User talk:HighKing/Archives/2008/July

This is an archive of past discussions about User:HighKing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No vandalism

What are You talking about. This IP is used by many people and is no vandalism here that I can see. 141.6.8.72 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I was reverting anon IP vandalism this morning and must have crossed some wires. I'll remove the notice. --Bardcom (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just checked. What are *you* talking about? I haven't posted anything to your Talk page...--Bardcom (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, our IP changes frequently at BASF Services but I see Your comments to the IPs and I don't understand your point. There is no vandalism anywhere. I think you need to be aware of the policy what means vandalism. 141.6.8.73 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider getting a login. No point in trying to carry on a discussion with anon IP's... --Bardcom (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now sir, please address the points I make. BASUSER (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! :-) I marked the edits in question as vandalism because the edits were made to incorrectly introduce the term British Isles into a number of articles without an edit summary explaining the edit (or any other type of explanation), and the editor in question appears to be attempting to "game" the system by using different IP addresses (all BASF addresses) to make the same edits in order to avoid detection. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, or consensus building, and is a form of vandalism. --Bardcom (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is a content dispute. You are informed above that these IPs quickly change and one person has no control over his IP. I ask You again to remind Yourself of the policy in this matter and You will see it is not vandalism regardless of a summary on the edit. You could remove the warnings from the IP pages or else I will consider all your edits and ask You for further explanation on the talk pages. Thankyou. BASUSER (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it a content dispute? How do you know? I don't. As far as I can see, it's mindless reverting to older revisions. Perhaps if a reason was given on the edit summaries, there might be something to disagree with. As it is, it is not a content dispute, because there is no dispute. I'd give the same warning for any mindless revert (and have done so in the past). I'd also remind you that it is policy to warn the IP address so that there is a record of the vandalism - if the behaviour continues, anonymous editting may be blocked from this range. Removing the warnings won't remove the record. Finally, your "threat" to consider "all my edits" suggests that perhaps you know more about the anon IP addresses. Are you the person that editted the articles? --Bardcom (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio 4 Theme

Hi Bardcom, just looking over the BI issue again, and as usual some of your edits are valid, some we could argue about, but there is one that stands out a mile as being, IMHO, completely wrong. I refer to the Radio 4 UK Theme. How do you know that Irish fishermen use RTE for the shipping forecast? I don't know if RTE provides a shipping forecast (I expect they do) but the BBC shipping forecast is for all, regardless of nationality, and if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the likelihood of a large number of Irish fishermen listening to it (and other nationalities undoubtedly do as well), but that would be OR if included here, a bit like your assertion. In the context of shipping areas the British Isles is admirably suited to describe the extent of their relevance. We're talking geography here, and the shipping areas completely surround all parts of the BI. If there's any subject where BI is correct that the Shipping Forecast must surely be it. I'll revert to BI in the article unless you can come up with a much better reason why it shouldn't be used. CarterBar (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (Move this to the relevant Talk page if you want). CarterBar (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi CarterBar - I know that Irish fishermen use the RTE forecast because I grew up in this environment. The assertion that the BBC forecast is for all of the British Isles is incorrect. The BBC provides a service for it's license holders - British license holders, and as such the forecast is for areas where these fishermen are likely to be fishing. Most definitely not off the coast of Ireland as this would be illegal (and they're not Spanish fishermen). I'm not about to revert until we've discussed this edit - and thank you for discussing. --Bardcom (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bardcom, I note that RTE do provide a shipping forecast but only for the waters around Ireland. As for the BBC, they not only provide services to the British licence payer but to others as well. Think of the BBC World Service, and the international element of the BBC website. Another point to bear in mind is how the "gale warning" Shipping Forecast is introduced: "Attention all shipping...", not "Attention British shipping...". The Shipping Forecast, broadcast on LW, has a range covering all of the sea areas around the British Isles and is clearly aimed at all mariners - not just fishermen - in all those sea areas, Irish ones included. The sea areas completely surround all of the islands and are of a geographic nature, so the use of British Isles seems highly appropriate. CarterBar (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC World Service is funded differently - not from license payers. The BBC Radio 4 is funded through British license payers. From the BBC article, it states As part of the BBC Charter, the Corporation cannot show commercial advertising on any services in the United Kingdom (television, radio, or internet). Outside the United Kingdom the BBC broadcasts commercially funded channels such as BBC America, BBC Canada, and BBC World News. In order to justify the licence fee, the BBC is expected to produce a number of high-rating shows[citation needed] in addition to programmes that commercial broadcasters would not normally broadcast. Please note the use of the term United Kingdom and not British Isles, as this is the correct broadcasting area coverage. Also please note the article BBC Radio 4 which has the opening line BBC Radio 4 is a domestic UK radio station. Again the use of the term domestic UK is accurate and correct. Please also note the frequencies section - it doesn't "broadcast" into Ireland's radio spectrum (officially...). One of the tenets of Wikipedia is consistency throughout the articles, therefore can you please revert the article? --Bardcom (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are both wrong:-)This Daily Torygraph article sort of explains that the extent is much, much farther than the BI. I've picked it up off Portugal on a good night. What does any reference to the possible geographical location of some phantom listeners possibly add to the encyclopaedicness (or is that encyclopaedicity?) of the article. Wherever the listeners are they will receive the broadcast, otherwise they are not the listeners are they? Crispness (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And from the BBC site, this one is probably the most authoritative. Northwest Europe again. Crispness (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the issues being raised here are irrelevant, but for the record the BBC broadcasts the Shipping Forecast on behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency and it is obviously aimed at any mariner who cares to listen while in the vicinity of the British Isles, particularly in the sea areas that completely surround the islands - Man and Jersey included. I suggest the article is left in its current state - which is how it's been for some time - and if you're set on making a change to remove British Isles (why anyone would want to do so is quite beyond me in this particluar case) we should engage the services of a disinterested editor who could arbitrate in this matter. I'll accept any decision from an independent editor and I'm sure you would as well. Have you any suggestions as to the identity of a suitable person, if you want to follow this course of action? CarterBar (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can edit any page on WP so long as they are not restricted from doing so by a disciplinary ruling. Asking for an 'independent' editor should never be necessary. You don't seem to understand how things work. BTW, have you any reference for your assertions about the BI? For what its worth, if someone can receive a radio signal in Jersey, it is highly likely they can also receive it in France. The reason why the reference to the BI should be removed is that it is unencyclopaedic. That you don't understand that says more about you, I'd say. Crispness (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it seems there are a number of issues - let's see if we can separate them out. My point is consistency across Wikipedia articles, and references for claims made. My claims and edits are referencable to the existing Wikipedia articles. In addition, (and as a litmus test for using the term British Isles) what would happen if you introduces a phrase into the Radio 4 article stating that it broadcasts all over the British Isles?

The second issue is from CarterBar who states that the broadcast can be picked up further away than just the UK, and that because it is broadcast on "behalf of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, it should reference the British Isles. I've read this article and it uses the term UK throughout - not the British Isles.

The third issue comes from Crispness who correctly states that if the argument is about the areas the broadcast can be picked up, then the term British Isles is not appropriate, and provides a reference to "Northwest Europe". He also asks CarterBar for a reference for using the term British Isles which we don't have to date. The personal comments are irrelevant.

