User talk:Pconlon

Welcome!

Hello, Pconlon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

British Isles

Hi, welcome to wikipedia. I have left a message on the Talk:British Isles talk page regarding your changes. It's a good idea if you can find some citations to support your edits. It is also a good idea to leave a message on the talk page if you make such large edits, it will help in discussions about improving the article. All the best. Alun 17:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with your form of words on this article, I think it is concise and reflects that the term can be contentious in the Republic of Ireland (a statement that I think needs to be included). There may be some editors that want to remove mention of the fact that the term can be contentious in the Republic, but there is now a verified source that states that this is the case. It is a letter to the editor in an Irish newspaper (the Irish Examiner). I think it is valid as a source because it expresses the views of Irish person from the Republic and is published, and it was considered important enough for the editor of the paper to publish it. The fact that this statement is now verified should mean that it will remain in the article. All the best. Alun 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to British Isles (terminology)

Your recent edit to British Isles (terminology) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits are constructive. Whitewashing history is vandalism and any article on the 'British Isles' needs to be COMPLETE. 'Hard work'? Hard work making an article incomplete for political purposes I think! Try stopping the complete truth...countless dictatorships throughout history have tried and failed. User PConlon 22:50, 5 July 2006

I've removed the bv tag because your edits and comments have been constructive and I'm willing to believe it was an accident. Don't get carried away. Note that mediation is a fairly drastic step and there are a lot of things to sort out before putting that tag on. The interlinked nature of Wikpedia means that outlines of a topic can readily link to a main article elsewhere, and this is often appropriate to achieve balance in an article within a reasonable size. WP:NPOV determines the balance including a need to avoid undue weight, and if you think that's a dictatorship you may have problems here.. but I hope not! ..dave souza, talk 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's a bv tag anyway? Dave, do you really, honestly think that you can ignore the obvious - and to some offensive - political implications of the term. It cannot be argued that geography and politics are totally separate. Look...someone entering the term 'British Isles' into Wikipedia should find an article antitled 'British Isles'...this article should fully discuss the term and its usage (geographical, cultural, political...). Can you not see how unacceptable this separate 'terminology' article is to people (such as myself) who live in the region so described and never use/are offended by the term?!?! Our significant objections and views are being removed from the article (the separate article is a disgusting attempt for us to swallow this). We will certainly need mediation if this separate 'terminology' article thing continues much further. Anything wholely on the 'British Isles' needs to be placed IN the article. See the sense of this please. User: PConlon 15:29, 7 July 2006

Hi PConlon, I am thinking that there is going to be a lull on the BI pages. Will probably boil up again in the future with newer editors trying to make changes. Worth keeping an eye on though. Difficult to win on the ACI and BII at moment, more citations will eventually lead to short pages in their own right, I hope. I'll be on the lookout at the library. Interesting few weeks!-MelForbes 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelForbes, my profound appologies for not noticing your message earlier!! Yeah, a lull would be nice!:OP There probably will be other closed-minded editors appearing, so it's up to us and our other Irish colleagues to keep things complete and fair. I agree on the ACI, we'll have to get more verification in there. On the BII I'm not convinced...I mean I know it is in use for sure, but it's too cumbersome and is too easily abbreviated back to BI!! ACI is good in being totally removed from national connections. You had a nice map with Anglo-Celtic Isles on it - why not crop the image down to the region in question (i.e. remove the messy area of Central and Eastern Europe) and add it to the ACI article as an ADDITIONAL picture? Well, anyway, we'll keep on the ball eh?! Very best regards, User:PConlon 17:59, 1 August 2006

Signature

Could you change the way you sign talk page comments to include a link to your user page, or your user talk page? If you're using ~~~~ to sign, I assume you must have changed the default signature from a linked one, to plain text: ideally it would read Pconlon, P. Conlon, or some such variant. Thanks.

Hi, right, I see. Will do, thanks. Please say who you are btw! Pconlon 10:40, 3 August 2006

Anglo-Celtic Isles

Really, I just cannot understand Rob putting this page for deletion. It's not neologism, but it is a term used by some in academia. It doesn't compete with the BI page, it's about something different. The Soviets used to do this, deny the existence of things that didn't suit their purposes. Just for that reason alone it should be referenced. MelForbes 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at U2. A character (I could call him other things) is insisting that the article cannot say that U2 is Irish because 2 of its members are "Britons" (in his words). He has edited nothing on WP but that article, and made clear on his user page that he is on a crusade to get the reference changed on WP. Keep an eye out. Having been shot down on his attempts to generate a consensus behind his supposed NPOV idea, he is now trying unilaterally to force the edit onto the page, and say simply that the band was formed in Dublin! FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

