkunColl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Infinity raised to the power of infinity is still just infinity. I accuse you of ballot stuffing and rigor mortis. (Sarah777 00:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Mercian stuff from Midland History[edit]

For some reason, Midland History back issues are available to non-subscribers at the moment. Get them while you can. Mercian-related ones include:

Wendy Davies Middle Anglia and the Middle Angles
Eric Klingelhöfer Evidence of Town Planning in Late Saxon Warwick
Alan Thacker Kings, Saints and Monasteries in Pre-Viking Mercia
Steven Bassett Anglo-Saxon Shrewsbury and Its Churches
Nick Higham King Cearl, the Battle of Chester and the Origins of the Mercian 'Overkingship'

Hope this is helpful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, yes - thanks. I've saved them. Is it normally subscription only then? Also, do you know of any good online maps of the Tribal Hidage? I may have to adapt one from a book. TharkunColl 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's subscription only. For the Tribal Hidage, I'll have a dig around and see what I can find. From what I can tell, it's unusual for two historians to agree exactly on the locations. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of different versions in books, but have never been able to find one online. I think we need a really good, detailed map. TharkunColl 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from one map, Higham's in An English Empire, which is hiding from me, I've scanned all the ones I have. If you send me an email I'll send them over to you. One minor point: Elmet and Hatfield weren't part of Mercia after Penda. There are a lot of smaller "-sets" which show up later. Tomsaete in the early 9th century (around Tamworth?) for example. Magonsaete and Wreocensaete are also mentioned in the C9th. Simon Keynes has wondered if Mercia really was anything like a unitary kingdom, or whether it was really something more like a collection of tribes/principalities. That's in the Brown & Farr book. One other important book on Mercia I forgot: Hill and Worthington's Æthelbald and Offa. Again should be in a big library. If you have problems finding this stuff in a public library, you might be able to wheedle access to a university library. If you don't ask, you don't get! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's excellent - I've just replied to your e-mail. I've just uploaded another map, but will make another one without Hatfield. I don't have any borders for Tomsaete, Stoppingas, or the various others. TharkunColl 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please DO NOT remove my edits without providing a reason. And please read WP:AGF; why would I make "pointless" edits? I assure you they were not pointless; this article needs improvement to attain GA status and I feel one of the factors blighting it is an excess of boosterism and pov. I would ask that you support my efforts or else cease editing this article if you cannot remain civil. (Sarah777 11:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

18th June[edit]

In this edit, where do you get 18th June from? Majorly (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Archontoloy site (just like it was the last time you queried it). TharkunColl 23:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. There's no need to be snappy about it though, it's just you're changing the dates without referencing them, or using edit summaries, I'm finding difficult to follow. Majorly (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon terminology[edit]

I received some comments at the Wiglaf of Mercia FAC, which is here, about the terminology. That led me to create a few suggested terminology rules. I've put them here, on a subpage of mine. I thought you might be interested in them: if you have time, let me know what you think -- either edit them, or post a note on that talk page or on my regular talk page. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English monarchs[edit]

Hello, Tharky. As you can see, I've invited editors from the UK, England & Scotland WikiProjects (I've also invited those at List of monarchs of Scotland as it effects their article). As you've correctly pointed out, I'm not British (though that shouldn't matter). Therefore, I've invited other Brits, to help us. We (you and I) will find a solution. Let's keep our fingers crossed. GoodDay 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact it doesn't affect the Scottish list - but I can imagine some of the views of its editors. As always, on Wikipedia, it seems that politics are more important than facts. TharkunColl 00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Tharky, earlier I described the English & Scottish monarchies as defunct (a better word is historical) and noticed you were offended by it; my apologies. GoodDay 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I disagree with you over when the British monarchs began and English monarchs ended, I'd suggest you recommend that the Stuart monarchs (1603-1707) bio's be changed to xxx of Great Britain, before further recommending changes at List of English monarchs. GoodDay 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be canvassing for votes, when there's no votes being cast? Plus, I'm not anti-English. Again, if you can get those bio articles changed to xxx of Great Britain, then you can request adding British monarchs to List of English monarchs content. GoodDay 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Jza84 for another opinon. I don't want things to become GoodDay VS TharkunColl, which English list discussion is threatening to become. You should contact other editors, aswell. GoodDay 00:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not canvass votes from people who don't usually edit the article in question. In any case, I was under the impression that you had agreed to my proposals. TharkunColl 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no votes being cast (therefore no canvassing). I was under the impression you make those proposal (or at least support me making them) at the 'related articles'. Tharky, you can't have conflicting information on related article. You simply can't. GoodDay 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not conflicting, there are many redirects to those biographies under all sorts of titles. My concern is with an accurate list. No article on Wikipedia can cite another as a reference - that is one of the rules here. If you want to cxhange them, I'm not stopping you. TharkunColl 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed changes to James I of England and Anne of Great Britain (for starters) and questioned the edits at British monarchy, while pointing to proposed changes at English list. GoodDay 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- By the way, despite my interest in these monarchy subjects, I'm actually a republican (G2 suspects I'm a closet monarchist). I just like looking into things I oppose. For example - I've edited Pope articles and yet I'm an atheist. GoodDay 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

