User talk:Yorkshirian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk.


  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2


House of Neville

Impressive work! Hope you don't mind, I've put in a few commas and so forth. Have you thought about putting it up for WP:DYK on the main page in the next few days? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Rhisiart Tal-e-bot. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Joowwww (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How amusing. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP Syria

I just wanted to personally welcome you to WikiProject Syria! Yazan (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


I don't know if he's just following you around stirring up trouble wherever he can or if he has actually made useful contributions to the articles that you have been working on. But I figure that you would know that and given that I have just indefinitely blocked him on the grounds that he is far more trouble than he is worth I figure that you may wish to say a few words in his favor. So you are very welcome to contribute here if you want to but do not think that you are obliged to. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Old North

Neither that website nor that book are reliable sources. I'll respond more fully at the article talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Let's take the discussion back to the article page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Cúchullain t/c 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotia

I don't disagree with the sentiment of your edit but may I suggest you work up the text in the talk page supported by sources. Slanje va. Justin talk 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of House of Neville

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of House of Neville at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain

Probably because almost no-one looked at it. I did, but other priorities got in the way; I wasn't expecting you to act without giving people more opportunity; and, frankly, it would have taken me a great deal of time and effort to engage with you on every point where I think your version could be improved further. I would have hoped I could have helped you out over this over the next few days but, unfortunately, I'll be away on holiday, and I'm sure that at some point over that period you will face further criticism. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Tactically, I do think that you are much more likely to win people over by proposing one change at a time. Say, by starting with the biodiversity section which most people are likely to find uncontroversial, apart from I expect needing a few tweaks. Then, gradually, suggest the most important changes to the other parts of the article. One of the problems with adding 40K bytes in one edit is that it is simply too much for most of the editors involved in pages like this to cope with at one time, and their instinct will be to hit the revert button, perhaps even without reading what you are proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree it would be far better to add section by section at a time rather than a full change, certainly would make it easier to give feedback, theres just so much information and text to take in (for me anyway) and there are certainly some problems with the changes. I like some parts of the changes but am not sure about other parts. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for House of Neville

Updated DYK query On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article House of Neville, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
King of ♠ 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

More Trouble with Naming Conflicts

There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Wikipedia. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. In breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict page

Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, if someone else hasn't already done it, please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's meat puppetry and such a request is inappropriate. If there's a problem, take it to somewhere like WP:ANI. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand Meatpuppetry. Yorkshirian is not a new user, recruited by me. He is involved in these discussions which apply to relevant articles we are involved in. he has a legitimate concern in this dispute and in the instance where one person is repeatedly altering an important guideline without consensus, it is redolent that this be pointed out. Xandar 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Power of prayer

Hi, Just a note to explain why I changed back the power of prayer page. I had originally called that page Power of Catholic prayer and people objected, saying it was about beliefs. So the titled settled at that. In fact I wrote two articles, one on beliefs on prayer and the other on the Efficacy of prayer as an analysis of cause/effect relationships, so the words power and efficacy are really needed in the titles. I hope you understand the move back. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Vatican template

I don't see the point why you delete human rights and lgbt rights in Vatican City template when, as i have written, it is common that state topics template's contain these in "politics section". (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The first of all - Human rights is not Mumbo jumbo - at least not for the Vatican since they signed it John Paul II in UN, if you wanna say something, you should first get know what your Church says about it. :) I agree that this article doesn't exist so it is now unnecessary to fill it in, but i must disagree with your biased statement about LGBT rights article. Vatican City is sovereign State which is recognized by UN and its members and as I said in state topice template it is common to fill in LGBT rights article in politics section. If you claim that this article is gay lobbying LGBT rights in Vatican City, you can share your ideas in discussion but do not act like homosexuality doesn't exist because even Catholic Catechism discourse about it (I know because I'm Catholic and I have read it). So if you have any specific argument which is not "homosexuality is irrelevant topic" (what does it mean and why?!) share it with me and we can discuss it. Saudi Arabia, UAE are also theocaracies and they contains "LGBT rights section" and it doesn't bother anybody, I don't understand why Vatican City should. I restore LGBT rights. (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you don't get the idea of sovereignty. As Vatican is such a state and has the right to enact whatever they like laws. LGBT rights is still important part of civil code. I don't understand why you can't see that Vatican is not only 1000 people state but also one of the biggest tourist attractions in whole Europe, they have millions of tourists visiting every year, and believe or not some of them are interested what status does homosexuality have in that place, they have the right to know if they can be punished for homosexuality in this area and I strongly disagree with you that adding "LGBT rights" to this template what is in fact common policy, and you do not throw out this from over countries templates it seems more like you are leading subjective and propaganda. Our Great Pope John Paul II is dead in the matter of fact, but what he has signed is still recognized by Benedict XVI. And it seems you haven't read Roman Catholic Church Catechism there is nothing like you wrote "in fact it actively opposes it" if is, please quote this. Additionally you have written on your page: since this is an encyclopedia not a pressure group. And what you do seems to be a pressure, treating Vatican like it was overcountry. And for the last, I said that I agree that Vatican has no article about human rights, but it does have article about LGBT rights. Whatever you think it seems to be weird for me, because in the matter of fact article about LGBT rights in Vatican City does not stand that Vatican is killing gays or something but you can read there something astonishing like "legal". (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
And another thing: I'm not lobbying for anything. So I request You to stop impute this to me. OK? (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The IP changes because I'm now in another city. I will make an account to make our war easier. As I am A Roman Catholic and I am also homosexual I still strongly consider it is an important part of Vatican City politics and also Catholic Church politics. Otherwise I can not agree with your ad personam arguments and imaginary lobby. The only organisation I am member of is Catholic Church. I do not lobby for anything. I beg your pardon, in many countries as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Australia and so on, Catholic Chuch is the strongest opposition of LGBT rights so don't try to make me believe or acknowlegde in what you are saying: "since it has no effect on the life or politics there. It is not a significant issue". (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As I admire your work on Wikipedia, I think that momentary it goes to personal for You. As I don't say that Vatican is bad I just can't recognize your opinion that if something is not in accordance with your faith it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia like "LGBT rights". And I am not trying to lobby I just think that if there is common policy in state topics templates (like containing LGBT rights) every state should be treated equal not only for "equality for itself" but because you can not deny that LGBT people exists and as Vatican bans LGBT people as cardinals and so on policy concerning LGBT is important to Roman Catholic Church. (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And the last thing: I strongly believe that we can reach some consensus. At least because we are both members of the same Holy Church. And maybe my life is not in total accordance with Catholic teachings but the you can not deny that Vatican does not approve LGBT people as priests which is significant part of it politics even only inside their 0,44 km2. Can You? (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vatican template


I have added section "Sciene" in Vatican City template. I think it is interesting thing about Vatican.

I hope when you see it you won't have the willingness to revert this. :) A Man from Poland (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found only "Christianity and science" in article "Religion and science" but maybe "Science" could direct to "Pontifical Academy of Science"? A Man from Poland (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

England population density

Of course, silly me. Thanks for the correction! Hayden120 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Cornwall

I've proposed a splitting out and reorganisation of Template:Cornwall at its talk page, and would welcome your thoughts. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey Yorkshirian, I'm in the process of reviewing England for GA. I haven't finished reviewing it as of yet, but as I've mentioned on the review page, I'm going to be placing it on hold. See the review page for the comments I've made so far. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard hold time is a week, but as mentioned on the review page, I'm a bit short of time this week, so I'll probably end up dragging it out a bit. I think I should be able to finish up the review tonight (assuming I don't fall asleep at the keyboard), so I'll leave it to you to get to work on it and I'll check in when I can. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

House of FitzGerald

Hi - just wondering if there was any discussion on this move of FitzGerald to House of FitzGerald. There are almost 16k surnames but only 3 with "House of..." in front. Thanks.  7  07:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok - should we remove the {{surname}} template then? Thanks.  7  07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Desmond

Sorry we disagreed on the Geraldines. I love the infobox you added for Kingdom of Desmond and we need its like for a few more. Would you consider adding one for Tyrconnell? Then we have to create an article for Tyrone, which should not be redirecting. Tír Eogain simply redirects to Kings of Tír Eogain and the other spelling Tír Eoghain redirects to County Tyrone just like Tyrone, which is entirely unsatisfactory. I'm not sure how to fix the mess. DinDraithou (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice. It looks excellent. I think going with maximum extent is good, like with Thomond, although the southern portion (mostly Uí Fidgenti) was long part of the Earldom of Desmond even though theoretically subject to the O'Briens since Domnall Mor O'Brien took it in 1178 and they remained capable of asserting their authority (Gerald FitzGerald, 3rd Earl of Desmond). As far as the Kingdom of Desmond, actually the maximum extent should be greater and cover part of the southern coast (Barony of Carbery too?), depending in part on the inclusion of MacCarthy Reagh territory. Compare with DinDraithou (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