I still maintain that the UK is the most appropriate term with the "most" references, and the most obvious references. But in the absence of a reference for the term "British Isles", the claim is OR. CarterBar, can you find/provide a suitable reference? --Bardcom (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bardcom, do a Google search of "Radio 4 UK Theme" and "British Isles" and you'll see plenty of examples that could be used as references, mainly to state that the tune comes from the "four corners of the BI" or words to that effect. It would therefore be possible to justify inclusion of the term on the basis of some of these. However, we are NEVER going to agree on this, nor obtain a general consensus, and there's no point on an edit war, so I say again, get an impartial view on the matter. I don't see any other way forward. CarterBar (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

CarterBar, you were asked for references to justify the usage. I take it that there are none. You are now trying to come up with some other way of introducing the term in a different context. I had hoped that we had developed a challenge-response mechanism of addressing our different opinions, and that it appeared to have been working. I would like to continue to believe that either of us can accept a reasonable request for a reference, or a reasonable argument (as we have done in the past). --Bardcom (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've forgotten what the basic argument is about here. I think the reference you request is to confirm that the sea areas "surround the British Isles" or that the LW broadcast is "heard around the British Isles". Well here's a few -

Now don't tell me they also mention "sea areas around Britain", and other variations; I know they do, but each of them also categorically gives a reference to the British Isles in this context. Take your pick from them, and there are many more out there. From the last of the above references we have this quote; "The reason for choosing BBC Radio 4 for the Shipping Forecast is not simply because it is a speech-based channel, but also because it broadcasts via longwave as well as FM, and the longwave signal can be received clearly at sea all around the British Isles. [my emphasis]" I hope this will do, because I feel we should be debating more important BI and related issues. I am reverting the change made by Crispness, since the debate was clearly ongoing and edits of this nature shouldn't be made when the subject is still being discussed. Likewise I'm reverting your Radio 4 edit because it is a related issue and we need (agreed) consistency. Anyway,why didn't you change the Shipping Forecast article to match that of Radio 4. Radio 4 is higher up the article hierarchy, so to speak. Incidentally, I've twice offered a way out of this impasse, by the use of some form of arbitration. What is your objection to this? CarterBar (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Lets take those refs one-by-one. The first one (Met Office) is unfortunately an educational page, simplified for its target audience, secondary school pupils. It takes about the coastal waters forecast around the BI, but this includes North and South Uitsire, Southeast Iceland, Biscay, Fitzroy and Trafalgar, none of which would come anywhere close to the WP definition of BI. The Met Office may consider Biscay to be 'around the BI', but unfortunately it doesn't wash on WP.

The second page is a user home page quick reference, rather than an academic treatise. Unfortunately, given the weight of other evidence available, it wouldn't stand up to the requirements of WP:V. It is very close to being a self published source as the last 2 blogs most definitely are. But the page is more of an eclectic collection of useful met sources covering the British Isles. But it goes much further than that, including met charts for the Caribbean and North Atlantic. Not a definitive sources.

Sorry but blogs 3 and 4 don't count. I made a factual edit to the Radio 4 Theme article. I removed any reference to an assumed range for the broadcasts. It is silly to contend that listeners need to be in a particular geographical location. The propogation of radio waves does not follow fixed rules. Anyone who can hear the forecast can use the information.Crispness (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

CarterBar, I agree with Crispness. These "references" are not adequate and don't stand up, especially in the face of the official pages I've already referenced. I'm deliberately not trying to edit war, but at this point I feel that you are entrenching in your view. If you believe arbitration is required, by all means seek it. --Bardcom (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking absolute rubbish! What a surprise, you agree with Crispness. Yes, I am going to take this to arbitration if you or Crispness revert the article again. CarterBar (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great argument. I'll consider your comment to mean that you have nothing more to add, and I will revert your changes as uncited and unreferenced. You are free to take whatever actions you like. --Bardcom (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you agree to mediation in this matter? CarterBar (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As a measure of the respect for our previous conversations and for you, then for this case - yes, I will. --Bardcom (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR at GENUKI

You have now reverted the GENUKI article 4 times today to remove British Isles from the text. Please see this Wikipedia:3RR#I have violated 3RR. What do I do? and I recommend you undo your last revert, otherwise I will report it on the Wikipedia Administrators Notice board. I have reverted your edit 3 times only. 86.27.107.230 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PamD has reverted your last edit for you, so on this occasion I will not take the matter further, but be aware, if you revert the article again in the next day I will report it at the Administrator Notice board, and likewise if you continue to make such edits after the 24 hour period. I suggest you accept the considered views of the editors at this article. British Isles is correct usage and is a given. The GENUKI site is a reference in itself. 86.27.107.230 (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request filed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bardcom. EmpireForever (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

John Patrick Kenneally

RE: "Removed wikilinks from direct quotation as per suggested guidelines - MOSQUOTE" Do you have a link to 'MOSQUOTE' please?

Unknown Unknowns (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure - apologies. Normally when someone throws a policy at you like POV or AGF, just put a "WP:" (without the quotes) in front of it, and put the term in the search box. So in this case, put "WP:MOSQUOTE" in the search box. It takes you to where it says "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.". Thank you --Bardcom (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If I can make a comment here? I think a problem with removing the links in the quotation as Bardcom did it was that it was not done completely: the links for British Isles and the other British-related link were removed, but the links to the other people in the quotation remained. Thus it may have appeared partial and inconsistent to other editors. If there was a compelling reason why only the two links that were removed should have been removed whilst leaving the others in place, it was not given, and this probably produced the puzzlement. As it happens, I have now made the links in the quotation completely comply with WP:MOSQUOTE by removing all of them, and adding a sentence after the quote that allows the links to the other people mentioned still have a presence in the article. I think if links are removed like this, some extra care is needed to explain the removal in greater detail (especialy if some are left in place) and so make sure that what is done doesn't appear inconsistent and partial to other editors. But, it can be a mistake that is easy to do and from which none of us are immune, which is why we need to emphasize the collaborative nature of this entire site, as many eyes can have a better chance of spotting all problems and slip ups. I hope it can be now seen as a minor issue. DDStretch (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dubs

You're so right and you've explained it perfectly. Sorry for seeming dense. I added a new link on Dub for the nickname, but I left the book since "The Dubs" is part of the title. What do you think? SlackerMom (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK with me --Bardcom (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There's method behind my madness

I didn't open the discussion myself, as I'm hoping to encourage the others to do so. That's also the reason why I didn't revert all of the anon edits. PS- all you guys should be bringing these BI usage disputes to a conclusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting and opening discussions. Pity you had to get involved, but at least it got you editting articles! :-) I've only just seen what's going on now. BTW, there's a discussion taking place on the anon IP's Talk page, and interestingly he posted a link to this [5]. A bit of a new low. --Bardcom (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Support to add British Isles to Ireland article

Hi Bardcom, I'd like to ask for your support in adding British Isles to articles such as Ireland (one of the two main islands of), and River Shannon (longest river in). Thanks. TharkunColl (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

After I've finished with the massive reverting you did this morning, I promise to take a look. I've not looked yet, but provisionally I'd say there shouldn't be a problem adding the term. --Bardcom (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of editors didn't like me adding it to Ireland, and kept on bringing up political stuff as their reasons. Your agreement that the term is valid here would go a long way to get it accepted. TharkunColl (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You've broken 3RR at frost fairs [6]. Please self-revert asap William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why removing British Isles?

May I ask why you keep removing references to the "British Isles"? Not trying to start anything here, I am just curious as it is such an odd thing to do. _{1 != 2} 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I created a new section. Consensus reached here is that it is a geographic term (only). It is contentious to some in any context, but that's not part of my edits. In the past, it had other meanings, mostly geopolitical - you'll find older legal documents or books use the term to mean "all the islands". Many current articles use the term incorrectly, and in a way that the term is being used interchangeably so that "British Isles" = "United Kingdom" = "Britain". So, it's fine to use the term in article about "Highest mountain", or "longest river". Fauna distribution is also often described in terms of the region "British Isles", but for some reason Flora isn't. It gets more contentious when editors state "Tallest building in the British Isles" or some other claim to uniqueness for the British Isles. This is a throwback to older phrasing and is very British - and a lot of the time isn't true. I try to avoid these when I can. Lastly, there's a whole bunch of unreferenced claims where I either remove the claim (although not often), or I ask for a citation. Some articles are more difficult than others. Any help? --Bardcom (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Most enlightening. _{1 != 2} 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, this edit that started the current ruckus used the term in a geographical meaning, and it can be sourced in exactly that wording to at least to one of the online sources. This one also used the term in the a purely geographical sense (and you apparently confused church (the physical building) with church (the religious organization)). At the very least, you should be more careful. At best, pick another topic of interest for a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, leaving aside the edits for the moment, *all* editors make mistakes, and that's why the Talk pages exist - for discussion. And I am always happy to discuss the edits. And I often have discussions, and occasionally I'm wrong. Most times, the term is used incorrectly though.