You know, Thark, I otherwise wouldn't have bothered with this: We don't "share" our monarchy - rather we graciously allow you to continue to use it. But, on further contemplation, figured it might do us all the world of good if you could actually prove that statement to be true. By all means, please present the sources that support this. --G2bambino 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Statute of Westminster, which you deem so important in this debate, was drawn up and passed by the British parliament. In other words, it was the British parliament that voluntarily gave up its power over the dominions. Whatever the dominions have, including their constitutional crowns, was given to them - indeed, was created out of nothing - by the British. TharkunColl 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your points about how the SoW came to be are incorrect. Regardless, this document actually disproves your assertion; it was the SoW that made the monarchy a shared institution. So, again, please prove that the monarchy of the Commonwealth realms is not shared. --G2bambino 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is shared, but only because the British decided that that's what would happen. Constitutionally (since one parliament cannot bind a later parliament), the British could repeal SoW at any time. TharkunColl 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a common decision; the SoW was created by the UK and Dominion governments following the Imperial Confrence of 1926 and subsequent Balfour Declaration, and then passed by each parliament: the UK, Canada, Newfoundland and South Africa in 1931, Australia in 1942, and New Zealand in 1947. Any country with the SoW as a part of its constitution could repeal it, so, your point is what? --G2bambino 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may well have been a common decision, but the only parliament with the legal right to grant sovereignty to the others was the British one. The dominions couldn't have created their own version of SoW without permission from the British (well, not legally anyway). TharkunColl 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what's your point? --G2bambino 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, my point is that sovereignty for the dominions was in the gift of the British parliament. It could not legally be taken without the consent of the British. Therefore, it is the British who granted it. Would you disagree? TharkunColl 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have to agree or disagree as where the sovereignty came from is irrelevant; it's there now and can't be taken away. I asked you to prove your assertion about the monarchy not being shared; you then went and said it is shared. So, I can only assume you admit your first claim was incorrect, and acknowledge that each country presently has an independent monarchy headed by the same person with the same relatives. --G2bambino 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The countries are independent, but the monarchy isn't so long as its the same person, and she is British. The legal crowns are separate, but you are confusing a constitutional construct with a person. TharkunColl 17:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confusing nationalism with constitutional construct. If you agree that the monarchy is shared then in a Commonwealth wide context it is not "the British monarchy/monarch/Royal Family" but the "Commonwealth realms monarchy/monarch/Royal Family." These are somewhat neologisms, of course, but, in the world-wide scope of an encyclopaedia, we can't simply do what the composers of the Statute of Westminster did and simply refer to the shared crown in the Commonwealth as "the Crown"; too vague. So, keeping in mind that, in a global scope, the monarchy/monarch/Royal Family is indeed predominantly associated with the UK, the phrase "monarchy/monarch/Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" presents the facts almost perfectly. It makes no pretense about the nationality of the monarchy/monarch/Royal Family, and it's factually accurate, so it's absolutely NPOV. --G2bambino 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Why does it matter how equality came about? We're talking about the present situation. PS- I don't think the British Parliament could take the monarchy away from the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British parliament could pass an act stating that the monarch of the UK shall not be monarch of any other country. It would actually be very simple. TharkunColl 19:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current setup would call for approval by all Commonwealth realms (see Edward VIII abdication). GoodDay 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, convention dictates that their consent be sought. However, the UK could pass such an Act without the other realms' consent, but, per the SoW, that Act would have no effect in any country beyond the UK. --G2bambino 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if the UK abolished their monarchy, the 15 other realms would still keep theirs. Hmm, Elizabeth II packing up and moving to Ottawa?? GoodDay 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without amending their constitutions, yes, of course. --G2bambino 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...[edit]