So Stop the Islamification of Europe isn't a far right group?! Ha!  Francium12  07:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


The outline I wrote for it (or modified the older form into) is not a mess, nor disorderly and it sticks to the facts more than the one you wish to see on the page. Originally it claimed that Arthurian myths pre-date the Anglo-Saxon invasions which should be blatantly obvious to not be the case when it features a character resisting the Anglo-Saxon invaders. does not fit the criteria for a valid source, as a) it says many unverified claims (such as bagpipes being Celtic, Cernnunos being in Britain and becoming Herne The Hunter (which has been suggested but most scholars disagree with this. Cernnunos is a Gaulish God and there is no evidence of "Cernnunos" being in Britain), Morris Dancing being from a Celtic-rite (which flies in the face of most scholarship) and the Maypole being Celtic when it is thought by most scholars to date from after the Romans). It doesn't state its sources unlike the sources I found to fix the article that are from scholarly websites. What is more does not say who runs it so for all we know it could be you (or another member) putting in weasel words. And lastly it doesn't state anything connected to King Arthur or the "Matter of Britain". Likewise the other source (which at least is a scholarly one) does not state or imply what is being implied in the article. The section as it is now loaded with weasel words that imply that the so-called "Matter of Britain" is far older than it is, is a survival from the Brythons instead of being a post-Norman mythos *inspired* by Welsh myths, genealogies and Welsh and to a lesser extent English traditional histories. The placing of the Arthurian mythos so prominently gives it undue weight as well as making it look like it is continuous and older than it is, and much of the information is lost.

Lastly the section was not any longer than many of the other sections and contrary to you calling it a "mess" (thus deciding to insult (which is against wikipedia's rules in the first place) rather than being rational) it was far more orderly and less biased after my edits (as I don't personally consider it to be folklore, and I disagree with Michael Wood's analysis it does not conform to my views but agree it is of great value regardless that it should be unbiased and be based on current scholarship). I would be happy to trim the section (not that I feel it is needed) but you removing well sourced sections is verging on (if not) vandalism. I shall reinstate the section (which may give the article a better score in its assessment). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was going to make a new topic on this same issue. A summary should contain information about the contents, contexts and history of the topic in which it is summarizing and therefore, Sigurd's revision meets the criteria.

And I would agree with the few that is not a valid source of study as it contains little worthwhile information that can be used for an encyclopedia and in this regard it is similar to the new age wicca books and websites which are criticized by scholars. We know that Cernunnos is a Gaulish and not British good, we know that Morris dancing does not date to Celtic times and we know that bagpipes are common in the Scandinavia, Spain (which admittedly did have Celtic tribes, however, the oldest bagpipe found there was, I believe, pre-Celtic).

And Arthurian myths, whether they are folklore or not, do not predate the Anglo-Saxon era but instead are from Wales at the same era with latter Anglo-Norman.

I do not feel that the subsection, which is roughly the same length as a lot of the other subsections, needs to be shortened but I do not think it needs to be extended either. The current revision by Sigurd is informative and works well as a study whereas the revision that you, Yorkshirian, reverted to was not. The current one by Sigurd exists upon neutral grounds. whereas, the previous one did not and contained many claims that no historian, archaeologist or folklorist would agree with; the confusion of Gaulish and Gaelish with Brythonic is non-Scientific. The Mummy (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To Yorkshirian: The order gives a false impression for one thing, the Matter of Britain should not be at the top. It should give a summary of where it comes from and why it entered the mainstream. In fact the whole "Matter of Britain"/"Arthurian" section gives mostly half truths, no truths and distorted truths. It uses unverifiable sources and it is chronologically incorrect. The prose is not "tight or neat" and neat and I beg to differ on biases. I wrote my edits in such a way as they cannot be seen as biased and do not reflect my own opinions, the version you seem to be so intent on keeping is written with the author's views in mind. After my edits it now looks encyclopedic and should pass the GA. I doubt it should or will pass the GA review as it is. If there is anything you think should be included which isn't under my edit (which is only the unsourced statements and distortions of history) then by all means tell me which they are and I shall accommodate them. As for listing all of Geoffrey of Monmouth's sources, that is an intelligent point and I may trim it rather than listing most of them as they are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that you are giving sensible suggestions to why you think it can be improved, I shall see what I can do in those regards. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Geoffrey of Monmouths sources should be trimmed, aswell. I woul dlike to hear your suggestions, Yorkshirian, to see what else could be added or trimmed, however, the general and unbiased wording and layout should remain the same as Sigurd's edits as the previous version was biased and messy. The Mummy (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

far right and radical nationalism

I have restored the prior position on both the article and the template to the position prior to your undiscussed moves on the 17th September. Please discuss such moves first. Just to make it clear, I acknowledge that you do a lot of good work here (many of the recent edits on England) but you really need to proceed with more caution and less polemic on political issues. --Snowded TALK 09:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Yorkshirian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of the evidence presented in the above and see no reason not to reinstate the block alluded by Admin Theresa Knott on 30 July 09 in this diff. Hence you are being blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and violation of Arbcom directions. This has been noted on the Arbcom case. Manning (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Yorkshirian, you can't say you weren't warned - but, for what it's worth, I think that the hasty decision to reapply a block without the opportunity for discussion was quite inappropriate, and despite our many differences I wish you well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

its disgusting how quickly some people are "dealt with" What really bothers me about this case is someone has chosen to document his actions over a long period of time instead of questioning him or telling him he should stop at the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Quite. And anyway, I find BritishWatcher far more disruptive than Yorkshirian.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL shhhhh!! ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Ghmyrtle on all points --Snowded TALK 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg

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

Per agreed-to conditions for unblock (viewable here)

Request handled by: EyeSerenetalk 16:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

We can transclude this page on WP:ANI for a time. Wknight94 talk 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating a section below for that purpose. Feel free to undo me if you don't want such a section. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not declining this unblock officially because Yorkshirian has yet to clearly defend himself, which is part of the point. I believe that One Night in Hackney's report on WP:ANI goes into a lot of things that are a content dispute. But there are certainly some things in those diffs that do look to me like a violation of policy, and after Theresa Knott's final warning in July, and given that you were only unblocked after substantial promises to reform, the block is justified. Specifically, your repeated reinsertion of content at Red Action and Anti-Fascist Action, along with edit summaries that at least violate WP:AGF: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Even on just that basis, the block looks justified to me. Mangojuicetalk 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yorkshirian, the dispute is disruptive. You are clearly not solely to blame and there are multiple parties involved, but you are not innocent either. I know you are editing in good faith, but you need to slow down and work through the disputes with other good faith editors and those willing to mediate. I respect your passion, but it's getting in the way of effective article improvement work.
Would you be willing to lower the temperature and the intensity of the conflict by taking a more gradual approach and limiting yourself to talk page comments for a time? There are places where outside opinions from indepent parties can be obtained such as WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard. Short neutrally worded requests for input on specific issues, one at a time, would be most helpful. It's very hard for us outsiders to keep track of the long arguments. And of course soap boxing and comments on other editors should be avoided by all parties. Or do you have other ideas for a way forward? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi CoM. Its mostly just the Red Action article content which is in dispute at present. The other one is from more than a week ago and has already come to a consensus. Yes I'd be willing to do what you said there. On the IRA boming thing, it seriously agitated me, because I'd found the information in books and news articles on the bombers, then to just have ONIH remove it completely was to me unjust. But yes, I'd be willing to do the WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard things for it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Reverts with the edit summaries you were using (although they made me laugh) are not going to fly. So please 1) use the talk page and 2) seek outside input once a back and forth revert indicates there is a dispute and discussion bogs down. And please focus on the content and not other editors. If others act inappropriately leave a note for Manning or other admins requesting some help to keep discussion and editing focused. And try to be patient. It's going to take some doing to lower the temperature and to get collegial collaboration between the disputants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it will take a lot more than that, and its not about any particular article, its the style and nature of the edits coupled with the fact that you were under warning. My gut feel is that you would have as a minimum to agree to cease anything remotely resembling the edit comments etc. that you have been using, Agree not to go near designated articles, only participate on talk pages elsewhere (or at least take a 1RR restriction) and apologise without reservation. I'm not asking you to do that mind, just expressing an opinion that anything less is unlikely to get you back into the fold and even that may not be enough. I'd support a lesser version of that by the way if you need it. I agree with G, you are less disruptive than BW --Snowded TALK 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's pretty close to what I was suggesting. 1RR sounds reasonable. And a short leash as far as comments and edit summaries is certainly understood as a condition of the unblock. Yorkshirian will you be able to comply with these rules? If you can abide by them I don't see a need for subject limitations. But you're going to have to mind you Ps and Qs for sure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
He needs to take the initiative to apologise CoM and he will need to sound like he really means it --Snowded TALK 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it seems reasonable to get the block lifted and be given another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, I hope this is the way forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for commenting on the editor rather than the edit in the heat of the moment. The actual article content itself however, I feel is worth trying the WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard process. For me what was unacceptable, was that after removing the referenced info, ONIH didn't even leave a message on the talk about it. After the hard working of looking all of these things up before I put anything in the article, this was what annoyed me. I'd try the 1RR thing Snowded said. - Yorkshirian (talk)

