User talk:TharkunColl/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration[edit]

Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review[edit]

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 40 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *YES! 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you are right[edit]

TharkunColl, after doing a Google search it appears that it is indeed passé and incorrect to use due to the fact instead of the economical because. My personal wishes aside, I shall have to remember to desist using the former in future edits. I hope there are no hard feelings between us. It is always beneficial to be informed when one has erred instead of being allowed to go on one's merry way causing further havoc. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings whatsoever! ðarkuncoll 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CEP[edit]

By the way, I'm cheering on the CEP. England deserves their own devolved Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, you must be joking. Why on earth would the English want to fork out millions for a body that simply duplicates the work of what's already there? Most government departments only cover England anyway, and with 84% of the population of the UK, England is hardly in danger of losing control of its affairs. The Westminster parliament is the English parliament, and has been since the 13th century. ðarkuncoll 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
CEP doesn't see it that way, they shall be freed from the suppression of the British Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If I were from England, I would prefer to be called English rather than that geopolitical, umbrella term British.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As an Englishman, I see English and British as pretty much interchangeable, depending on context. I know that such a statement would be very likely to annoy the Scots and Welsh, but it's true, nevertheless. In short, with regard to my own national identity, I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two terms (though obviously I'd never use English to refer to the Scots and Welsh). ðarkuncoll 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
By referring to yourself as an Englishman, you just hit the nail on the head. An English person is called an Englishman/woman, a Scot is called a Scotsman, etc.; but what does one call a British person, apart from the derogatory Brit?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Briton. And Brit isn't derogatory. ðarkuncoll 17:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have heard of Briton and to me it's highly unsatisfactory because it is the name of an ancient tribe who once inhabited what is now known as the British Isles (looks over shoulder-whew, coast is clear!)There are many people who consider Brit to be in the same category as Yank; while not being quite derogatory, it does show a tad of disrespect. So, what are we left with?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Briton is quite commonly used here. And not just in the song, either ("Britons, never never never shall be slaves"). And Brit is used here quite a lot too, in informal contexts - I assure you there's nothing disrespectful about it at all. ðarkuncoll 18:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes the lead up to the union of parliaments is overlooked. King William always wanted the parliaments to be united, unsurprisingly really. In 1696 Scotland passed an act to allow companies to trade with those who weren't at war with the crown and one such company, The Scottish Company Trading to Africa and the Indies, were becoming so successful that King William actually compelled English subscribers to withdraw their support and blocked the company from selling subscriptions to Holland and Germany. A successful and wealthy Scotland does not make for a union. Just one instance of England alongside the crown ensuring that Scotland in the end joined the union. Tharky, you are right in many respects. In particular that it wasn't a union of equals and in my opinion is still not. You are of course welcome to the term Brit as I have no use for it and I hope one day to live in a country that has enough confidence to run its own affairs. Jack forbes (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Just an added thought. You do know that the Union of parliaments in 1707 created the United Kingdom don't you? Jack forbes (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The events of 1707 were merely the final step in the English takeover of Scotland. A couple of dozen new MPs and Lords arrived at Westminster, took their seats, and it was business as usual. The goverment was unaltered. They didn't even think it necessary to hold a new general election. ðarkuncoll 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, but I'll ask you again. You do know that the Union of parliaments in 1707 created the United Kingdom, don't you? Jack forbes (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't know such a thing. I always thought it was the union of 1801 that did so... ðarkuncoll 14:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, you know and I know that England forced the Union on Scotland. If you want to write an article on that then good on you, I'm sure I wouldn't disagree with most of it. But, the fact is, forced or not it was a political union and that has to be shown in the article. To not show it would be altering the facts. To only show England as the forerunner of the UK is wrong and you know it. Trust me, I wish there were never a Union but it's there and we have to state the facts. Jack forbes (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and 1707 most definitely belongs in there somewhere - probably in the middle column along with 1536 and 1801. ðarkuncoll 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It belongs where it is. Ach! there's no getting through to you or you don't want to listen. I guess I'll just give up on you. Jack forbes (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. I just think it gives a wholly misleading impression of the truth of the situation. ðarkuncoll 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Formation dates of sovereign states[edit]