Lets look at the two examples though. The first refers to River Thames frost fairs. I deleted the text because it was vague and unreferenced. I've since changed the article and added a reference. So the article went from having incorrect text, to having no incorrect text, to having a referenced citation. The second article deals with Amelia Curran and stated that many of her painting are in churches throughout the British Isles. This is an example of using a geographical region when discussing cultural subject that has no relevance to the geographical region. By this I mean that there is no Catholic church of the British Isles, so why use the term. The correct way to reference is to list the individual country names. I've since left the term and asked for a reference. --Bardcom (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A geographical region has a culture, states come and go. TharkunColl (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree. But does the "British Isles" have a culture? I don't think so - that's why this term shouldn't be used in this context. --Bardcom (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see. It has a shared language (English), shared institutions (pubs), and a shared population that can travel freely. Would you like any more examples? TharkunColl (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't even try to argue that there is a shared culture...I'd rather not turn my Talk page into a battlezone. But feel free to take it to the British Isles page. I think we both know that the outcome would be that there is not a shared culture in Great Britain, never mind in the British Isles. --Bardcom (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on your parameters. Language is probably the best guideline. The Irish speak English, just like the Scots and Welsh. They are therefore not foreign. TharkunColl (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not enough though. I'm not arguing that Ireland has no shared culture with Britain - far from it - but that's not enough to make assumptions that the Irish are British, or that the British Isles is one culture, or that there's enough cultural similarities to regard the region as one. That's just not true and not valid. Agree? --Bardcom (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said the Irish are British, and the term British Isles doesn't imply that. As for your other point - the British Isles exhibit far more cultural similarities in comparison with Europe than they do differences. In a wide sense, yes - just like Scandinavia for example, we are a cultural region. TharkunColl (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it pretty hard to believe that Ireland has no shared culture with Britain. _{1 != 2} 01:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your campaign to remove "BI". And please don't add spurious refs to justify your doing so. [7] simply adds some stuff that doesn't at all justfy the pointless geogrqaphical change you've made William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A warning William - no personal comments please - it is against policy and are not tolerated. If you continue, I will leave another warning on your Talk page. If you have a problem with the edit, then discuss the edit, not the editor. As to your accusation of "spurious refs", I notice you have singularly neglected to add *any* refs to back your the claim of "British Isles". Finally, this is bullying, plain and simple. --Bardcom (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not really a personal comment. It is a comment about your editing style. He is talking about the edits, not the editor. I think instead of just going ahead and doing this when people are complaining you should just seek a consensus to make these changes before hand. I don't think you are being bullied, you are just acting very strong-headed and people are resisting that. I don't think Will is taking this personally, and neither should you. I also think you should hesitate using templated warnings because Will's comment is not really against any of our civility or personal attack policies, it is a comment about your editing pattern. _{1 != 2} 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your taking the time to help. Thank you. I'm certainly not taking this personally either, and I believe Will isn't - he tried to warn on the 3RR after all, just bad timing for me to go out. Your comments on "editing style" and "editing pattern" are fine, but making statements that I have a campaign, or insinuating that I have an anti-British-Isles POV, are not fine, and are over the line. I don't believe I am particularly strong-headed either - when a discussion is ongoing and points are raised, I don't edit. I stop and talk. But when reverts are going on with the only discussion along the lines of "Stop being silly", or when Will responds (more than once) with the fact that there'san RfA as the reason to revert my edits. Is that a reason? An editor under RfA can have their edits reverted without discussion or reason, and be warned with "Stop being silly"? Think about it. --Bardcom (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)And also for the record, Will has just stated "he is adopting a politically motivated POV" on Talk:River Thames frost fairs. This is over the line, and a personally insulting comment. I am not politically motivated, and this comment is in breach of wikipedia policy and etiquette. Yet another warning to Will - if I wasn't blocked, I would place it on your Talk page. Stop making personal comments, especially ones that I have objected to previously. If you don't, you may be blocked. --Bardcom (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Another, Will has stated his isn't a genuine good-faith attempt to improve wiki; its POV pushing be to try to remove a term he dislikes for political reasons.. Does anybody care about WP:AGF anymore? ad hominen attacks anyone? Or can an admin pretty much get away with saying and doing anything the like? Here - [8] --Bardcom (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Bardcom, This is all getting out of hand, on both sides. Let's just call a stop to this, at least until we see what happens at the RfArb. Will you agree to a moratorium on any further BI-related changes for now? I will, if you agree, and I'm sure other editors will as well CarterBar (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a time this request would have carried more weight. Tell you what - I won't edit any new articles, but right now I'm going to look at the reverts. Is this acceptable? --Bardcom (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but don't just blindly revert them again. Put an discussion on the Talk page and then revert if you feel you've a good argument. I won't counter revert again under those circumstances. (BTW I think I've got a good argument with MultiMap). CarterBar (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. It's what I've always stated, and I haven't changed. I'm always happy to discuss my edits. --Bardcom (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'm away now, but I'll look at any discussions later this evening or tomorrow. CarterBar (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I've been overtaken by events. Anyway, I'll put a comment on the Talk page of Frost Fairs. That article seems to be the focus at the moment. BI or not, quite why we need four references is beyond me. CarterBar (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And more importantly, none of the references are for the British Isles, yet the article still includes the term.. Be a good sport would you :-) --Bardcom (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha... we'll see. Anyway, just to show that I'm an exceptionally magnanimous editor I've take BI out of Paul Allen (author). I think it reads better to say he left England rather than he left the British Isles, and in this case England is more appropriate anyway - football and all that. Don't know about TMF UK though. We need some other opinions on that one. CarterBar (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional, I agree! :-) We can look at TMF UK later, no probs. I see you've dug up a reference for "British Isles" and the Thames frost fairs - only problem is that it says it got the original data from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm (see top of page), and that page appears to be missing.... It's difficult to even find any reference... which kinda shows why "British Isles" is unsupported in the first place... Anyway, thanks - appreciate it. --Bardcom (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Here's a pretty good reference. It's a book called The Climate of Europe, Past, Present, and Future - Natural and Man-induced Climatic Changes: A European perspective and published by the European commission. Page 46. Here's a link: [9]] It mentions that the winter of 1683-4 appears as the coldest in the central England record since 1659, though it was probably equalled by the winter of 1607-8 (which may have exceeded it in the Netherlands and Germany). --Bardcom (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to stop just going around removing a term that you disagree with when people start disagreeing with you. If you just keep being stubborn about it then you will just keep getting blocked. It is not enough to think you are right you need to convince the other editors of the page, and abide by any consensus that results. When people start reverting you stop and talk, this will just keep happening otherwise. _{1 != 2} 13:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to all, I didn't realise. I made the undo and went out (first bit of sun in Ireland for weeks!). Had I seen William's warning in time, I'd have reverted straight away. This block, I accept. A stupid error on my part. And I acknowledge William's attempt to warn me too (a good hour before the block) - thank you. Being cheeky now, but any chance of a lesser sentence? :-) First offense and all? --Bardcom (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looking at my edits, this was not a revert. Previously I was shortening a phrase, whereas this edit I added in references to support the regions where the frost had been recorded as being the coldest as a compromise to those that wanted the sentence to include a region... --Bardcom (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

HighKing/Archives/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not realise I had 3rr'ed. I made the edit and went out. Had I realized, I would have reverted immediately. If unblocked (or a reduced block), I will keep away from editting this article for 24hours anyway. Apologies. Also, perhaps I did not 3rr as the 3rd edit was not a revert but an attempt to add references to geographic regions as a compromise. Thank you. Also, there was no warning given to me. The warning provided in the 3rr report is 6 days old from a different article.