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 16:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject British Royalty[edit]

It's quite apparent, what the core of the disputes are, monarchy ownership identitiy. See my reply at WikiProject page. GoodDay 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the feeling a compromise may be needed. Say United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms being applied to all Commonwealth realm related articles. This would of course change the opening line at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (I'm guessing that's still a sore spot with por-British editors). GoodDay 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My compromise isn't catching on, another editor has come out in favour of British. I'm waving the 'white flag' on arguing for Commonwealth realms being added to every related article. The most common usage wins out, British. GoodDay 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

As a courtesy, I am to inform you that you have been mentioned in a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --G2bambino 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! TharkunColl 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Burial Ground[edit]

Hello Tharky, ya forgot to sign your posts. GoodDay 23:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! TharkunColl 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So close, so close to ending this schism. Oh please Tharky - the truce paper is there, waiting to be signed by you. Do it for articles, for Wikipedia. GoodDay 23:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it for the children! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) --G2bambino 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, if I appeared to be suggesting that G2 be the sole author of the 'footnote'. That's wasn't my intent. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tharky, (though the assertion doesn't bug me personally) would you please discontinue bringing up the It's our monarchy, not yours thread? It's not helping the discussion any. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair description of any points I have made. TharkunColl (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Canada as an example: I know you see Elizabeth II as Canada's British Head of state; but G2 see her as Canada's (Canadian) Head of state. Anyways - How's pushing your and his PoV at the discussions gonna help? All the two of you have been doing is 'canceling' each other out. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Queen is clearly British - by birth, upbringing, culture, residence, any criteria you care to name. To say that she somehow stops being British when acting on behalf of another realm is absurd. TharkunColl (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about that, though. I'm requesting to you (as I did to G2bambino), to restrain from personal arguing. All the two of you are doing is 'canceling' each other out, thus why continue on? GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I withdraw, then G2 will be able to impose his POV onto all the articles (as he mostly has already). TharkunColl (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, the majority is in favour of common usage (ie. British). I just don't like seeing established editors, cutting each other up. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian monarchs[edit]

You'd better take a pill buddy and get your finger off the revert trigger. It's a crock of shit that there was no cite, all you had to do was cut and paste the URL from the edit window. But, as if that wasn't bad enough, you didn't even notice I added a footnote section, which needed done anyway. In your haste you reverted it along with everything else. --G2bambino (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference. My first edit was an edit. You have made 3 reverts, and I shall now make my 3rd. If you make another, you'll be banned. TharkunColl (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tharky, I don't think colorful lanuage is acceptable on 'Edit summaries'. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in reply to G2's. TharkunColl (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, ya gotta be careful of such vocabulary. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. --G2bambino (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tharky (about the John Bull statement); it might be the Canuck in me. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have a right to create an article & name it British monarchy, however there's a possibility it might get deleted (via Afd). You should reconsider, as it could be viewed as an attempt to side-step the possible consensus for Monarchy of X (just my advice, take it or leave it). GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'm not sure why I must keep up this inane debate with you; you really don't even seem prepared to listen, let alone willing. Regardless, I suppose I should make myself clear, for the record.

Your Secretary General cite probably isn't incorrect or even invalid. However, you're trying to say that it alone can decide the facts about a complex, international, constitutional situation. Well, in fact, no one source alone could really ever suffice in this scenario; hence, the multitude of articles that focus on this situation use numerous and various sources, as it should be. Your one selected speech cannot override all those others.

I hope that's clear. --G2bambino (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of overriding the other sources, but of presenting both sides - i.e., adhereing to the policy of NPOV. TharkunColl (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides of what? --G2bambino (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speech in question described the British monarch as reigning over the 15 other realms. You claim this is not true. The NPOV thing to do would be to state that in some ways it is true, and some ways not, depending on context. TharkunColl (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already states that in some ways it is true and in other ways it is not, depending on context. --G2bambino (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would not get this impression from reading Canadian monarchy, for example, which only states that the British monarch does not reign there. So obviously the NPOV needs to be strengthened in many articles. TharkunColl (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But currently it only gives one POV, the one that states that the monarchies are completely separate. We need to balance this with the view that in fact, the British monarchy reigns over all 16 realms. TharkunColl (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of POV; the monarchies are separate. If you'd read the various sources that state this, as you've been directed to do a number of times, you'd know that (and I'm almost positive you acknowledged this fact elsewhere). What you seem to be is completely baffled by the distinction between reality and semi-common parlance. You're not the first person, and so there's a specific part of Canadian monarchy that explains exactly this confusing duality: "The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, although it has often been called "British" since this time (in both legal and common language) for reasons historical, political, and of convenience." That's an important sentence that took months to compose. You should heed it. --G2bambino (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely the problem, you see, because it's just your POV - even if you have convinced yourself otherwise. TharkunColl (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that. --G2bambino (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of monarchy in Canada[edit]