I shouldn't do this, but I'm gonna let ya have that article. Even though the version you prefer contradicts the articles Act of Union 1707, Kingdom of England, List of English monarchs (for example). GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The entry for the UK is still far from perfect, giving 1707 in the first column for example. That will need to be changed too. ðarkuncoll 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do as you wish. Re-name it Greater England, I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I also fail to see why you keep going on about the name. Those people were politicians, they weren't going to rub the Scots' nose in it and therefore make them more difficult to govern. ðarkuncoll 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I ain't the boogey man. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you aren't :) But you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Scotland. The events of 1707 were not a union of equals, but were forced on a reluctant and bankrupt Scotland. It was a corporate takeover. ðarkuncoll 19:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked for date clarification at the UK WikiProject. As for the what really happen stuff? you've yet to get an overall consensus for that. UK WikiProject would be a start. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
PS: I didn't reach 3RR. I made an addition to your edit, then twice reverted your reverts. WHY can't we agree to accept 1707 & avoid the England/Scotland argument, we always have? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Because it's unfair, and it deliberately diminishes the English contribution to the UK. ðarkuncoll 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Æthelstan (and Mercia)[edit]

You undid a revision while I was in the middle of correcting an edit for this on List of Mercian monarchs. Æthelstan was independently King of Mercia while dealing with his succession to the kingship of England, so this should be reflected on the List of Monarchs.Metabaronic (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Cross of Saint Alban

Hello, TharkunColl! I am seeking your support for WikiProject Mercia, a collaborative effort which aims to create, expand, and maintain Mercia-related articles. If you'd like to help, please vote here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

Metabaronic (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Count me in! ðarkuncoll 17:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh welcome back to the party, TharkunColl; I was wondering where you had gone. There seem to be fewer editors around this joint.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Just been busy, and festering, lol. ðarkuncoll 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercia Project change[edit]

Metabaronic has redefined the scope and changed the name of the Mercia Wikiproject to included the rest of Anglo-Saxon England, please consider directing your support again to Wikiproject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Sadads (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Move discussion for List of English monarchs[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of English monarchs, has been proposed for a move to another title. If you are interested in the move discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of your upload[edit]

Please see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Megalithic architecture.png. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Get out your pitchforks and torches...[edit]

68.111.15.164 (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Pl.don't force the specific word 'founder',till proper reliable source of information available for this word or it is further clarified through a proper note.--Md iet (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I shall not be accused of edit warring simply for putting the truth in an article. ðarkuncoll 11:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop edit warring to reinstate the word 'founder' in this article. If you insert the information again, you may be blocked for edit warring

Please see the discussion below and cooperate;

":how about this? http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/  :Chapter 9 "The Birth of Islam and the Proclamation by Muhammad of his Mission : When Muhammad was 40 years old, he was commanded by God, through His angel, Gabriel, to declare His Oneness to the idolaters and polytheists of the whole world, and to deliver the message of peace to an embattled humanity. In response to this command of Heaven, Muhammad launched the momentous program called Islam which was to change the destiny of mankind forever. " Phrases used are Birth of Islam, and Muhammed launched the momentous program called Islam, and note also Chapter 3 titled "Arabia Before Islam" thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The report appears to be correct,but there are hidden information embedded in it,so before using specific word 'founder',it has to be correctly analysed. There can be birth and rebirth of one thing ,may be in different format, but every time it is called birth. When we go into deep ,there are different interpretations, and that carry lot of weightage and can change the whole meaning and scenerio. Islam is a new format of religion given by Muhammed, but he may not be the 'founder' ,as religion was existing before Muhammad also. Quran is considered to be book of Islam,then how can it refer Adam,Noah,Musa(Moses) and Isa(Jesus) as it's prophets, tells the history and fact behind religion. Hence we can't draw conclusion of founder from word 'birth' refered above,and word 'program' refered also tells meaning in itself. Word 'founder' needs lot of elaboration,and it's direct use needs lot of care.Proper references and clarification are required please.Hence it is to used in the article with full care,and it's inclusion in the article at present is not justified as per wiki norms.--Md iet (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)"

Hope we will reinstate word "founder' after due modification.--Md iet (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop filling my page with religiously-inspired POV. Muhammad founded Islam, and appropriated Jewish and Christian figures for his own purposes. You have no consensus, and I'll continue to revert. ðarkuncoll 09:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Get off my talk page[edit]

Listen, if you don't stop leaving that 3RR warning on my talk page I'm going to freak out. You don't know what you're doing at Cnut the Great and now think we're in some battle. We're not. I've got nothing against you, and just happen to know what I'm doing. Just leave it for now and see if anyone backs you there. Try out the right section on the talk page or start a new one. Lots of very well read people edit the article. DinDraithou (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're just not familiar with the way things work. Just like yours is your own, my talk page belongs to my userspace in Wikipedia and I get to remove whatever I want from it. Also the one who has really been doing the reverting is you. I've been, from my perspective, making constructive edits, removing erroneous material and WP:OR from the section, and providing good edit summaries. The image will come back once one of us has corrected it. DinDraithou (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad[edit]