Decline reason:

Oh c'mon. I will keep away from editting this article for 24hours anyway - and then what? Back to edit-warring? You must understand that 3RR is only an electric fence, not inalienable right to revert 3 times per day or be otherwise disruptive. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

--Bardcom (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez - I was only trying to keep the spirit of the block if the block was shortened/lifted by offering to stay away from the article. Your response is very unnecessarily aggressive. Can you confirm that you've reviewed the fact that I did not make more than 3 reverts - one of the edits was a compromise where I added references for a geographic area, and the fact that no warning was given that I was in danger of 3rring, and that no editting took place after the William placed the warning on my Talk page - had I seen it I would have reverted straight away. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that I've fully read your arguments. Your request is based on formal reasononig:

No warning. Warnings are not mandatory before the block. As a matter of courtesy, we don't block people who weren't warned at all. You had your warnings before, so you should know about WP:3RR, WP:EW and WP:DE.
You haven't reverted 4 times. Irrelevant, absolutely. First of all, you're not blocked for 3RR, you're blocked for general edit-warring. Second, as I explained above, 3RR does not mean that you're allowed to revert 3 times per day. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand about warnings - I wanted to ensure that nobody was mislead over the diff that William posted. I've seen blocks rejected in the past because no warning was given. But you're dead right - I know the rules, I know about 3rr. But given that you seem to accept that I didn't revert more than 3 times, and that no editing took place between William's warning and the block, don't you think the block is unfair? I feel a 24 hour block in the circumstances where I didn't actually revert 4 times (and have never done so in the past, to my knowledge), and where my number of reverts (3) was the same as an Williams (3) (yet I get the block) is very very unfair. --Bardcom (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All of your edits were reverts. All removed the key phrase "British Isles" which is the key point in all of this. And you're fully aware of all of this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. One of my edits was very definitely *not* a revert. The key points are that you are in breach of WP:AGF over your comments on your Talk page, and you are an involved admin/editor. --Bardcom (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the diff where you continue to add in a geographical region (unreferenced might I add, despite 3 different editors [10] [11] [12] calling for a reference). Between the 2nd and 3rd calls for a reference, I *added* a reference to support a geographical region rather than removing the text as per the original reversion. diff. You on the other hand responded each time with ad hominen comments, and no references. And no attempts at discussion for the references provided. With respect, I believe that if you weren't an admin, you'd be blocked... And isn't it ironic that you, who are so fond of invalidating my edits citing the reason of an ongoing RfA, I notice you've one ongoing yourself. --Bardcom (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop blowing smoke. All four of your edits cited in the 3RR report were reverts. Specifically, [13] which you have claimed above was not a revert definitely is one, as stated above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're deliberately using a different diff. That is not the diff I'm referring to. I *added* a reference to support a geographical region rather than removing the text as per the original reversion here. This is not a revert, despite you claiming it is. Anyway, I really don't think you should be trying to goad me here, seeing as how you're an involved editor. I'm hoping that the blocking or reviewing admin might take a look. --Bardcom (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to re-read WP:3RR. A revert for WP:3RR purposes is defined as any edit that at least partially undoes the work of another editor. Removing the term British Isles certainly counts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And... its the same diff! What is Bardcom on about? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - the URL is slightly different, but it is still the same edit all right. --Bardcom (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I had read it. I was pointing out/appealing on the collective basis that

24 hours seems hefty (the max?) for a first offense
No warning was given (but yes, I know about 3rr, and I know it's not mandatory, but then...next point)
Had I been warned, or seen William's warning, I would have immediately reverted. No edits took place between William's warning and the block. I did not see it.
Finally, and most importantly, the edit was intended as a compromise to add a geographical region, and a reference, given the edit warring and the calling for references. It was not a revert in terms of the definition on WP:revert which states a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work by returning any part of a page to an older version. I did not return it to a previous version. --Bardcom (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Undoing the action of another editor is a revert. You were removing the term British Isles each time, they were all reverts. Just wait out the block and try to communicate more in the future. _{1 != 2} 21:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - with respect, don't want to cheese you off. Which definition of revert are you using? How is someone supposed to know what a revert is if it's not the one that is defined on the page WP:revert ??? I did not return any part of a page to an older version. I added to the page. I added a reference. In the spirit of WP:AGF (not talking to you William, you've made your stance clear here - and I expect someone warned you, right?), accept that I am genuinely was trying to move the article past the point it was stuck on. --Bardcom (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, the one at revert that says Reverting involves returning a page to a previous version. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work by returning any part of a page to an older version. Funny how you missed that second sentence, its so hard to see. Now stop wriggling in this hideously undignified manner, accept your just block, and even better give up your anti-BI campaign William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wriggling? Hideously undignified manner? While it's nice to know you care, don't you have anyone else to goad? And once again, you can't help yourself but make another personal remark. For the record, I do not have anything against the term British Isles, and I do not have an anti-BI campaign. Saying it 100 times or turning it into a mantra doesn't make it true. Perhaps my Hiberno-English is out of step, but which part of the sentence am I missing whereby adding new material to a page means that it was reverted to an older version? Or maybe it's funny if it turns out that you didn't read to the end of the sentence.... --Bardcom (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What he means is you reverted part of the page, even if you then added another bit, and that counts as a revert. Confusing/annoying I know.:) P.S. One only needs to view your contribs to see you have a thing about the phrase 'British Isles' which predominantly leads to you making an edit that removes it from somewhere. Why not edit about something you've seen on telly or eaten or something instead, or hit Special:Random ? Sticky Parkin 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this is made clearer in the WP:Revert article and the WP:3RR article? It's very confusing. Thank you for viewing my contribs. If there is any edit you would like to discuss, I'm happy to do so. Can I also suggest that you reread the reminder on your own User page to resist Mocking other editors. You did put it there 10 times for a reason.... :-) (But you made me smile, thank you) --Bardcom (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that quite counts as mocking but am glad I amused you.:) You're not the first to be caught out by this less well known part of the 3RR 'rules', it even happened to our old friend Tharkie. Sticky Parkin 01:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours

Please stop being silly. You cannot remove the wrods "British Isles" from all of wikipedia and it is vandalism to try it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I remind you that personal comments are not tolerated on Wikipedia (especially when they are factually untrue.). I've placed a warning on your Talk page to remind you of this. As I say to everyone, if you've any problems with my edits, then I'm happy to discuss whatever edit you've a problem with. --Bardcom (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

HighKing/Archives/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Personal attack by an administrator, and not assuming good faith. Background: this administrator reverted another editors edit [here] with the comment Thanks. What you're missing is Bardcom's one-man campaign to remove the words "British Isles" from wikipedia., and pointed to the ongoing RfA. I placed a warning on the editors Talk page, as I would for any editor that makes a personal comment to claim I am on a one-man campaign, etc, and any insinuation that my edits are driven by any motive other than to make this encyclopedia better. TThe reason given for this block is "vandalism". No warning were given, no discussion took place. This block is also an abuse of admin rights and policies.

Decline reason:

I believe this is an appropriate use of the blocking facility. If the removal of British Isles is subject of a RfA, then it should not be performed without the backing of the community - it's simple courtesty. If an administrator has also called for you to curtail those actions, it should be respected. It's a 3 hour block - not the end of the world. Take it as it's meant - to reduce distruption to Wikipedia. — --Jza84 Talk 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

(outdent) Anyone? --Bardcom (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note at the blocking admin's talk page. –xenocidic (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Are you 93.107.68.59 (talk · contribs)? And for the avoidance of doubt, I mean Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bardcom William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no connection with 93.107.68.59, at all, and if you simply checked you'd see that that editor was already blocked by Ali for being a sockpuppet from a lifelong banned editor.

I had indeed noted that editor was blocked, though I'm not sure why thats relevant. For the avoidance of yet more doubt, this has no relation to your block: if I had any reason to think you were 93..., you'd be indef'd, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So why bring it up then? By now, you should have had a chance to go over my contribs and my history. You can see that I am not a vandal, and I do not vandalise articles. Time to unblock me and admit a rush of blood, a tad of hastiness, a no-harm-done action, and a no-hard-feelings reversal. --Bardcom (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely not the anon [14]. But the rest remains William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly say this in good faith, Bardcom - you've got to ease up on these Warnings you send out - especially the "you will be blocked" bit in bold. You've got the whole "ad hominen" thing out of perspective - the admin may have seen it as provocative behaviour. I suspect though you are just mistaken about how far you can take "ad hominen". When you edit as you do, you have to roll with a few punches - and your idea of "ad hominem" is just unworkably sensitised IMO. If we all acted on the things you have done, we would see nothing around but warnings from each other, adn not just around here but across Wikipedia too.