But you said "I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will". That makes 1RR an empty promise - you'll just sock your way around it. Wknight94 talk 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If he was just going to "sock around it" then his account here being blocked makes no difference, hes said he has not done that for some time in talks with the original admin who unblocked him. Surely if hes operating this account at the same time as running socks it makes him MORE likely to be caught out than if he wasnt using this account? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Since coming back, I haven't created any socks at all. Even when disagreeing with some content. I think its pretty well established that I have reformed in that area, since I've not created any for almost a year now. It would be pretty easy and obvious to spot a sock in such circumstances anyway, so its pretty difficult to circumvent. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You'll pardon me, but four attacks over a 19 hour period is not "heat of the moment" Times and diffs:
23:55, 21 September 2009 to 18:47, 22 September 2009
This is edit-warring, refusal to assume good faith, and personal attacks in furtherance of your belief that there is a "republican cabal" on Wikipedia that has it in for you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
As has been pointed out by some others here, there are very strong feelings by different sides over at that Red Action article (i think id best not even look at that one). As that seems to have been the main focus of the problems, Yorkshirian avoding that article completly and being unblocked to carry on editing other articles, many of which hes made productive edits to without major conflict, would address this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Yorkshirian's comments

First of all I would like to say that the block should be removed, (1) because the rationale which ONIH present is riddled with strawmen and this is about simply a content dispute, rather than specific policy or anything else. (2) Manning also rushed in with the ban before I had a fair chance to present a defence and answer the ANI and indef blocking for a mere content dispute when he doesn't seem to understand why I was blocked before, is incorrect. Two points on that;

  • The reason I was blocked on ArbCom, for a year, not indefinetly, was due to pushing regional separatism.[5] Since returning from my block I have completely reformed on this. I have helped editors I previously had problems with, in their tackling of such POV in the project and have helped to build up the England article as a way to make up for past errors. In fact that article is half way through a GA process as we speak and I need to finish off a few things to get it through.[6]
  • The reason I previously had an indef block by Theresa was because of sockpuppeting[7] (I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will). Once I agreed to stop socking for around half a year Theresa allowed me to come back. Since then I have reformed on this too, I have not created a single sockpuppet. Reinserting the indef block for an issue of a content is completely illegitimate. Since I was indefed last year ONLY for socking (which I have stopped completely), not content or ArbCom.[8]

Now down to the rest:

Red Action / IRA — This is the reason ONIH launched the ANI, the rest he just trawled through my contributions to try and create a strawman to bolster his argument. In 1993, two members of the British communist organisation Red Action, Jan Taylor and Patrick Hayes, bombed their own country at Harrods on behalf of the IRA. The full story for quick view is available on The Independent here.[9][10] One says; "Besides running a big IRA bombing campaign, he was a leading member of Red Action, and his political associates maintain that "he was heavily involved" in their anti-Fascist activities, legal and illegal, "playing a crucial role, right up until he was lifted [for the terrorist offences]".[11][12]

Thus, I put such information, reliably referenced also by two books on the incident into the article on Red Action. ONIH (who happens to be a leftwing British, activist for republicanism in Ireland: see, COI) completely blanked this verifiable information from the article.[13] To give an American equivelent, it would be like an Islamist activist trying to get mentions of 9/11 removed from Al-Qaeda article. Seems an obvious case of vandalism, right? ONIH then preceded to create an extremely weak argument to rip all of the referenced info out, in the summary (other stuff exists) or that it gives "undue weight" because its a small article.[14] In summary, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No such policy exists to blank referenced information from articles, just because its an underdeveloped article. Lets just say sources for Red Action helping old grannies across the road, are rather slim on the ground. My stance on this is not based on Irish-vs-British; my own personal background is half-Irish, half-Italian. It is the referenced information for the Red Action article about their involvement in carrying out the bombing which I am saying needs to be included.

English Defence League / SOIE — ONIH was completely univolved in discussing content or editing these articles around a week ago. He has just created a strawman on here, after furiously rifling through my contributions to try and find anything bolster his presentation. Ie - move attention away from the Red Action issue and his removal of media referenced information. As Uncle G said this was discussion and differing opinions between various editors on content, ONIH's framing & selective commenting on the diffs is complete strawman. I cited my sources & presented an argument, collaborating with editors on the talk, some editors presented similar arguments, some presented different opinions.[15] Even the two editors who most strongly disagreed with my opinion there, & I in some sense "know" & work with on different articles across Wikipedia (Snowded and Ghmyrtle) are not throthing at the mouth here, which is telling on the extremely dubious framing by ONIH. For instance Ghmyrtle says above: "in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles .. so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry."[16]

I'll just give a couple of examples of the mischaracterisation of the diffs in this content dispute, presented by ONIH above. If this reply itself does not convince I'm willing to go through each one, till the point is got across. Keep in mind you do not have to be a communist to edit Wikipedia (thankfully).

  • regarding left, far-left and so on. The organisation who have rioted with the police in protest against these groups (UAF) are described by the press as "socialists".[17] They are described by the Guardian as part of the "far left".[18] They were formed out of a group belonging to the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party.[19] The article didn't mention the position or origins of their opposition at all, so I felt this relevent—I even used references from left wing sites, to present the argument.[20][21][22]
  • ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting "We Hate Muslims". Yet the diff he presents shows that I did no such thing at all.[23] In the edit I added that some of the Islamist marches, where EDL protested (they claim to be opposed to "Islamism, terrorism and so on) were flying the yellow flags of Hezbollah. I used for reference, this video report the Guardian website, which you can see the yellow flags. And also this picture from the Associated Press.[24] Though again this is simply content, some editors agreed, some disagreed, we worked to come to a consesus (ONIH wasn't even involved).

Based on all of this and repeating what I said at the very start, I should be unbanned, since it is completely unwarranted, completely unrelated to ArbCom, more importantly the sockpuppeting which I was previous indefed for. This is simply a disagreement on content, nothing "malicious", I'm always proving references, collaborating and discussing to come to a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Manning below. You rushed in from my view, because you didn't even give me a chance to reply at ANI first before you formed an opinion (other editors have said the same). You didn't give other editors actually involved a chance to make comment either, rather took ONIH's dodgy propaganda presentation on face value, which has since been described as selective and dubiously framed by people actually involved (including ones who disagreed with me on the articles themselves).
In the ArbCom thing you see there about "geographical and cultural". That is what its refering to, regarding my previous (now reformed) regionalist pushing. Read through the ArbCom case. In any case, I served half a year block without editing for it. As for "POV editing", I present verifiable sources, collaborate on talks and come to a consensus—all completely within editing policy. There are no rules against presenting referenced information some might not agree with. You don't seem to be assuming good faith on it, perhaps take into account comments above such as ChildofMidnight. If a block can be handed out on that basis, then you should block ONIH too, for vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that because you're pushing an extreme English nationalist POV and not your former English Regionalist POV (if there is actually a significant difference between the two strongly overlapping camps), it is somehow not a problem? Sorry, that doesn't wash. You are soapboxing, misrepresenting sources, using mainspace to pursue a political agenda including against living individuals, and you seem unwilling to admit that there is much of a problem with this. The only way you are ever going to be able to edit without turbulence, in my view, is to steer clear on article where you have a strong POV. Perhaps you can give a list of articles not on issues of British politics where you have made significant positive contributions? Guy (Help!) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't let that last slur pass unchallenged. Any cursory inspection of Yorkshirian's contributions since coming off his last block - or even just a glance at his talk page - would show major inputs of content on a whole variety of historical, ecclesiastical and European subjects, including a DYK. That's not to excuse some of his recent behaviour, or to suggest that I agree with all his edits or his manner of undertaking them, or for that matter his politics - but I do get the feeling that some people here are making comments based on the serious issues that happened some time ago (but which have now ceased), rather than on the relatively minor disputes (speaking as one who's been involved in some of them) that have taken place in recent days. I've had far worse arguments with "experienced" and "valued" editors than I've ever had with Yorkshirian. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been mentioned above, that you've (in the past) evaded a ban (via socks). To quote a Shania Twain tune - 'That don't impress me much'. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
..and if anyone can find any evidence whatsoever of recent behaviour by Yorkshirian along those lines, please make it public. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I was closely tied, for my sins, with Yorkshirian's pre-2009 contributions, RfCs, ANIs, Sockpuppets, etc etc. We have locked horns and have had (I think it is quite fair to say) a turbulent, if not hostile relationship in former times. However, I really am with Yorkshirian on this; I share his views entirely on why he should be unblocked here and now. I do believe Yorkshirian is a different editor since returning, and has done some invaluable article work (a complete revamp of England for example) that proves him to be an asset. He has strong views, and can be difficult to persuade (hell, I know), but I don't see anything of this supposed bad behaviour that he's been blocked for, and so also agree with User:Ghmyrtle that evidence (diffs) should be shown together with which policies he has broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I too am of the opinion that Yorkshirian should be unblocked unless there's recent evidence of serious misconduct, despite not always having seen eye to eye with him in the past. I've been very impressed with his work and attitude on the England article, and if we're all required to be perfect here then wikipedia's going to run out of contributors pretty damn soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