"Those who do not believe in Wikipsychic powers and who inform others of votes and debates commit the Wikiheresy of "votestacking" and must be condemned to Wikiboycotts and Wikistonings". I wish you wouldn't misrepresent my argument in order to recruit people just to weigh in on your side of an argument. If it weren't for your straw man argument, we might have been able to get onto the issue of actually improving that article. Tonyobrienuk 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all. On the plus side most, if not all, of the more reasonable mediums in Britain- e.g. the BBC- avoid saying the "British Isles" anymore. And I have never heard it on SKY, although I don't exactly make a point of watching that station. We are evidently dealing with a more recalcitrant section of British people here on wikipedia. Personally, I really think IONA is the best alternative name, if such a name is necessary. And as for its accuracy, IONA's alleged weak point, let's challenge the name Northern Ireland because the most northern part of Ireland is excluded from it. El Gringo 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PConlon, it just gets a bit tiresome to see the same old faces trying to delete things from WP, when what they should be doing is editing, and making WP a "world class encyclopedia". The map is still there[1]. Probably someone will delete that soon too. MelForbes 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the map Anglo-Celtic Isles, well I got it on a Google search, I think that it's public domain, so it can be cropped or changed in any way. A Hannon seems to be the creator! MelForbes 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You might want to keep an eye on Northern Ireland. Mal is up to his old antics there too. because there was a clash between Northern Unionists and Northern Nationalists on the usage of constituent country to describe Northern Ireland, a consensus was agreed whereby the term constituent entity with a footnote was used instead. As usual with Mal, he is doing his bull-in-a-china-shop routine, ignoring other discussions and ramming in his views. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Well I put the article up for deletion because I simply felt (and feel) that it's the right thing to do, under Wikipedia's policies. I wouldn't use the term myself (I think the anglo-celtic is an over simplification and plays (unintentionally) into the hands of groups such as the BNP; it excludes the hundereds of non British/Irish residents and also the influence of many other cultures (Vikings, for example) on the islands), but then I don't think I'll use British Isles again (I like Britain and Ireland... or maybe we should have a reality-tv programme to find a new term? Terry Wogan could host it...) Anyway, if the community decides it should be deleted, then I'll feel vindicated - if, as I suspect, it comes out as a 'no consensus', then I will happily be proved wrong and drop the issue.

Thank you very much for your kind words --Robdurbar 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. *sigh* The pricking around with British Isles has started again. Two of the usual gang have started their deleting of stuff yet again, while Thar is just being Thar. Just when a consensus is reached along come the usual bunch and try to turn the article back into a British POV text again. Better keep an eye on the page. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

A fix-up

Even more astonishing, the **** responsible was an editor of the article and so not qualified in terms of neutrality to call the decision. Of course if the issue goes to deletion review all that will happen is that decision will be ratified because the same 'rent a mob' will go there to vote through their own decision. That is the sort of dirty tricks Irish users have regularly experienced on some topics here from some (a minority) of British users. Perhaps you should raise it on WP:ANI but the odds on overtaking it are slim. It is the sort of behaviour shown on that vote that drives users away from WP in disgust. Sometimes it is a case of encyclopaedia, my arse. This is a classic case. And of course if the information on Anglo-Celtic Isles (which is clearly a validly used term) is put into the "British Isles" page, the same band who got the original article deleted will then delete any references to it on the BI page. It really is disgusting. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 14:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Pconlon, excuse me for butting in here. Really, I think you and Jtdirl need to assume good faith a bit more (yeah, admittedly there are some out and out radicals on both sides of the whole debate(s), but in general...). It isn't a case of British ppl wanting Anglo-Celtic Isles deleted, because Irish people, myself included, also voted the same way. Multiple times, we requested proper verification of it's use, or asked why WP:NEO and WP:WINAD shouldn't apply, and got no answers apart from rhetoric from one or two editors. 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' just doesn't pass muster, in my opinion (and that of many other editors, obviously). We got one dubious example of it being a validly used term. By contrast, IONA obviously does deserve inclusion, because, although it is a neologism, there are plenty of citeable and prominent sources. And personally, I'm happy to see info about the term Anglo-Celtic Isles included in the BI article. Bastun 14:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't doubt Bastun's, or Rob's, or Dave's or a host of others' integrity on this issue. The basic problem here is yet again WP's nutty pre-occupation with the internet. Way too many users think that if it is on the internet it is right. If it isn't, it is wrong. (The internet proves that the Prince of Wales has a surname he doesn't have, for example!) Many terms are used in sources that are not net-based. They are used in academic conferences, in academic discourse, in theses, in monographs, etc. Yet oulmost of these real sources are not deemed real on WP because most of them aren't "published", i.e., they are delivered and then people more on. Academics know very well that Anglo-Celtic Isles is a 100% kosher term.

Secondly, as to presuming good faith, unfortunately there is vast amount of evidence of a complete lack of good faith by a small band of users.