I certainly agree that admins should give their own warnings and not step in cold - but when I was blocked the admin ironically read some of -and referred to- your unecessary 'Warnings' on my Talk page, so I'm not sure what to say to you there!! I could put it this way -I got an out-of-the-blue '48 hours' for no concrete reason at all - at least you've just got 3 hours, whatever it was about! I didn't even know they could go that low! Sheesh.-Matt Lewis (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a template in Twinkle - I don't bold the "you will be blocked" bit myself. --Bardcom (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Bardcom, ya may aswell wait until your block expires (in 'bout an hour). GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to read WP:DTTR before you place warnings on the pages of long-time users and admins. A friendly discussion is usually more productive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this essay before. One of my pet peeves (big time) is the way editors throw around personal comments. IMHO, Wikipedia as a project would suffer far less if the policy/rule was adhered to. Personal comments are just not tolerated. Full stop. Other people's mileage may vary, but I firmly draw the line on personal comments. --Bardcom (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this essay before. - and now that you have, you don't care? [15] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Comment to Jza84. Unfortunately, none of you explanation makes sense. First of all, the RfA is very explicitly *not* about the removal of the term "British Isles". Secondly, are you in effect asking for me to check my editting with "the community" *before* making the edits? Thirdly, no administrator called for me to curtail these actions. Finally, it may only be a 3 hour block, but it's still wrong, and an abuse of admin powers. This action is so unjustified, and being backed up by other admins, I've lost whatever small shred of faith I have. I've done *nothing* wrong. --Bardcom (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

HighKing/Archives/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reasons given for upholding the block are not true. It's important to maintain integrity on Wikipedia, and to show that admins do not abuse their powers. For that to happen, blocks must not be seen to further a personal cause of an admin, or as a weapong wielded by an admin. I'm asking that this block is lifted because I did not vandalise anywhere on Wikipedia - being the reason given. The length of time of this block is irrelevant, the point is that it is an abuse of Admin powers.

Decline reason:

First, this was a good block to prevent further disruption, second, the block has already expired, and third, the appropriate place to bring this is to the attention of the blocking admin, then WP:ANI if there are still questions - which I see has already been done. Dreadstar † 21:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

--Bardcom (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the RfA is very explicitly *not* about the removal of the term "British Isles". - this is a very strange thing to say, since the RFA begins Since mid-March, Bardcom has done little on wikipedia except remove the term British Isles from as many articles as possible.... It was also the subject of your Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Selectively quoting from the RfA is pretty low, cos the editor that opened the RfA explicitly states that it is not about removal of the term "British Isles". The RfC has been closed. Why bring it up again?

(outdent)It's now clear to me that if admins can bully and block like this, it's a project I don't want to have any part of. If admins can review another's behaviour can give incorrect reasons as to why it should be upheld, it seems that the duty of care for behaviour is far lower than the duty of care for content. That's always been the problem here.... I've no stomach for this any longer. A big "Thank you" to the good people I've met - keep up the good work. --Bardcom (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An admin can't unilaterally overturn a block without wheel-warring, and therefore a discussion at WP:AN would need to take place, one that would've likely taken longer than the block itself. However, you are free to raise your concerns about this block now that it has expired. –xenocidic (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

July 15th Edits

I'm worried that you're being goaded into an edit war over the British Isles stuff. I'm a complete stranger, but it would be a shame to see you get in trouble over this. Go for a walk, maybe grab a pint somewhere? Actually, I might do that myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldms (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing British Isles again

Perhaps you did not get the point with your last two blocks, but you need to stop removing "British Isles" and reverting people when they disagree. I see that you have done 4[16][17][18][19] reverts on that subject just today, and countless others in the last week.

If people revert you then it is your job to reach a consensus on a talk page, you can't just go over a list of articles you have changed and revert them every day. You do seem to be on a campaign, you do little else here other than remove "British Isles" from articles, and while your reasons vary your actions are rock solid.

You are more than welcome to argue your point on the talk page as long as you respect the consensus that develops. If you cannot convince the community of the value of your changes then they will not be accepted. If you can then they will be.

I am going to start considering multiple reverts by you on the same subject(British Isles) to be a form of edit warring even if they are spread across several pages. You need to stop edit warring your point across. Stubbornness is no way to win an academic debate. _{1 != 2} 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you are not being fair. Can I propose that all editors respect and adhere to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle with regard to articles involving the term "British Isles" . I would be more than happy to agree to this. If you check the Talk pages of the articles, you'll find that on many occasions when I have attempted to engage in discussion, the comments are rarely responded to and often my attempts to induce a conversation are ignored. If you check the links above, you'll see that I've already opened discussions on some of those articles, but a revert has occurred anyway, and the discussion ignored. Perhaps a re-revert on my part isn't the very best action, but I honestly don't know what else to do. I've pretty much tried everything - I've left the article alone for weeks (sometimes other editors redo my changes, sometimes not), I've posted on user Talk pages to try to discuss ... you name it, I've tried it. And OK, we're pretty much talking about one editor here - User:TharkunColl. I'm open to suggestions. --Bardcom (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, you have an agenda (I won't say "covert" because it's patently obvious), which tends to override all other considerations such as factual accuracy and the natural use of language. TharkunColl (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty meaningless to cast asparagus without backing it up with diffs and facts. Perhaps "British Isles" slips off the tongue for you, whether it's right wrong or indifferent, but I try to be accurate. Find the examples and the ensuing discussions. --Bardcom (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is Bold, Revert, Discuss. It is not Bold, revert, revert back. Big difference. And also ThankunColl makes a very good point. _{1 != 2} 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's becomming patently obvious to me that it doesn't really matter what I say anymore or what evidence there is - there's a posse all tooled up and looking for some home-cooked justice.

Take a look at the article Bob Chilcott. No discussion, and the only happy outcome is one where no references are required. 5 reverts by Tharky, but oh no - gotta point the finger at me for edit warring. Cool.

Or take the infamous River Thames frost fairs. Great arguments and references - not. Consensus? 5 editors have reverted the term "British Isles", but WMC can revert 3 different editors and all without discussion - and my last comment on the Talk page with a reference has been ignored. Well cool.

So - what about my proposal - or are you essentially trying to implement a gag-order to stop anyone interfering with the term "British Isles"? --Bardcom (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No gag, talk all you want. Don't make your point be reverting. If someone refuses to talk to you and continues to revert then follow the dispute resolution process, but don't just keep reverting. _{1 != 2} 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe we're at the stage for dispute resolution now? --Bardcom (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WMC

And please stop templating William, he knows the rules better than you do and he is not breaking them one bit. Sending him warnings accomplished nothing. _{1 != 2} 13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The template was for the specific comment I diffed. I though long and hard about it. I could not let that comment pass unnoticed - it is a particularly bad comment. In the absence of any discussions from William, and the only comments are either designed to goad or deliberately rude, I don't know what other options are open to me. If you have specific advice, I'm very open to it. --Bardcom (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I don't think William was making an unreasonable statement, your edit history supports it. _{1 != 2} 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I completely disagree - it does. If William believes that I am being disruptive or I am pushing a political POV or edit-warring, there are proper and correct mechanisms to pursue. But no editor is entitled to make personal comments - especially effectively calling another a liar. That is out of order (and especially so for an admin). --Bardcom (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

File:DSCF4687b.jpg

This animal is floating on the water with feathers and makes a quack sound

Well, disagree as you may that was a quote from the policy, "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