I was an uninvolved editor who has only encountered Yorkshirian since coming back from being blocked (a fact about which I was, until very recently, oblivious). I too have locked horns with Y. at the England talk pages, and have been trying to find a NPOV way forward at Talk:Red Action. I find Y. to be rather opinionated in talk contributions, but I have to back a couple of other editors here like Ghmyrtle and say that Y.'s contribs have been net positive. Y. certainly has a POV which is relevant to the articles where they've been an active editor, but this mostly has been managed successfully through discussion on talk pages, the way it should be. I'm not tracking the specifics of this incident, but i will say that there are POVs on both 'sides' at Red Action, and as a neutral editor on that topic, I wouldn't lay all fault at the feet of Y. I think Y. also makes a good point that the previous block was for socking, and there's no evidence of socking here, so I'm not sure it is appropriate to be relying on Y 'having form' in making the judgement calls on the current complaint (if that is the case: i'm not across the detail). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed Yorkshirian around since coming back from the block, and though he is obviously still very opinionated, his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically. I am completely unimpressed that the evidence given proves serious behavioural issues and it seems the ANI is being used as a means to silent an opponent on the issues. Quantpole (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks fot the comments everybody (including on my talk). Can somebody take the block off now so I can get back to seeing to England's GA? It seems most involved (or who I mostly come into contact with here) think this block was incorrect, its obviously a content difference of opinion and absolutely nothing to do with last years socking or anything else. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be willing to unblock you if there is no opposition...? Is there? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
May be best left to the blocking admin - have you approached them? Keith D (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Why should it be left to the blocking admin. He's cocked up once already. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose unblocking. I don't think it was cocked up at all. Theresa Knott made it clear that Yorkshirian was on a very short leash, and he has mostly ignored that. He's simply not allowed to play around in these controversial areas. Just like Guy said above - which was conveniently ignored like the rest of the opposition - all Yorkshirian has done is exchange one POV bias with another. If he is unblocked, we'll just be right back here in a few weeks, guaranteed. Wknight94 talk 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And Jza84, you've made your stance pretty clear which makes you "involved". You unblocking Yorkshirian would be just as inappropriate as me re-blocking him afterwards. Wknight94 talk 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have very strong feelings on this matter Wknight94, Yorkshirian has apologised above, hes stopped using socks a long time ago, hes reformed. Avoiding the specific articles which has caused this dispute would resolve the problem and allow him to go on to contributing at articles where several respected editors have said hes done alot of good edits. Surely encouraging more reform is better than just giving up which means wikipedia loses out in the long run. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think that is a little odd, but you do right to put "involved" in scare quotes. I am not involved in this case, and all my contact with Yorkshirian in the RfC etc (which I hope you have read to have passed your judgement?) were broadly before me becoming an administrator. However, I concede this as opposition for me to unblock (though disagree with the rationale, and I'm still looking for what diffs are policy breaching, where his warnings are, etc) and will not perform it. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Yorkshirian has contributed to the project in terms of improvements to articles. However, although his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically since his return from being (officially) blocked, his interaction with and lack of respect for editors who do not share his views is still, frankly, appalling. I would be in favour of the block being lifted only if his behaviour toward other editors is moderated considerably. Perhaps a probationary period with an experienced editor monitoring his contributions would be the answer. Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Since Jza84 can't find any policy violating diffs, I would just like to ask him if he's familiar with WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPA being policy, as there's clear evidence of violations of all three in the diffs provided. BigDunc 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You're being silly: do you think I'm going to say I'm not familliar with those being policy BigDunc? Come on. I'm asking which diffs? That's what I'm asking, but I'll underline it incase you missed it: Which are the offending diffs? What policies have they breached? What steps/warnings were made to curtail distruption? I'm sure that something has happened, if a block has been made, but Yorkshirian's request to be unblocked raises serious questions, questions that you'd want answering if in that position, right? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
No I am not being silly, there's a large collection of them on ANI which most people have bothered to look at, but here's a few specific ones, Personal attacks, Addition of unsourced claim about the EDL protesting against the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", Lying about sources. Also could I point out that people who've been banned for a year for various conduct issues, and received a final warning after that do not have to be warned any further before being blocked, and there's no policy that says otherwise. BigDunc 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider the first a personal attack: who is being personally attacked (if you say republicans, and that it is a blockable offense then I'll be blocking half of WP:IR for the stuff I see against "the British", and let go by)? The second is a breach of WP:OR, but that's not a blockable offense, it's an editorial dispute. The third diff ([25]) is not a blockable offense, it's an edit that needs further input and refinement (and I presume you're not assuming bad faith that Yorkshirian forgot to add a source or misunderstood one of them?); its edit summary is, actually, more of a personal attack than the first diff as it names an editor, but it's certainly not raging hatred; it's a poor summary that Yorkshirian should've been warned about. Yorkshirian needs mentoring, not blocking. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You asked for violations and you have been provided with them that you chose to ignore is your own concern the fellow traveller comment is a clear attack. Also you say that individually they are not blockable but considering that this editor was on a final warning yet continues the behavior that got them blocked originally then the reblock was a good one. BigDunc 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is fellow traveller an attack or offensive? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't see that. Am I missing some context here BigDunc? I don't see who (editor or group) is being attacked. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You asked for an example of WP:PA: here - noting a good faith edit with which he disagreed as Welsh nationalist vandalism. Here are other examples of Yorkshirian's style: here failing to WP:AGF + insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here belittling Cornish/baiting Cornish editors, here racial baiting. Mentoring would be good. But would it work? Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but how an earth can "Far more important than any "Saxons and Druids" stuff" be called 'racial baiting'? Quantpole (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It isn't. Daicaregos, there's nothing wrong in those diffs and I say that publically, on record and with conviction, because it's so clear. You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding with the WP:PA policy: nobody was mentioned by name and there's no use of derogatory language or slurs, or saying a particular editor is (wrongfully) harming Wikipedia without basis; so I ask again, who was personally attacked? At worst this is anglocentricism, but I think the truth is more like one editor sharing an opinion on a talk page. I don't agree with some of it, but, even as a half-Scot, I just see one perspective in a debate about lack of progress on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then say so, counter it with evidence, but don't say they should be blocked/banned for it, as that's not what blocking/banning is for. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Come on Dai, we can cope with that level of baiting, he can be amusing and he does his position not good with the stupid comments. On the other side he is willing to do some good detailed work to improve articles. He won't ever get another chance after this one, so lets go with it. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock review

OK, I'll bite the bullet. I've read through the various diffs and comments here and at ANI (where this section is still transcluded). My understanding of Yorkshirian's response above is that you'd be willing to accept ChildofMidnight's suggestion. To clarify, as I understand it this would mean you are agreeing to:

If I've misunderstood, anyone please feel free to correct me!