Please see the discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images#Fine then, lets get consensus here. The pictures were not changed for offensiveness reasons--they were changed because the new picture actually better illustrates that section of the tex, which is not about "Muhammad at the Ka'ba", but rather about the sources for information about Muhammad. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why not kick up a fuss at the millions of other articles that do the same? This is censorship by attrition. ðarkuncoll 09:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not censorship. It's an image that has no connection to the text, which was replaced by an image which has a clear connection to the text. In other words, the new image provides a better encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and is equally (or, in my opinion, more) decorative. WP:NOTCENSORSHIP can't be used to defend a bad image when a better one is available. To draw an analogy, in the article Neck, the image is of a just the neck area of a clothed woman. We could have just as well used one that had a little more space and included a topless woman. But the current image is better, because it better illustrates the subject; you couldn't say "Hey, you're just trying to censor the breasts" as a defense for keeping the other image. Now, if you want to come to the talk page and argue that the Ka'ba image is actually a better image, feel free to do so. But please don't just revert based on a principle that has nothing to do with the question at hand. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur Uther Pendragon for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Uther Pendragon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Uther Pendragon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

WP British Empire[edit]

Noticed you were a particpant on WP:BE , i just added myself to the list but unfortunately it doesnt look like many people are active , the group is tagged as inactive and the owner has retired, do you still use it? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 01:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:White Dragon of Mercia.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:White Dragon of Mercia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:White Dragon of Mercia.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:White Dragon of Mercia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Scotland[edit]

FWIW, I agree with you about that article. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Scottish articles seem to attract POV pushers as shit attracts flies. :) ðarkuncoll 17:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, TharkunColl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 Brendon ishere 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rochdale sex trafficking gang[edit]

Add an external link like that again to an article will see you blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

For what reason? ðarkuncoll 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You actually think kafircrusaders.wordpress.com Muslim Paedo Epidemic Map is a suitable source for anything? Do not restore that EL again. 00:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a compilation of news reports. See you in court, mate. ðarkuncoll 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have reported you to ANI[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that suppressing this information is part of the remit of an impartial encyclopedia? ðarkuncoll 01:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Rochdale sex trafficking gang. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TharkunColl (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I didn't revert more than 3 times (in fact I only reverted twice) and have been a user for many years. An indefinite block seems strangely excessive. Disruptive editing appears to be defined above as excessive disruption over a long period of time. The source I was adding was a compilation of news reports, and its legitimacy is surely a matter for discussion, rather than arbitrary blocking. But, if you're going to block me, how do I remove my personal information from my user page? I find I can no longer edit it. ðarkuncoll 1:32 am, 9 February 2013, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

After looking this over, I think that unblocking would be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Whilst I don't require a voluntary topic ban as a condition, this unblock is conditional on you not re-adding the disputed link as a source - I'm am happy for you to discuss it on the article's talkpage, and if you can convince other editors that it should be included, they are welcome to put it back in. Yunshui  11:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if you agree not to add the external link in question, you will probably be unblocked. Then you can discuss that link and sourcing concerns on the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
05:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that I will not add it again, and would much rather discuss it first anyway. ðarkuncoll 09:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer to know why someone who's been around the project this long still thinks anything on WordPress could ever be linked to as either an WP:RS or WP:EL before any unblock ... it boggles the mind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, it could've been a word-for-word transcription of the United States Consitution or the cure for cancer that you were citing from "kafircrusaders.wordpress.com: Exposing the evil of Islam. Protecting our futures", and it would still have been ridiculously inappropriate, simply for linking to such a disgustingly bigoted site. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see this block maintained: the user is a long-term editor whose edits, as far back as 3 years from my own experience, have always sailed close to the wind at being just the right side of the dividing line between being disruptive and not, so that he/she can always be relied upon to have some admin who will give him/her the benefit of the doubt. As the number of events increases, it seems to me that the chance of being given the benefit of doubt decreases (like an inverse "crying wolf"). This time, he/she has gone too far for many, and the block should be maintained. And now, in case he asks, I am not going to provide diffs: they can be found by anyone who should look for information about Mercia and other topics to do with UK and English History. Assuming good faith does not always have to be maintained in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have always adhered to the principle of "being bold". I may, indeed, have received a number of minor, temporary blocks in the past, but, contrary to what is stated above, they became less frequent as time went by, and are all years ago. I have also made hundreds if not thousands of perfectly good edits that have never been contested, have contributed whole articles, and have made a number of illustrations and maps. Merely adding to an article what is, after all, a compilation of legitimate news reports seems a disturbingly minor reason to give someone a permanent block.
If, however, the block is to be maintained, can someone blank my user page, as it contains a lot of personal info. Thanks. ðarkuncoll 13:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to ask the above user to prove evidence of where I have disrupted the articles about Mercia, the UK and English history. I have actually made many contributions to those articles, especially the lists of monarchs. ðarkuncoll 17:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Having reviewed the editor's contributions over the pst few years, I can see that behaviour has improved, with the exception of this last unwise action. I therefore withdraw my comments I made, above, and will withdraw from any other comment about this particular block.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