The comment is about your actions, not you as a person. If you make actions that are disruptive then people can and will call you on it. It is a fact that your justifications to your actions sound contrived to fit the single goal of removing "British Isles" from articles. If we see something with feathers floating on the water making a quacking sound we call it a duck. _{1 != 2} 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice duck. But your reason sounds like Dick Cheney's.... or a WMD search warrant.. :-) --Bardcom (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, you are correct in what it states but making massive and wild assumptions that there is presence of evidence to the contrary - which there is not. An edit history of changing articles that contain the term British Isles does not indicate "Bad Faith", and all my edits are performed in Good Faith and I am always open and available to discuss the edits to reach consensus. Finally, his comments were specifically about me as a person as evidenced by its POV pushing be to try to remove a term he dislikes for political reasons.. --Bardcom (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it unlikely you will find an admin to enforce your interpretation of policy. _{1 != 2} 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the subsequent comments on his Talk page, and the commentary throughout his RfA, I think you might be wrong. --Bardcom (talk)

I don't see any administrators taking your point of view there. I see ATren giving some advice about wording the same sentiments less abrasively, but that is not really an enforcement issue. While it could be more diplomatic it is not blatantly uncivil to the point of being a policy issue. _{1 != 2} 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary. And I don't think that User:ATren is an admin (?) but I 100% agree with his sentiment. There is never a circumstance where a personal comment is necessary, and admins should know this and have higher standards than editors. Part of the logic of putting warnings on user pages is so that while perhaps a single instance does not merit enforcement or action, a series of similar warnings explicitly placed on the page shows a larger pattern and makes it difficult for the user to ignore or to claim that the warning went unseen. It's also why I asked for the first 3 hour block to be removed (William calls me a liar over this) - I did not see his warning or it just didn't register as a warning with me (although oddly I saw the first part of the sentence - go figure).

William should not have blocked anyway based on the fact that he was an involved editor who had already reverted edits. I don't apologize for templating William, but I regret it was necessary, and part of the reason I thought long and hard about it was because I knew that there would be repercussions... --Bardcom (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We cannot remove old blocks, and even if we could handfuls of admins reviewed that block and endorsed it. Your next block was endorsed by multiple admins also. If WMC did not block you for that behavior another admin would have anyways. The only repercussion you have received for giving that template was a polite request not to template people who have not really done anything wrong. _{1 != 2} 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardie- If you leave a polite, "hand written" request or message, which could be worded slightly similarly to the template, it won't annoy people so much or seem like you're templating them deliberately to disparage/patronise/annoy. Sticky Parkin 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually- My Humble Opinion is I don't think you'll win by 'warning' an admin. You'd have slightly more luck posting at his RfArb or posting on WP:ANI. Sticky Parkin 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. But it only goes to reinforce the idea that admins are a law onto themselve. I've haven't looked at his RfArb too closely although I know it exists. I'd rather just get on with editing in article space TBH... --Bardcom (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to my Please be civil section on Williams page

Re [20]. Please stop wasting my time. I realise that you're patiently establishing a trail for some imaginary future RFC, but you've made your point now and can give up. If you'd also give up the anti-BI campaign, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that he probably will, as soon as you stop referring to it as a campaign, and, probably, as anti-BI. It's not. Its very simply a matter of fixing bad and lazy use of contentious terminology. Crispness (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen an anti-BI person advocate adding BI to the Ireland page, which Bardcom did the other day. Seems about the most un-anti-BI thing to do. He never seemed POV-pushing in Talk page debates that I was part of with him at British Isles. On a page where there were people who would love to see the term BI disappeared altogether, I seem to recall him being fairly consistent in advocating geographical use of the term. Nuclare (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It was me that added it, not Bardcom, which is at best inconsistent, given his boldness in removing from other articles. And it was, of course, reverted. And despite my request for his support, given his supposed agreement that BI is a geographical term (which is what had elicited his extremely lukewarm statement on the Ireland talk page in the first place), not once did he re-add it, nor indeed edit the article in any way. TharkunColl (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tharky, actually I did support you and intend to continue to do so. I'm disappointed you regard it as luke-warm, but I tend not to use over-excitable and emotive language, so perhaps given the context of the other comments, it might have seemed "lesser". The reason for no follow-up, as well you know, was that I was blocked. See above. But I've since posted a new section to the Talk:Ireland page which is also supporting your call for introducing the term British Isles, and tries to reach an understanding between parties on terminology. You should try harder to recognise support when you've been given it... --Bardcom (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - you support the inclusion of BI in the lead of the Ireland article? TharkunColl (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In Tharks defense Bard, I read your post there and it is not clear what you are supporting. Chillum 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (was 1 == 2, changed name)

Hey Chillum - if you don't mind me saying, it's a better handle than your last :-)

I've posted the logic at the Talk:Ireland page. But to summarize - yes, I support the inclusion of the term "British Isles" in a geographic article on Ireland. I know that the current article is more than geographical, but in that case I believe it would be appropriate to describe Ireland (the island) as being a part of the "British Isles" in a geographical "section" of the overall article. And this is consistent with both my stated position, and my editing. I would caution that this logic is a guideline, and doesn't overrule the consensus for any individual article. But in a straw poll or otherwise, I would/do support Tharky on this. --Bardcom (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

River Thames

I am away until Monday Night; I have been investigating Irish Weather recoreds on the internet; FYI William Molyneux did start recording Irish weather from 1684; unfortunately the records have now been lost. Lucian Sunday (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Great Britain

The term "Great Britain" is a calque from French, where is was used to differentiate Britain from "Little Britain" (Britanny). It hardly ever occured in English until it was adopted by the Stuarts in 1603/1604 as part of their new title - "King of Great Britain". From 1707 it actually became the name of the state, and still forms part of the UK's official name today. Its use in English, therefore, is in origin purely political. There is a trend in Wikipedia to call the island by that name, but this is mistaken. The island is, and always has been, called simply "Britain" in normal English usage. That "Britain" is also often used as a synonym for the UK in no way compromises its original and normal meaning. I would suggest restricting "Great Britain" to political matters concerned with the British state as it was constituted from 1707 to 1801, and thereafter using "United Kingdom". For the period 1603 to 1707 it may also have some limited usage, in reference to the Stuart dynasty and related matters. It should not be used for any period before 1603, where simply "Britain" will suffice. Also, "Britain" should be used for the island and its people, divorced from matters to do with the state, up to the present day. TharkunColl (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I usually only refer to Great Britain when I'm talking about the island, and I use the official terms like the United Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, etc, depending on the time period and region. Perhaps a little table should be put together. I'll work on one. --Bardcom (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay yes, that's a good idea. It's true that for the period 1707-1801 "United Kingdom" can be used - the term seems to have been in informal usage at the time, as far as we can tell, though not made official until 1801. The Acts of 1707 used "United Kingdom" and "Kingdom" interchangeably (and since all nouns were capitalised in Acts of Parliament in that period, it's not possible to tell if it was intended as part of the name, or merely a description). TharkunColl (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to your suggestion on my Talk page. CarterBar (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Bard, you are apparently not aware of the fact that some time back, arising from rows about the inclusion of the offensive term "BI" in 100% Irish articles a "treaty" was agreed which was that in general BI should not be added to Irish articles if it wasn't already there and/or if it wasn't absolutely necessary. Thus your argument (in an edit comment) that the issue is confined to *this* (Shannon) article is wrong. I'd ask you not to add the term to the Shannon article again. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - fact is that the term did exist in the Shannon article previously if you check the history. And the consensus is that BI is a valid geographical term on Wikipedia. It's odd that I'm being blocked by pro-British-Isles editors on one hand (River Thames frost fairs, etc) and now being off for including it in this. No offense. But you *are* correct - I wasn't aware that there was an unspoken policy of not inserting if it didn't already exist in the article. On that basis, for now, I'll withdraw my edit. But this may get revisited sometime soon... --Bardcom (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is constantly being "revisited". The attempts to insert the offensive POV terms into Irish articles is a major project with some editors. Eternal vigilance is called for. It has been gone from the Shannon for some time until a short while ago. Restoring the term was manifest edit warring, as is reverting edits restoring the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I fear then that this latest action to insert the term "British Isles" and going against the "treaty" might be as a direct result of the perveived removing of the term British Isles from articles that use it incorrectly (by me mainly, but other too). You were aware of the RfA recently - you may not be aware that an alleged 3rr on River Thames frost fairs got me a block, or that some perceived "disruption" also got me a block. I intend to attempt to create some guidelines around usage of the term "British Isles" with the first step to frame the discussion - probably by using specific examples and articles. Would you be interested in this? --Bardcom (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd probably need to see your ideas first; I'd frankly have problems with what appears to be your acceptance of the term in some purely Irish-related articles; for example - nearly all the stuff I do could be classed as "geography" (towns, villages, roads, rail, mountains, rivers, lakes etc). BTW; the blocks and treatment of your appeal were clear Admin abuse (the blocker) and incompetence (the reviewer). We need to do something about that. Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's OK - I wouldn't expect everybody to see eye-to-eye on all issues. But I'd like to gather together some examples of usage to "frame" the discussion, and then to see what can be agreed, and what can't. Haven't decided what to do about the bits we can't agree on yet... --Bardcom (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, can you show us where this "treaty" was discussed, and how the consensus was reached? TharkunColl (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hebrides. Trouble is it's a crap reference. It's a Scottish Tourist Board site - What will they know about geology? Stroll on! No reference is better than a bad reference. I'm putting it back to what it was when I first came across this article, like last year. Mister Flash (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For keeping an eye out for disruptive edits, and dealing with such edits through the appropriate channels. You are brilliant! Johnpigg (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Bard; I'd like to take this opportunity to endorse this award. Sarah777 (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange to get an award from the account where the vandalism originated...tongue in cheek perhaps? --HighKing (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey - the guy has a sense of humour similar to my own! Don't knock it! Sarah777 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