If you can confirm the above, I'd be willing to unblock under those conditions and on the understanding that this is very much a last chance there will be no further chances. Your thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this was the last chance. You're offering a last last chance. At the very least, any unblock should include a topic ban of some kind. Otherwise, this will just be a merry-go-round. He clearly can't control his temper in certain articles and topics. Wknight94 talk 13:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Amended per your above. Did CoM propose a topic-ban? I didn't notice one being suggested above. EyeSerenetalk 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
No, CoM did not propose a topic ban. Why does that matter? Wknight94 talk 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Because I believe Yorkshirian has already indicated that they accept in principle CoM's suggested restrictions, and my assessment is based on their acceptance. Given that, I don't believe it's entirely fair to start moving the goalposts. I also have no idea what areas Yorkshirian works in; if a topic ban amounts to a de facto site ban, there would obviously be little point in considering an unblock. EyeSerenetalk 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept the above terms as laid out by EyeSerene and agree to do that. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that'll do for me, and the blocking admin has also agreed to an unblock under these terms. I have to say that if it wasn't for your excellent article work, I wouldn't have considered unblocking, but given the improvements highlighted by many editors above I do believe you come down on the right side of a cost/benefit analysis. However, just to reiterate, any infractions of the above conditions will result in an indefblock, and I'd imagine the chances of it being reversed again are vanishingly small. Play to your obvious strengths and, if at all possible, avoid areas where you might be drawn into conflict with other editors. If you must visit contentious articles, stick exclusively to their talkpages for the next two weeks, and 1RR on the articles thereafter. If you need advice, I'm sure many of the admins/editors that have posted here (including me) will be happy to help out. I'll head off now to unblock your account - all the best with the England GA :) EyeSerenetalk 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


It seems to me that one of the lessons to be learned from this episode is that Y should recognise that the editors who interact with him on a regular basis on articles are, in many cases, much more tolerant of his behaviour than admins in the rest of the Wikiverse. So, when editors who "know" him start to object to his actions (whether on republicanism-related or other matters), that should be treated as a fair warning that he should immediately stop what he's doing, and move on to something more constructive. And, hopefully, over time, the "cost/benefit analysis" of his involvement (I'm assuming it's a "he" by the way) will continue to swing more strongly in his favour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit?

I am concerned about this edit:

Is this appropriate? The Cornwall article provides a multitude of reliable external refs attesting to the fact that Cornwall is a nation. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by this comment you left on my Talk page:
"Though by all means feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney and so on."
--Mais oui! (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Now you claim (at WikiProject Cornwall) that User:Goustien "seems to have added it by mistake". Is there any basis for your assertion? Should we not perhaps ask the User if he/she was mistaken in his/her editing, rather than simply assuming? --Mais oui! (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are now canvassing known supporters:

Would it not be better if you honestly adressed the substantive issue, rather than treating this as an exercise in gaming theory? Why is it inappropriate in your opinion to add the Cornish history category to the National histories category, and yet you say "feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney". Is this not totally topsy-turvey? We have a wealth of reliable ext refs referring to Cornwall as a nation, yet none that refer to Orkney and Shetland as nations - they have always been simply parts of other nations. And yet you tell another user to "feel free" to go around adding unsourced cats to Wikipedia. Do you grasp the grave inconsistency in your approach? Wikipedia must be based solidly on real life, as witnessed by reliable ext refs. Not on how one user or group of users would like the world to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well i would have replied on that project page with or without that message. I have had the project on my watch list for sometime and been involved in a few conversations on there. As for the references, they show some view Cornwall as a nation. That is not the view of the British government, and theres no evidence that its the view of the majority of people in Cornwall itself. Many of the references are infact organisations or people that profit from advancing the "Celtic Nations" agenda. Anyway even if others disagree with the removal of the category and restored it, id hardly describe its removal as an "inappropriate edit", seems reasonable and understandable. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Color background

I've removed the color background on your Talk page. Since it's being transcluded on ANI, it's messing up that page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Yeah, I think just going to ANI and removing the transclusion, with an explanation, that should be no problem. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Just thought I'd let you know that I now have a copy of Trevor-Roper's The Invention of Scotland. Haven't started it (I'm reading The God Delusion at the moment) but will do soon. Also managed to catch Jonathan Meades on BB4 the other night - there's a summary of his documentary here that dovetails with Trevor-Roper. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re your question

The restriction as I wrote it was just Irish Republicanism. Maybe that wasn't entirely what was intended by others, but no-one else objected at the time. However, if you feel it might lead to conflict or perhaps calls from other editors that you're obeying the letter but violating the spirit of your restriction, it might be best to voluntarily refrain from editing the EDL article too. I see no problem with your edit, and you've demonstrated good faith by self-reverting, so... your call. My personal opinion is that, although I have no intention of sanctioning you for editing EDL, I think as one of the articles involved in the dispute you should probably tread carefully for now ;) EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit was a useful one, but not as a full box, just insert it at the end of the paragraph about the BNP as a quote with the source and reference. --Snowded TALK 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg

File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish surnames

Just noticed some of your recent edit summaries. For future reference, O' in Irish names does not mean "of", it means "grandson" - see Irish name#Surnames and prefixes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem - outside my area of interest basically, but I thought from your summaries you were interpreting "O'" as "of". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yorkshirian. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
x2 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


  • "Yet Mais oui! is doing the whole activist bit..."

I think that you would greatly benefit from reading WP:NPA very, very, very, very carefully indeed. You will follow the spirit of WP:NPA, not just the law, if you want to continue editing Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are canvassing, again

This kind of behaviour seems to be your standard response to being challenged about your editing: running to a pal asking for their support. I strongly suggest that you desist from this behaviour - it will only end in tears.

Note: I have removed a wild accusation that you made at my Talk page. As the founder of WikiProject Scotland I have every justification for take an interest in all Scotland-related articles, cats, templates etc. And of course your WP:POINT campaigns would be totally impossible to ignore in this regard. I spotted this new cat long before you edited it, but I refrained from getting involved in the CFD, as generally speaking the correct decisions get made at that forum. However, your removal of a cat that is supported by many tens of reliable ext refs at the parent article forced me to get involved. You would try the patience of a saint. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian - by now you should know that if you don't stick closely to the rules here, you'll be out. Please tread very carefully - some of us don't want to lose you, but to stay on board you must follow the behaviour guidelines rigorously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Did you ever plan to do an overhaul of the UK article? Having come back to it after a spell away I'm pretty disappointed. Might be one to collaborate on after the England GAC? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, but was also wondering what kind of things we're missing for "contemporary England" in the final part of the England article's history section. I was thinking maybe something about the world wars might be useful. Maybe something about the ensuing deindustrialisation of England too. Ending with something about post-devolution England might be fitting too; I remember reading that Euro 96 was an event that reinvigorated English national identity - that might be worth putting in. Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

La Marseillaise des Blancs (1793)

Bonjour Yorkshirian! I found the whole text of the Marseillaise des Blancs, transcribed in modern French from its original Vendéen form, with translation already done by a Franco-American author by the name of Charles A. Coulombe. To read it, please go to

and scroll down to about 2/3 of the article where you will see the text, first in French, then its translation in English by Charles A. Coulombe.

I do not know if Wikipedia allows the use of material found on the web, but here it is, probably OK to use as long as Mr. Coulombe is properly mentioned & given credit for the translation.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, oui, I think that as long as Charles A. Coulombe is named & linked to the site where both text & his translation are given, it should be OK. It would also be nice to have the original text in vendéen. Bonne chance! Frania W. (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Explanation of my edit to England: "Using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} will allow the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided." – from here. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche‎

Deciding to change Nietzsche into a writer rather than a philosopher (the information box) without discussing it on the talk page first is really pushing it. An editor of your experience should know that. Restoring that change after it had been reverted compounds the error. Your edit summaries were also misleading. Given that you are on probation I suggest you don't do anything like this again, it makes the position of those (such as myself) who supported your retaining editing rights difficult to say the least. --Snowded TALK 07:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yorkshirian. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:York england UK theatre royal.jpg

You have marked that a commons file has replaced File:York england UK theatre royal.jpg, but it has a different name, so the two articles that use it need to be updated before we delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Nationality

Hi there. I've restored the fact that Nietzsche was a German to the Friedrich Nietzsche. The current wording is the result of a long discussion that is preserved in the talk page archives. RJC TalkContribs 14:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Risking life and limb

I agree with your page move on RC in E&W, but you really should propose it first you know. I'd seriously think about reversing it and then saying on the talk page that you plan to do it. --Snowded TALK 07:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic page moves

As you well know from previous attempts at removing the word Roman from articles on Roman Catholicism these moves are considered controversial and as such I have reverted the unilateral page moves you have made as there has been no discussion on any of the talk pages. All such moves should be made via WP:RM as they are controversial in nature. Any further such page moves without going via WP:RM will be considered vandalism and blocking will be in order. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For England. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good article

I just want to say how much I enjoyed your article, the House of Neville. You provided a lot of information regarding their ancient origins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Passed

I replied on my talk :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

slippers and....