For those interested, here's the link in question [2]. As can be seen, it is not a wordpress page, as has been alleged, but a Google map made by someone who also owns a wordpress page. The map is drawn from from a compilation of news reports of Muslim grooming gangs (and similar incidents) in the UK during the last few years, and is therefore, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate source to add to the article in question, providing further imformation to anyone interested. It may be that the consensus of editors on the article is not to add it, which is fine, but it is simply untrue to imply that I added it in bad faith, or in order to disrupt. Quite the contrary, my motive was to improve the article. I have no intention, however, of re-adding it in the face of such opposition. So why the block? Why not simply revert my edits and leave it at that, rather than escalating the situation like this? I only made two reverts and didn't even break 3RR. ðarkuncoll 18:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the whether or not a map for this article is appropriate or not, but for the sake of this discussion I will postulate that it is acceptable. If the map is based upon data from RS, then theoretically it should be ok. But the link in question doesn't mention any sourcing, so I see others concerns. My suggestion would be to create your own map and upload it to commons and then add the sources to build that map. Of course you will need consensus to actually use the map in the article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
20:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm very happy to do as you suggest. ðarkuncoll 00:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it usually take this long, and what should I do next? ðarkuncoll 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it often can take this long for one of the volunteers to study a complicated case such as yours (with a lengthy block history going back seven years for similar behavior) and come up with a decision. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, at the moment Sarek is inclined to let others handle this for now. Unfortuantely you will have to be patient.
@Jpgordon -- yes Tharak has a lengthy block history, but he hasn't been blocked in over 4 years. He appears to have issues with Islam, so maybe a voulnatriy topic ban might be a condition for an unblock.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - that should actually be highlighted. He hasn't had a block in 4 years!!! His previous block history is no longer relevant. I think this is a very harsh block in fairness... --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks HK, long time no see! Little green rosetta, I'm more than happy to agree to a voluntary topic ban on Islam, it's simply not worth the confrontation any more, and I accept, on reflection, that the link I was trying to add was probably unsuitable.
I have some articles on mythology and geography I'd like to add in due course, when they're ready. ðarkuncoll 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
As a wholly uninvolved editor, while I stand by my comment above, I can't really see any grounds to oppose an unblock contingent on a topic ban on Islam, especially since, to be fair, DS and SoV didn't really handle this situation very well prior to the block. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that the EL in question was NOT the Wordpress site, but rather a simple google map? And according to TharkunColl, that map is based off of RS data. Hardly a racist diatribe, but obviously there has been issues in the past that I'm unaware of so there is probably more behind this block then the stated reason of the EL.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
22:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
That is a good point, I suppose. To be honest, the more I think about it, the less I can see any good reason for simply telling a user that "adding another link like that will get you blocked", especially with the unofficial convention of giving a fair amount of leeway to editors in the 10k+ club before blocking them. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
After mulling this over, I'm not even sure I support a topic ban. I'd have to hear from others that this has been a consistent problem.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Tharky should be unblocked. Honestly, indeffing an editor for adding a source to an article? This seems like an emotional block, rather then a rational block. GoodDay (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GD, and long time no see! Good to see you're still around. And thanks Yunshui for unblocking me. ðarkuncoll 16:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If you do take my suggestion about creating your own map based upon the sources, you might save some time by stating your intentions and the sources that contains the underlying data. It would be a shame to create such a map only to find others object to it later.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm more inclined just to steer clear of it, to be honest. ðarkuncoll 16:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)