--HighKing (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GENUKI

Don't you ever give up!! We've had this already with you, swapping out British Isles at GENUKI just because you don't like it. As I said last time, British Isles is the preferred term for people who know about these things, namely GENUKI and genealogy. Look here - quote from the website "The UK and Ireland are regarded, for the purposes of this Genealogical Information Service, as being made up of England, Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), Wales, and Scotland, together with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Together, these constitute the British Isles - which is a geographical term for a group of islands lying off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. ". Now butt out, leave GENUKI alone and go and find something else to do. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see myself responding favorable to this intellectually challenging argument... --HighKing (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I want to dissociate myself from the unwise inflammatory statements made by this anonymous IP user. However, I do want to comment on some of the changes you have made today. You have replaced the term "British Isles" or a phrase which includes that term by other statements. However, the problem is that you were correct to view the use of "British Isles" as being in need of scrutiny, because of the connotations it has with some people, and so, it is right to ask for verification or change of it. But what you have done is merely replaced this unverified term with other material that is equally unverified. I think you need to adopt a different tactic to be more persuasive. I think you should consider either tagging the material, or asking for clarification on the atlk page of the article. If you are doing this to many articles, it may be an idea to set up a slightly more formal "taskforce" charged with the job of identifying all instances of use of "Bristish Isles" and then either clarifying them by finding out and inserting verification by means of suitable reliable sources, or else replacing the term with more acceptable yet verified terms. That way, I think you will have a better chance of being persuasive and of gaining more widespread support for your aim of increasing the verification of material concering this one issue. It would also help deflect the many instances of personal attacks and inflammatory messages I see you have had aimed at you in the past, because it would be a group effort under a properly constituted taskforce. Do you think setting up a taskforce would be a good idea? It would have to apply the rules of verification impartially, and so I can see that entrenched positions on either side of the issue may be unhappy with some of its decisions if it came into existence and proceeded properly with its work. If you agree, you need to consider under which project it might operate. DDStretch (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I advised you what to do about the film Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration, but you have merely reverted my change and placed your wn unverified information back in. Do not do this again. I have placed an appropriate tag for the disputed information, which should not be removed unless it is replaced with either verification, or with a different fact that has been verified. DDStretch (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reported your actions at Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard (sorry about the initial incivility). 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand British

Since all Irish people were British in the 19th century, then almost all settlers on New Zealand were British (whether English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh). ðarkun coll 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference that states that New Zealand was totally populated when Ireland was in the British Isles, and also show a census stat where the population is asked to select whether they originated from Ireland when it was British or otherwise, then it's impossible to show this. On the other hand, there's no such thing as a "British Isles" ethnic origin, and the census stats don't support the collection of stats in this way. I accept your point and there's probably a lot of accuracy in your statement - but trying to pipe to British Isles is wrong and inaccurate without the stats and references to back up the claims. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

HighKing, your constant campaign against the term "British Isles" is becoming disruptive, please stop. Chillum 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific about "disruptive" please? I'm engaged in great dialog with a number of editors over a small handful of edits at this time, including DDStretch. I'm providing references and researching, always being civil. I do not understand what you mean by "disruptive". --HighKing (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean you seem to be here only to remove references to British Isles. Every week there is a new post about your behavior on the noticeboard, and every couple day another person complains on your talk page. Your reasons change from situation to situation, but your goal is always the same, this speak volumes. You may not think this is disruptive, but if a consensus forms on the noticeboard that it is then you will likely be made to stop. Chillum 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Was that a Freudian slip, Bardy? Read the first part of your first sentence. Ireland has always been, and still is, in the British Isles. ðarkun coll 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shoot - of course I meant when Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom and considered British. --HighKing (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I'm not involved in this, but I noticed that you have not been notified about a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard as is customary. Please see this thread and comment as you wish. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

HighKing/Archives/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had already stopped editing an hour beforehand, and had posted this on the other editors Talk page calling for a cooling off. Further, one of the edits counted is a self-revert because I thought I had accidently 3RRed - this should not be counted. More on my Talk page

Decline reason:

While you did undo your last revert you then changed your mind and redid it[21]. The fact that you took a break gave no indication that you were going to stop edit warring as evidenced by your history of edit warring on this subject. You have edit warred over this before more than a few times and you have even been blocked for edit warring over this. This is a valid block, I was going to do it myself but was beaten to it. The other party was blocked too. Blocks for edit warring will only get longer as they repeat. — Chillum 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

--HighKing (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it right for a previously involved Admin to review a block like this? Are there any measurable standards we can refer to? Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:EmpireForever is an SPA that only reverts my edits (easy to check). He deliberately set out to goad me into an edit-war - and for a short while, and like an idiot, I obliged. But I recognized this - it took only an hour - but I realized the tactic being employed. His behaviour is deliberately designed to offend and to goad - for example referring to Irish as terrorists here. (When I pointed this out, no action was taken!!!) I admit I got a rush of blood - but blocks should not be punitive, and given the circumstances and the insults, I think my pulling back from editing and remaining civil should count for something. I had posted this to User:EmpireForever here an hour before the block was imposed with the intention of leaving two articles in the state he left them in, and two articles in the state I left them in - in the interests of trying to be fair. Blocking is not meant to be punitive - and since I had already recognized that I was being drawn into an edit-war with the sole purpose of trying to get me blocked, and I had stopped - I am requesting that the block is lifted (or seeing as it's nearly 24 hours already and nobody has reviewed it) reduced - I had recognised the undesirable behaviour and had stopped.

I recognise that many considered my edits to be disputive behaviour in the past, and have been trying to work towards a more permanent solution. For example, here where TharkunColl suggested a "British Isles" project, and here with Ddstretch who suggested a workgroup and asked for references to be produced for a number of edits.

Finally another SPA targetting my edits has recently been created - User:LemonMonday . This editor is not acting in good faith.