Slippers and socks!!! Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox edit there is in response to my accusations towards that account, are you any good at sockpuppet comparisons? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Yorkshire. Regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Leonard of Blakemore

Hi Yorkshirian,

I see you have reclassified Leonard of Blakemore as a West Saxon saint. Do you have a useful reference for this? Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

edits on some Catholic articles

Hi Yorkshirian -- we're having some differences. If you look at the discussion page on Catholic Democrats (or was it Catholics for choice?) under "POV again") you'll see that the discussion has already been had; I view your contributions here as WP:GF, but there was quite a storm of WP:POV edits, and the reasonable conclusion was that cats are for networking information, not for affirming controversial inclusions and exclusions. Best,DavidOaks (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholics for Choice. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MigrationWatch UK POV issue

Hi. It might help to explain your problem with the inclusion of the Tony Kushner quote on the talk page of MigrationWatch UK in addition to tagging it. I don't really understand the rationale for your addition of the {{clarify}} tag, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that you've edited the article further, which addresses my concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of unconstructive racist dialogue on talk pages related to Celtic topics

You have been continuing on User talk:Sarah777 the incivility I first experienced with you on Talk:Republic of Ireland. This includes accusatins of whinging and crying, claims about how "99.9%" of republicans have "victim complexes", "don't seem to care about Irish culture to begin with", "spend all the time arguing about English-speaking tourists from Britain like Connolly and Pearse", pulling out fanciful terms such as "Big Brit-Yank conspiracy", further quotes.. "Aside from clutering the encyclopedia with fantasty and mope, there doesn't really seem to be any relevent encyclopedic fruits from the whole self-degrading republican shtich", "Irish people were all wearing grass skirts and feathers in their hair until the 1950s", "Spare me the whinging and crying. How does one be "racist" in this area, when my own ethnic background is half-Irish", "Judging by RTG's Wiki spree tonight apparently "thats waysist!" is his favourite ad hominem", "Discredit you racially??", what exactly are you on".

Do you think that this carry on should continue and should I root out our previous encounter some months ago and any related material, which I now assume there is at least some, I can find in between? I cannot recall any openly Unionist/Loyalist contributors being even comparably offensive, Yorkshirian..? ~ R.T.G 12:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

List of saints of Northumbria

Please stop inserting references to articles into List of saints of Northumbria. These articles are simply copies of the Wikipedia articles, and therefore may not be used as Wikipedia references. If you have any doubt on this matter, scroll down to the bottom of the allexperts page, where Wikipedia is explicitly identified as the source. There may be some differences in the text, because the alexperts scrapes of Wikipedia may not be current. While other content on may be original, its encyclopedia articles are generally mirrored from Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yorkshirian. You have new messages at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please read

Please read this. ♦ Jongleur100 talk 09:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? I did NOT claim that Aussies are ignorant. I asked why Ausseagull was talking about ignorant Australians on a talk page devoted to Neil Kinnock. Read it again - slowly. ♦ Jongleur100 talk 10:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And while we're at it: this, this and this is a serious accusation of bad faith and, presumably, of a personal attack made by me. Please provide diffs to support your accusation that I was saying "North Americans are ignorant" last week. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A belated reminder, but further to the above mentioning this diff, please take a step back and think about your comments before you click the "Save page" button. If what you've written might be seen by others as offensive, don't save it. As noted by Jongleur100, your editing restiction to "avoid personal or inflammatory comments, including in edit summaries"([26]) still applies. EyeSerenetalk 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Monsieur Chateaubriand

Its been over 200 years since you visited the Levant :P the blessed Marie-Alphonsine led me to you and I noticed you share my interest in the Levant. I'm running into a dead end mate, there is this fairy tale crusader castle in northern lebanon called the Mseilha Fort aka "le puy du connetable" , I was working on its article but i cannot further to more than a couple of lines since i have found no references relating its history. I know that the castle was a part of the County of Tripoli yet i cannot corroborate this data too. Where do you suggest i search????? Eli+ 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying mate, thank you for your time. i'm not giving up on the article, looks like i'm gonna have to pay a visit to a couple libraries :S. About Catholics in palestine, well i hope this frail community remains and prospers, but this is unlikely with the current Judaization/Islamization ambitions Eli+ 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:House of Neville

I have nominated Category:House of Neville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Neville family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

O'Donnell Dynasty v. O'Donnell of Tyrconnell ?

With respect, this merger was a big mistake. The name O'Donnell in Ireland has several quite distinct origins, or septs, i.e. if anything, several dynasties.

But the historically most-important are the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell - a distinct sept, of former rulers, indeed a noble family, of Tyrconnell. I recommend that you restore a distinct article which would indeed be better titled "House of O'Donnell of Tyrconnell", in line with prevailing wiki-practice for noble and royal houses. See the article Dynasty. Also, in creating a separate List of people named O'Donnell, you have failed to link it to the main article. By the way, "O'Donnell of Tyrconnell" is well-enough known to Europeans - and this "de/von" argument of DinDraithou rather shows a provinicialism that wikipedia should avoid reflecting. The O'Donnells of Tyrconnell have long-established records of historical roles played in France, Spain, Austria, and elsewhere.

By the way, the so-called "O'Donnell" arms are only one variant - the one (ab)used by tourist souvenir shops. Arms as such are only borned by armigerous persons, and the armigerous O'Donnells have at least 5 variants. Furthermore, your map of Tyrconnell (maximum extent) is wrong in that historical evidence points to a far wider spread at its maximum, indeed almost half of Ireland, which is why the earlier O'Donnell kings were called "Righ Leath Cuinn". Seneschally (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying to some extent, but I agree with DinDraithou that the ones which reigned in Tyrconnell are the "main deal" so to speak and are worthy of primary usage of the main "O'Donnell" redirect; the later lines after they fled to different countries should probably have different articles created specifically for them. On the naming, I personally don't see why "dynasty" is used on these articles (DinDraithou's choice). When I made the O'Brien article for example, I put it as "O'Brien Clan" before it was changed. That is the title I'd prefer for these Irish dynasties; ___Clan.
On the coat of arms and the map; the map was derived from a work by, there doesn't seem to be an abundance of material available on this period (for some reason everything before Cromwell gets criminally neglected). The map on the Tyrconell article is from the 13th century I think. The arms I haven't seen any others to create, isn't the symbolism of the cross one derived from the Habsburg allied Nine Years' War via Hugh Roe Ó Donnell? - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The "latter lines" as you say, assuming you mean the noble O'Donnells, such as General Daniel O'Donnell and also Count O'Donnell in France, and the O'Donnells Dukes of Tetuan in Spain, and the O'Donnells Counts Von Tyrconnell in Austria, are all provably of the main "Tyrconnell" dynasty - and not descended from other septs (such as from Leinster or Clare). The Tyrconnell O'Donnells by the way, meaning the noble dynasty, should be distinguished from the wider clan of whom they were the rulers, so "clan" would not be appropriate.
The coats of arms: the yellow field and red cross is a variant of the arms of Rory O'Donnell, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, although his registered arms depict the cross as blue in the office of the Chief Herald of Ireland. The O'Donnells of Trough Castle (descended from Tyrconnell's, and established in Limerick) have a different armorial, with fish and no cross. The O'Donnells of Austria have the hand and cross but also the Habsburg eagle. The O'Donnells of Ardfert have a cross-crosslet in gold against a blue field. all of these share the same motto In Hoc Signo Vinces and the general emblem of a cross with that motto derive from a legend (influenced by Emperor Constantine's vision at the Milvian Bridge) that Saint Patrick emblazoned the cross on the progenitor of the O'Donnells, namely Conall Gulban (son of Niall of the Nine Hostages). It has nothing to do with the Nine Years War (1592-1601), and nothing to do with the Habsburgs. If anything there is a possible influence by the MacDonalds of Scotland, but medieval Gaelic manuscripts that I have personally studied cast doubt on that, and pre-date any such influence. By the way I am Irish, and specialised in medieval history and can assure you there is an abundance of heraldic and genealogical information on the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell. Seneschally (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church article

Yorkshirian, thank you for coming to the page and offering your comments on the talk page. We have been having difficulty with some editors regarding WP:civil. I have not said anything to these rude editors in the past but have decided now that, since there are no admins doing it except occasionally Richard, I will remind these editors about WP:civil. I hope you are not discouraged by the rudeness and will come be part of the effort to help make the page FA. NancyHeise talk 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton

When you change this. Then you are not making it less POV ... You are rewriting reality. Since Moncktons arguments aren't with the policy (which he of course also doesn't like) - but are about the science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The politics and the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax itself are so closely intwined that to separate them is impossible. Lord Monkton sits in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom and thus is publically known as a politican. His counter-activist involvement is a contribution to the political sphere. Nobody would be bothered about the hoax as such, if the far-left weren't attempting to manipulate political and economic culture itself with it. For instance the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK have spoke out strongly against Marxists trying to exploit the public in the name of the climate change hoax. Besides the intro to Lord Monkton's article being POV, it is also WP:SYNTH. After the far-left were essentially defeated at Copenhagen anyway, we should now make sure there is no POV or SYNTHy bias against biographies on Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No, Lord Monckton does not sit in the House of Lords (thats just the first of the errors in your comment). And i'm sorry to say that the rest of your comments are so blatantly POV that it makes it hard to take serious. How do you define "far-left" for instance - is Gordon Brown far-left? (he was on the opposite side of Monckton in Copenhagen, does that make him a Marxist?).
You need to differentiate between science concepts: Greenhouse gases will warm the atmosphere. And policy concepts: This is a problem that we need to do something about.
Monckton is attacking the science and the policy - but mainly it is the science that is his focus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The Green Party are the most successful far-left party in the UK and are cultural Marxist on almost every position. In regards to Gordon Brown, he also claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—the Labour Party are not above lieing to meet their purely political globalist ends and exploitation of the taxpayer. Lets put it this way; some people claim Bigfoot exists; this in the political sphere is largely inconsequential because nobody is attempting to extort billions in the name of the "Bigfoot threat". The adoption of scientific language to political concepts is at the core of the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax. If not, why would political heads of state from around the world need to meet in Copenhagen for a game of globalist chess, if the politics was just a tiny "side issue" to keep out of sight? - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
sorry I think there was an edit conflict there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we keep this here? You are letting your political views taint your editing. And i'm sorry to say that your comments so far make you seem rather more biased than the viewpoints that you apparently disagree with. We have to describe things as it is seen by the majority (be it in science or in policy), that is what NPOV is about, it is not "equal time" to all viewpoints. As a side-note, what you are saying is also a false dichtomy, since the policy agreement on climate change transcends political barriers (at least in Europe), so that the Conservatives in Britain are also arguing for it - just as Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel do respectively in France and Germany. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lessons learnt

Hi Yorky, you've been doing some fantastic work.

Remember the Labour immigration scandal article you made not that long ago, that got deleted? (Which absolutely should not have been deleted) The article was perfectly fine, and should eventually be rebuilt at a future, appropriate time.

You know where you messed up in launching that? One of the first things you did after creating it was putting it in a Labour party template/infobox!! That was a very silly tactical mistake! Think about who likes to look at that grid, who travels through it, who built it. Answer: People who would not be fans of your new article. You walked into a 'kill-zone', with not enough friendlies about who knew about the new article, who could have provided support and assistance. Approached differently, and that article would be up there right now. You actually had MP's staffers all over your article, so of course it was ganged up on and wiped out. (Plus, it wasn't really the most appropriate place to put it for general information reasons anyway).

Next time, build up any "future new articles" within a friendly ideological harbour. Build up projects you're working on slowly, make sure that other friendlies know about it, and you'll do much better. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillteache (talkcontribs) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

EP for Luxemburg

Not Viviane Reding since 2009, She is a EU commissioner but not in parliament. The name of th EU politician is Georges Bach in parliament for CSV since 2009. GLGermann (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

BNP and C18

Be careful. You seem to be playing around in the BNP article with C18 and moving it to suggest that it is the same as the BNP's security force. This is not true (though I suspect that the one was in fact heavily dependent on the other). BNP has always denied links to C18, which is not the same as saying there are none. That's why C18 featurs as a section in the BNP article. I have taken the liberty of reversing these moves, and suggest you look a bit more carefully at the issue. Hoepfully, this will avoid a lot of problems later. Emeraude (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're stilll editing the article so I can't make the changes. There is a whole chunk of text that you moved from the C18 section into the 1990s, plus a pasting from the C18 article itself that need to be replaced. Emeraude (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but the sources may not be reliable. Tyndall always denied (publicly) any knowledge of C18, so he would also deny having had it set up (see here and [here], despite what the BBC reference says. My own view is that the BNP did set it up and disowned it when it got out of hand, and there seems to be some evidence for that. However, it is also plausible that C18 was set up unofficially by individual BNP members, supporters and hangers on (and there is evidence for that as well!). If you haven't already, read the rationale I gave on the talk page for removing some text from the C18 article. Emeraude (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You must stick to what the source says. It nowhere mentions the League of St George, so any mention in the article is unsourced. The article does not say Red Action attacked the Kensington Library meeting, anywhere, so that's unsourced. The interviewee mentions Red Action, but does not specifically name them as the hammer wielders, so that is unsourced, and would be even if he did mention them. His claims are not not proven and the Independent is simply reporting what was said - it makes no claim for the veracity or otherwise of anything said by its interviewees - indeed, how could it given the nature of the article? Everything said by the C18 members in the Independent must be taken with a pinch of salt. Yes, the paper is a generally reliable source, but it would not assume to be used as proof that what people it has interviewed have said is true, rather than what its own reporters have discovered. Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You are failing to abide by WP:BRD please self revert your changes on the BNP page and discuss them as requested. --Snowded TALK 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture of the United Kingdom

Hi Yorkshirian, I hope all is well,

On the trail of the success you had with the England article, and remembering you had some plans for Great Britain, I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User:Jza84/Sandbox3? I have 'pinched' some of the material you did for England and used it at the sandbox. I was motivated to do something about this important article, because a couple of bright sparks turned an article into a disamibugation page.... in good faith of course... --Jza84 |  Talk  00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic

Thank you for the interesting picture of Anne Boleyn on a hunting expedition. I have already uploaded it to her article. She was a keen huntress. As for Henry resembling the Jolly Green Giant; well, that's a good description of him. He was also known as Bluff King Hal. Green was one of the Tudor colours, the other being white. It's strange how a cruel tyrant such as Henry was highly regarded by the populace, whereas Richard III, who was interested in obtaining justice for the people was reviled-except in the North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox UK place

Hello again Yorkshirian,

We've disagreed in the past, as you know. I wondered what you thought about Template talk:Infobox UK place, specifically the part under the heading Dublin. I have no idea as to what your answer will be, but I know for sure that you will speak your mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Roman Catholic theology

Hi. I have seen that you remove some theologians from Roman Catholic theology template. I have previously added some names mostly important figures in 20th century Toman Catholic theology and philosophy. Some of them are included in book Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians by Fergus Kerr (like Bernard Lonergan). In article Karl Rahner write that Rahner is consider as one of the most important Roman Catholic theologians of 20th centuri among with Hans Urs von Balthasar and Bernard Lonergan. Étienne Gilson, probably leading interpretor of Thomas Aquinas in 20th century also removed. I dont insist to put all Roman Catholic theologians but some os the most important are excluded from list. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that recentism can be a big problem. but I thint that we can put same number of theologians in 20-21st cebtury box as in 19th century box. I think that 20th century was much more inportant for Roman Catholic theology than 19th. Especially related to Second Vatican Council and after-concil theology. Also I think that modern theologians are more interesting for thelogy students, for example, than theologians from other periods. I dont thin that we need to put 20 or more names, maybe several more like Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar and especially Hans Küng (he is well known not only among theologians). Maybe article Roman Catholic theology in 20th century should put tham all together :) Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting idea about theologians per country. Did you mean on specific templates for Roman Catholic theologians per some coutries (of course not for every country just for some of leading theological centres if I can use such phrase like Germany, Italy, France, Italy etc). Also it would be very usefull to make List of Roman Catholic theologians. Modern theology, as I can see, isn't only concentrated around great names like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus but thre are many important writers on specific areas of theology who aren't well knowen so we need some more cooperator to do such job. I am interested to write on Roman Catholic topics but I am not expert so I cant do many things alone but I would like to cooperate. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil

Hello! I have been working for quite some time by now in Pedro II of Brazil article. I've divided it in several articles (I've just finished Early life of Pedro II of Brazil) that goes from his birth to the the period beyond his death. The problem is that I am only one and can't do everything by myself. I've been trying to write on articles related to the Empire of Brazil (Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Platine War, etc...) but I could use some help. There is no need at all to know anything about Brazilian history. Do you know could I get some? Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I see your exchange with user Snowded. I've had experiences with him. His behavior is really strange. What's going on with you guys, seems to be similar to my experiences. He doesn't get much involved in the discussions, seems to not really read the talk pages, and then just comes in and claims that there's no consensus or something like that, or reverts something without really explaining why, and then just interrupts the whole flow of progress that was taking place. It seems like he's just intervenes for the sake of intervening in order to see himself as some type of policeman or arbiter that swoops in to make sure nobody does anything without consensus, but he just makes things worse throwing a wrench in the progress that's been made. He'll revert things and in his edit summary say to stop edit warring, but not seeing that he's edit warring. It's a really strange thing. Maybe just bored. Can I touch it? (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI report here. I see you have someone else who has been reverted against three other editors expressing sympathy--Snowded TALK 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at British National Party, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks

You are currently involved in an edit war at British National Party. Making bold edits to improve an article is laudable, especially when there is a broad consensus at the talkpage that improvements are needed. When other editors in good faith request further discussion of your edits, however, the onus devolves to you to engage in the specifics of that discussion rather than simply reverting to your preferred version and continuing to make controversial changes. Such discussion should be civil, focusing on the content of the proposed edits themselves to the exclusion of commentary on your fellow volunteers. Particularly to be avoided are accusations of bad faith, dismissive references to political leanings, and personal attacks. Your contributions are valuable, but please keep this in mind. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Before cutting any more text from any portion of the article, can you please propose/discuss it as you have been asked? It doesn't apply only to the History section. I have no problem with the correction of refs/dates/etc, it is specifically the removal of paragraphs of text without discussion. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BNP article

Thanks for your note. I saw the recent ANI thread, though I came to it late when it seemed that you'd managed to work things out (up to a point) so I didn't think I could add anything useful. Re the article, as an admin I can't get involved in content disputes; I have no more say than anyone else on content (as long as it doesn't violate policy), so my opinion would be nothing more than simply my opinion. As an editor, I really don't have the time to get involved in anything substantial at the moment, and that dispute looks like it would be a bit of a time sink! There are some suggestions on WP:DR if things come unstuck again, and I'm always prepared to help out with things like page protection if edit-warring becomes a problem. Sorry not to be of more help. EyeSerenetalk 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage

I'm sorry to say that I've basically ripped off your user page, because it's one of the best I've ever seen, and my old one was shamefully bad. If you visit it, you will notice I've even stolen two of your userboxes, such is my poor Wikipedia-ing ability. I hope you don't mind - if you do, let me know SE7Talk/Contribs 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Seán Mac Stíofáin

The article Seán Mac Stíofáin, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction as may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.--Domer48'fenian' 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Triumph for the House of Savoy

Hey, Yorkshirian, did you hear about Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont coming in second place at the Sanremo Music Festival despite the catcalling and yobbish behaviour from the anti-monarchists in the audience?! Ha ha ha.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

FYI, you've been mentioned in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Karanacs (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#O'Brien dynasty

Hi, I just wanted to alert you to this, I saw your interaction while looking at recent changes. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Sinn Féin

Firstly, apologies for missing your reply to my earlier post - I often check my talk page via the last change link in the message bar when I log in, and if there has been more than one change (especially to an older thread) I don't always notice the older ones. I found it just now while looking for a convenient link to your talkpage. Secondly, you need to be very careful about edits like this. It could be taken as trolling because it contains provocative implications that you must be aware some editors will find offensive; from a hostile perspective it reads as though you are actively looking for a dispute. As I've explained on RTG's talk page, I have cut you some slack in the past because you're on your final 'life' (and you do some good article work). It would be a mistake to rely on this though; other admins might not be so reluctant to reblock your account for minor infractions, and community patience is not endless. EyeSerenetalk 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Members of the EP

I really appreciate your work on those navboxes—{{Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004}}, {{Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009}}, and {{Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014}}—but it looks like they're getting too large. --bender235 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't want to reply, okay. But don't you think we should split up these templates? Like one for each country's MEPs. --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I apologize for other editor's incivility on the talk page. Your question is very valid and I answered you on the talk page here [27]. NancyHeise talk 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The new version

The old version of the article is now dead, and there was never really any consensus for it. Please discuss major changes in the talk page. The new version is now the baseline model: do not tamper it with it substantially unless you bring up your complaints in the talk page first and get consensus for your ideas.UberCryxic (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The straw poll ended 11-7 in favor of changing to the new version. Thank you for your understanding.UberCryxic (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I made a "bold innovation." All of that was part of the straw poll. That's what we voted on. Please do not tamper with the article in that manner until you gain consensus for your changes. Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring and I wish you would stop. I do not plan to follow in your path.UberCryxic (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This confrontational style cannot and will not improve the article. Do not take your concerns to my talk page, but rather to the talk page of the article. That's where these discussions belong.UberCryxic (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, a reminder that WP:3RR is not a license to revert, you don't have to revert three times to be blocked, and you should probably read that page lest you be blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank you very much! Despite our differences, we came together to find a working compromise. I look forward to working with you in the future to improve the article. Thank you again.UberCryxic (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


What are you doing? The claim has four reputable sources (all books) from political scientists. Refer to the talk page about WP:EXTREMIST, which you don't understand very well at all (in fact, you completely misunderstood what it means). "Extremist" can be included if it's sourced properly.UBER (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are also changing the lead in a way that no one previously agreed to, substituting "right-wing" far "far-right" without any prior consensus. At the very least, until we sort out the extremist stuff, leave far-right in the lead. Again, I'll follow the same strategy as at the CC article: you can either make the changes yourself, or I'll make them for you if you continue your reckless edit wars.UBER (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You can not find reputable sources from political scientists calling Obama an extremist, so please do not attempt to make such a ludicrous and appalling comparison.UBER (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What you will not find, or at least I would be shocked if you did, is a reputable source from a neutral political scientist calling Obama extremist. You're playing around with terms like "mainstream media" without identifying any specifics. Just so we're clear: the likes of National Review, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh are not considered reputable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. Again, stop bringing up this botched comparison before you further taint Wikipedia's good name.UBER (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you're constantly bringing up this tired mantra of yours, provide me one reputable source, as defined by Wikipedia, that explicitly calls Obama racist or extremist. Either do it or stop wasting our time and start being serious.UBER (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time and see this.UBER (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Please don't link RL names to accounts, regardless of whether you think you may be right or not. It's not allowed per WP:OUTING and, in certain cases, can be considered harassment. You already know the rules on this stuff - Alison 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mein Kampf.png

Thanks for uploading File:Mein Kampf.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Connacht

Hello Yorkshirian. I was delighted to find illustrations of the kingdoms of Thomond and Desmond recently created, by yourself I believe. I have long since wished to create one for Connacht and its kingdoms but do not know how to do so. Rather than ask you to do it for me, could you advise me how I should go about it? Imagery construction is a mystery to me. Fergananim (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Again with the edit warring

I appreciate and respect your "wikidragon" mentality, as you say in your userpage, but the lead sentence for the JBS was placed there through consensus and that's the same thing you need in the talk page before you can change it further. Thank you for your understanding.UBER (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Unbelievable. The difference between the changes you propose and those that Haldraper proposes is that Haldraper actually has consensus behind them. You don't. Please take it to the talk page.UBER (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper has actually discussed his changes regularly in the talk page, and I advise you to do the same.UBER (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Yorkshirian. All credit for your sterling work in trying to keep balance in the article. I have posted a critique of the recent drastic changes on the talk page, and have proposed a rather different solution that could set the article back on a proper track. I hope you will read it and give consideration to my suggestions. Xandar 11:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion

I hope I haven't annoyed you with my compromise suggestion of deleting the History section from the CC article and restoring all the rest. It was a suggestion floated to see if it could quickly resolve the situation - and would actually amount to just a de-facto splitting of the article between Catholic Church and History of the Catholic Church. This is in view of the sudden immense pressure to hugely cut the article. The suggestion has not generated great enthusiasm in any event. I very much appreciate your great work recently to keep the History section balanced and preserve it from the hack and slash that has been applied to the other sections. Personally I don't have a strong view on the History section being in the article now that we have a HoCC article. But with people saying that there's no room to tell people about the Church Today and its beliefs and Organisation, changing the History section to a link to HoCC seems an elegant solution. I don't like History at the top though, because it just makes the article look like HoCC, and hinders people reading the other material - which has been cut on the page to Stub level. Xandar 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice - Proposal on community ban of you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To amplify this - the discussion is a proposal to community ban you from Wikipedia for ongoing disruptive editing and source fabrication. As of the moment I am posting this, there is a 12-1-1 ban/don't ban/ban from all talk pages and reverts alternate edit restriction. It would be premature to call a consensus only 4 hours after the proposal was posted, but obviously there is some very significant concern being voiced by very senior Wikipedians. Please address the issues on ANI.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of ban discussion

Yorkshirian, I'm enacting the very clear consensus here, and blocking you indefinitely; unfortunately, you have been banned from participating in Wikipedia. If I understand right, this can be appealed via email to the arbitration committee, but not through an unblock request, so I have also prevented you from editing this talk page to emphasize the finality to this decision. If you have any questions, you may email me; I've left the "email this user" function enabled.

It appears you and Wikipedia are not a good fit for each other. Please consider taking your considerable talents elsewhere, rather than... you know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Mein Kampf.png

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Mein Kampf.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MASEM (t) 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)