Due to the constant 'Edit conflicts' caused by your & G2 heated discussion, my Wiki-nose has been flatten. Here's hoping you guys can work things out. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV assertions[edit]

I suggest that, if you truly believe there to be some kind of conspiracy to spread misinformation throughout various Wikipedia articles, and that you, alone, know the truth that is being subverted, you present your case before ArbCom. This is a serious accusation, and, if you are correct, their ruling would settle the matter. The incessant edit warring is obviously not getting you success, so, I direct you to get higher powers to make a ruling on your claims. --G2bambino (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there's any sort of conspiracy. Instead, there is a single-issue fanatic who often manages to get his POV accepted as fact by selection of evidence, interminably tedious argument, browbeating, and, frankly, simple persistence in a subject that few others are able to summon up a similar level of interest in. TharkunColl (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then do something about it; take it to ArbCom. Convince them, not me. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tharky, are you serious about G2 insulting the UK? I don't think he's commited a 'diplomatic incident'. Aren't you over-reacting? GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're allowed to protest at G2's sandbox, as that's his personal domain. You're suppose to wait until he present his case to WiKipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles[edit]

See my response at G2's page. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to more appropiate place Talk: Commonwealth realm, as that's where the Poll & Poll results have been placed. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought - In the discussions talk: Prime Minister of Australia & talk: Kevin Rudd, I argued strenously that 'Rudd' was PM-designate not PM-elect (and I still feel I'm right on that topic). However, rather then continue arguing, I accepted that my views were in the minority & that Australian's preferred the 'term' PM-elect. I suggest you should follow my example & allow British monarchy be moved along with the other related articles. It takes a big man to argue his point; but it takes a bigger man to accept when he's lost that argument. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've lost, simply because no consensus has been reached. But if you insist on changing it I won't stop you - as long as you do not interpret this statement as me changing my vote in any way. I still believe that you have misinterpreted and misapplied Wikipedia rules about consensus, and are attempting to impose conformity just for the sake of it, where none is either wanted or needed. The fact is, as the Google results and simple common sense prove, that the British monarchy is overwhelmingly known as the British monarchy far more, for example, than Monarchy of the UK. To alter the title is surely, for this reason alone if nothing else, against Wikipedia policy. TharkunColl (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[You] are attempting to impose conformity just for the sake of it, where none is either wanted or needed. How can you so brazenly make such unfounded statements? Two times the number of people who don't want conformity do want conformity. Given that, what do you propose be done besides uphold the minority view that conforms to yours? --G2bambino (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of upholding the minority view, it's that without a consensus, no change is the only proper option. But as I said, I'm not going to try and stop you. I just think you're wrong, that's all. Why is conformity such a good idea in the first place? TharkunColl (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for choosing not to cause any edit wars over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I explained further r.e. consensus at Talk:Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article called British monarchy? Somehow, I figured you wouldn't let it go. Oh well, good luck. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your attitude offensive. I withdraw my earlier statement that I would raise no objection to the change (since you have obviously used it in a way that I specifically asked you not to - i.e. to create a spurious "consensus). TharkunColl (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your page movement (it's the only reversion I'm going to make) -- I leave your actions to be judge by others. PS- If you don't like my attitude, that's fine (I'm not seeking popularity). GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful (seeing as you've reverted again), I can no longer defend you in any future disciplinary actions (that may come your way). I wish you hadn't taken the actions you had (but that was your choice) -- Again, I hope others will be lenient. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian monarchs[edit]

You can figure things out for yourselves at Canadian article in question. Your constant harping about the List of English monarchs & List of British monarchs content (which you had helped fix up) has left a sour taste in my mouth. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- Days ago I apologised to you (and other Brits) for my John Bully comment at G2's page. Now, it's your turn to apologies, concerning your discriptions of me as being anti-British & anti-English. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a fair point. I apologise. TharkunColl (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I do sometimes have a tendency to get a bee in my bonnet about certain things, and I really shouldn't let them stress me out so much! TharkunColl (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]