--HighKing (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I am not an admin. I have Left a note with those admins who may have an insight. I have put you on my watchlist. Let me know if you need a message placed elsewhere. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

HighKing, more than once I have told you that edit warring, specifically over one issue, will lead to blocks. I told you your edits were disruptive, you insisted they were not. If you keep acting the same way, you will keep getting blocked. I have seen this over and over, somebody just will not accept that their behavior is inappropriate and eventually they just stay blocked and feel they have been hard done by. I don't want to see that again, I would far rather see you take heed of the communities reaction to your actions and change. Chillum 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect Chillum, I'd like my block reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Your comments over the past few weeks (for example here and here) where you accuse me of having a campaign, and being a single user account, is exactly the type of behaviour that I object to being accused of very strenuously. You have never once been able to justify the first block which was performed by an involved admin and should never have happened, yet this is now being used as an excuse for calling me a repeat offender. --HighKing (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You say I have never justified the first block, but I have repeatedly pointed out that several admins reviewed that block and found it to be just fine. You are a repeat offender, you keep doing the same offense over and over. The events leading up to this block are nearly identical to the events leading to the last block, ie you were edit warring to remove the term "British Isles" from an article. Nothing in those diffs makes me involved, nothing in those diffs was not also said by other admins reviewing your first block. Chillum 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins nearly always find blocks by their fellow Admins "just fine". They are scared of being accused of "wheel warring". You should not have reviewed this block as you were a disputant. (Not that I think most other Admins would have been any different for the reason stated - but at least it would be more ethical). Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

HighKing/Archives/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With respect to Chillum, I request that an uninvolved admin please review and take into account the circumstances surrounding the period in question.

Decline reason:

This is your third block for the same thing. You have been given ample warning that edit warning is not allowed, you do not have to be rewarned in every dispute. Gaming the system by edit warring without stepping over the 3RR bounds is against the spirit of WP:3RR and is still disruptive. BJ^Talk 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Excuse my HighKing, but I am involved only in that I have asked you not to be disruptive and asked you not to edit war. The blocking policy makes it clear that have prior administrative interaction with a user does not make me involved. If you seek another admins review fine, but I am well within my remit to review this request. I think you will find that the other admin will see you violated 3RR in the precise same way as you did to get your prior block. To be frank I think it is more the answer I came to, not who I am that led you to reject my review. Chillum 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, Lemon was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, however when the blocking admin was not available to show evidence it was reversed. I have brought attention to those edits that indicate it is an account used to avoid a block[22]. Chillum 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Chillum, you are not one of the bad guys and I respect the thankless job you do. But review your recent comments on any thread towards me recently. I picked two out but there are more. You echo their argument of "You are an SPA" and "This editor has a relentless unthinking campaign to eliminate the term from Wikipedia". This makes you involved - you are never going to look at my edits as anything other than a disruptive campaign. You even threatened me after the last block that if I edited more than one article at a time involving the term British Isles, you'd block me.

Step back and objectively look at what happened.

Do you think I was deliberately goaded?
Do you acknowledge that I recognised the situation that was developing and stopped? An hour before the block
That I posted on the other editors page and stopped?
That the other editor did not warn me or give me a chance to undo my edit?

Even half a fair hearing is all I'm looking for, preferable from an admin that hasn't made up their mind in advance. The block might not change, but maybe the circumstances show that it might. We are a community after all, and blocks are not punitive. --HighKing (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you recognize that you violated 3RR? Do you recognize that violating 3RR leads to being blocked? Do you recognize that you do often make the same revert over many articles? What do you mean you had no chance to undo your edit? You did undo your edit, then you changed your mind and redid it. Regardless, I will leave your second unblock request to another admin. However I don't think you should be allowed a third. If you don't like the next review you need to just accept it regardless. Chillum 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry - don't mean to annoy you. Yes, I recognise I 3RRed. But actually I didn't up till a few hours ago - for some reason I thought the first edit with a time of 23:31 was from more than 24hours ago. That's why I reverted and continued and added a reference.

You have said that I haven't changed my behaviour. Here's a couple of edits that hopefully will show that I have:

...(just seen the 2nd review of block - another totally inaccurate review which doesn't address any of the circumstances. Standards these days....) academic now. Thanks anyway. --HighKing (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request did not address your issues, because we don't deal with blocks based on the framing the user requests us to. We review unblocks in the framing of policy. If you look at WP:3RR you will see a list of exceptions, you will not see "someone baited me into doing it" in that list. The reason 3 different admins have come to the conclusion that this block was necessary should be an indication of that.

I fail to see which part of the review was inaccurate. This is the third block for the same thing, you did have ample warning. Regardless, I assure you I have not made up my mind about you, if your edits cease to be disruptive then I will have no issue with you. Please don't think this is in any way personal, I just have a strong respect for the idea of a neutral point of view and find accounts dedicated to a single goal to be contrary to that. Chillum 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not invest the fact that three Admins agree with each other as any indication of the correctness of either the original block or, especially, the first review. Admins rarely contradict one another; involved Admins should not review blocks. Isn't that a policy? (I've no comment on this alleged 3RR - haven't even looked at it - the point is the appropriateness of Chillum doing the review, IMO. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An extract from my page a five days ago:

Or notice the volume of warnings dished out to Tharky for his edit summaries of Rv politically motivated deletion. Or scroll up and check out the link from "another grossly insulting ad hominen attack." and see what your admin community thinks is OK and to let slide - in fact not only let slide, but openly supported by Chillum. The hypocrisy is ripe. Hang your heads. A silent admin is as bad as the abuser. --HighKing (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose comments like this from the previous HK/Chillum interaction are not a reason why Chillum should have recused himself from reviewing the block? Sarah777 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, if you had read the page you would have seen that I have already said that the blocking policy says prior administrative interaction with a user does not make me involved. I have never been in any sort of content dispute with this user, my sole involvement has been to ask that the user not act in a disruptive fashion. I have read your interpretation of other events in the past and frankly I don't think you understand what administrators are.

If you can show me the policy and some diffs of my edits that shows me acting inappropriately then I will reconsider, not that it will change anything as yet another admin has endorsed this block. You seem to think that you can just say "This is a bad block" and simply disregard the fact that people the community have entrusted to interpret policy have found differently. You don't seem to care that a block stands up to scrutiny, you just insist on your own opinion. Well that is not how we work.

If you think my unblock review was in some way out of line then start and RFC, or post at WP:AN, or even drag me infront of arbcom. But I don't think it will get anywhere because I did not do anything wrong. Chillum 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Chillum, on mature reflection the if the 3RR was a correct call then any Admin would have endorsed the block; so I'm not claiming you were wrong - just unwise perhaps. However, I accept that on the Admin scale you are more on the Ali/Rockpocket end of the spectrum than the...eh...YKW. Take this a a tortured apology for jumping in maybe a bit too quickly. Sarah777 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I recently unblocked User:EmpireForever after he gave an undertaking not to edit war for the remaining duration of his block. If you would give a similar undertaking (i.e. to perform no reversions of plausibly good-faith content changes for the remaining duration of your block - subject to the normal exceptions of reverting obvious vandalism, copyright violations etc.) then I would be happy to unblock you. If you wish to give such an undertaking you should re-request unblocking, citing this note for the reviewing admin as I may not be online to unblock you personally. CIreland (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a generous gesture and I thank you. I will give the same undertaking. --HighKing (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Blocking admin is willing to conditionally unblock with an undertaking from me to not edit war - I give this undertaking. See note on my Talk page.}} --HighKing (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Undertaking accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request handled by: jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I unblocked first and was going to post the unblock notice second, but Jpgordon does it the other-way round. DDStretch (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. @Ddstretch, I've also been following the discussions on the WikiProject and the Task Force. On reflection, I think a Task Force sounds better than a WikiProject as it can keep the scope pretty tight, resulting in fewer distractions and sidetracks. But either one would hopefulyy result in progress, and I think the time has come for greater community participation in addressing the issue of usage. --HighKing (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Greater community participation is an excellent idea. I am glad you have taken an undertaking not to edit war, I far prefer this to you being blocked. Peace. Chillum 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Task Force or WikiProject - whichever form decided in the end - I shall, of course, be an active member of it. ðarkun coll 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

HighKing/Archives/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been unblocked (see Talk page), but it seems that the IP address was also blocked and has not been unblocked. Can someone unblock the IP address. BTW, this is not a private IP address, so it might also affect other editors.

Decline reason:

You have to tell us the message on the edit screen when you try to edit; without that, we don't know which IP to unblock. — Golbez (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually, I think I've fixed it, I found two autoblocks with your name on them. --Golbez (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - all OK now. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)