As to fixing it, I cannot as I was a participant in the debate. I suggest you approach another admin unconnected with any of the issues. They may be able to give a neutral judgment. But once a vote has been closed, even improperly, it is closed and cannot be opened. (The reason for that is to preserve an archive. Ironically I was the one who created that rule for WP. They used to just bin everything after a decision, meaning that there was no archive material for future historians to analyse WP. I pushed for strict archiving and championing the archiving of delete debates. That is why why now once a debate is closed the page is locked. It is now preserved for historians to review.) Sorry I cannot offer any more help. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

But why can these non-online sources (and I draw your attention to the AfD debate where I searched a host of paper-based sources with no real results) not be cited here? You and others tell us about them repeatedly, why can you not cite them? Crying "there are sources, there are sources" is meaningless if you don't tell us what they are. Vashti 15:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm afraid that in this case the redirect was put in as a reasult of the AfD debate. I wouldn't have closed it myself and if the closing admin was a voter... then that's slightly dodgy, but there is Deletion review, despite Jtdril's concerns.

As for the result - in a way I feel vindicated because I did this as I sincerely believe that this approach follows policy. However, it should be noted that you have found a number of sources for Anglo-Celtic isles - certainly more than enough to expand its part in the British Isles article.

BTW, I notice Vashti mentioned an EBSCO search - when I tried this there were no results. --Robdurbar 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'British Isles'(again) redirect vote

Requested move on the terminology page needs your vote, PC. El Gringo 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aris

Jonto is back again on British Isles and up to his usual antics. Yippee. *sigh* Keep an eye out. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

You might be interested in a RM going on at talk:Prime minister (sic). Some individuals moved the page to that ridiculous half uppercase half lowercase name (if it stays at that form WP will be a laughing stock!) Feel free to contribute to the debate if you wish. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Anglo-Celtic Isles

Will do. I'll do a few temporary deletions and restorations so I can move the post-afd but pre-redirect version directly to User:Pconlon/Anglo-Celtic Isles sandbox, in order to retain a full edit history. --Robdurbar 08:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I'm afraid I've lost interest in the British Isles articles (I think its telling that there's pretty much no-one on those pages that were on them 6 months ago!). No, there's nothing stopping you remvoing the redirect to British Isles. Simply click on Anglo-Celtic Isles; you'll see at the top of the article it says 'redirected from Anglo-Celtic Isles'. If you use the link to A-C Isles there, you'll come across Anglo-Celtic Isles that you can edit. --Robdurbar 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PC, I was just thinking about you earlier today, and where have all the old BI editors gone to. No matter how good a paragraph is, there are always a few groundhogs (Jtdirl terminology) to come along and re-edit. I believe that someday WP will have to appoint moderators on selected articles. I too have lost a little interest, and come back BI at times to add another view, and will not be pushed out. My aim now is to develope/create some articles about my local area, Foxrock, Deansgrange, Deansgrange Cemetry, and a few more. Seasons greetings. MelForbes 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Just a note to users who leave me messages for me that I may be a little slow to reply, my apologies! Pconlon 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for user MelForbes, if you're passing this way. I see that your user discusion page is still down - I hope all is well. Yes indeed, the BI article does flare up from time to time, but I'm absolutely with you on the need for us to ensure it remains balanced and fully informative. I must say that I'm heartened by the fairness and goodwill of contributors of late! I wish you well with your other Wikipedia contributions. Best regards! Pconlon 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at British Isles. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Canterbury Tail, I am aware of that repeated editing rule and don't question that it's a reasonable one. The rule applies to others too does it not? I have explained my edit and it doesn't seem that any further comment is needed to make the point well - detailed geological information should appear one step below text highlighting that one of the two governments in the area described is entirely opposed to the term's use. Regardless of your own personal opinion on the necessity of this view, would you not agree with this? Pconlon 07:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting involved in the dispute, and the other editors was warned, however you say you're aware of the rule above, yet you continued to edit war after getting the notice. As a result you've been blocked fror 24 hours for edit warring and violation of the 3RR rules. Canterbury Tail talk 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at 24 hours. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Canterbury Tail talk 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pconlon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

agreement to observe rule

Decline reason:

Showing some understanding of what edit warring is and why it is not tolerated is more important than agreeing to follow 3RR, which is just one specific application of the edit warring policy. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canterbury Tail, unblock me and you have my word that I won't violate those 3RR rules further. Pconlon 19:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the decline of my unblock request - it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons - is poor administration discretion in my opinion...agreement to not violate the 3RR rules and my track record of constructive contribution should be enough to merit unblock. Sure, if a violation did occur again then another (perhaps stiffer) block could just be applied. Pconlon 20:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|continuance of track record of constructive contribution and agreement to respect 3RR rules}}

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear why Ireland wanted full independence

Hello pconlon, thank you for your supportive input on the Vikings article. I LOVE your suggestion to have 'Irish Isles' used for 700 years! Many British think that theirs is still the big powerful nation it once was and one that doesn't need to bother with giving due respect to others. Their straight denial that the 'British Isles' term is even contentious and not universally accepted (especially by one of the two sovereign nations existing in the actual region) is quite remarkable. I think that, because their influence is slowly but surely diminishing (and they know it), they are now much more aggressively clinging on to the remaining symbols of their former power. Their attitude does very much bring home to me what our ancestors faced and just why we battled for so long and so painfully to achieve independence. The truly amazing thing is that many British (or should I really say English) people do not understand why we rejected and departed from them. Thanks again. Wikifiveoh (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]