User talk:Yorkshirian

; Archives ;
	Archive 1;

England

If you do continue to insist on being bold, without having the courtesy to get some measure of agreement for your changes on the relevant talk page first, please at least make sure that your basic English grammar and spellings are correct. Most editors seeing your edits would, I think, simply revert them on that basis alone. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apologies for not picking up on your disability. Yes, the article does need to be improved (though I'm not the person who raised that, I merely commented on the proposal), but as I'm sure you know the best way to do that is through discussion and consensus, rather than by major rewrites of established text which usually do little more than aggravate other editors. Making major edits, in a way which requires everyone else to spend time checking and correcting what you've done, is not constructive in the long term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Could this editor please give a heads-up on a Talk page before making such wide ranging changes to an article? And perhaps give people access to whatever sandbox you're preparing the articles in beforehand for comment? --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshirian, please read this - in particular the bit that says "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you won't be tempted to make major changes to important articles without discussion again - but if you are, for example if you have a "backlog" of changes you want to make, I think HighKing's suggestion is excellent - put your revised text into your sandbox, and then use the article talk page to encourage other editors to access it in draft form and make comments on it (or even to amend it themselves). That way you would have more control over your draft, while still being collaborative with others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling for editting time at the moment, but want to thank you for your work on England. I'm really impressed. I had every expectation that such a bold would face resistance and be challenged (and probably rightfully so given the pride some hold about such a page), but I'm confident that the page will now largely form the basis for a GA or FA for England. Well done and thank you, --Jza84 | Talk 21:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces images

I deleted your images like File:Province of Liverpool.png, but the attribution is different, the commons images say user:Thomas Gunn. If you made them yourself, and you are a different person, you may wish to edit the commons image description to say so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems problems

I want to give you every opportunity to make good I really do, but I'm getting too many complaints about you. I'm at the stage now where I am seriously thinking about blocking you again. Please see my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theresa_knott#Indefinitely_banned_User:Yorkshirian_is_currently_engaged_in_a_total_rewrite_of_the_England_article to see the conversation about you and please read the warning I write there. It basically states that the next valid complaint I receive about you will lead to the indef block being reinstated. Examples include but are not limited to: revert warring, editing against consensus, or being rude to anyone in any way. If I am not around to do it, an other admin can so so with my blessing. I'm sorry it's come to this but some people simply aren't suited to wiki style collaborative editing and I believe that you are such a person. Of course I would love for you to prove me wrong by not engaging in any of the above behavior. Theresa Knott | token threats 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius

Well, I'm not aware that the pre-Islamic population of Palestine was majority Christian, even under Christian Byzantine rule. If you want to say that Ignatius thought that he would return apostates to Christianity, that's a different matter.Steve Graham (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England images

I was wondering why you had changed the images on the England article? Bambuway (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank You for the compliment Yorkshirian, you flatter me! See you around, -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Naming Conflict Problem

Having just dealt with a year long row on the Catholic Church name, a user is now wanting to radically change the Wikipedia Naming Conflict guideline, particularly with relevance to cutting the section on self-identifying names. If this went through, it could bring the whole issue up for argument again! Not many people are involved in this proposed change, which could cause hundreds of hours of havoc and edit-warring. It would be useful for people to comment on Kontiski's proposed change, or state whether you would prefer policy to stay as it is, at. Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict Xandar 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, please

Some of your comments and edit summaries at England and Talk:England are getting perilously close to the bounds of civility. Please be careful - you know you are being monitored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the Anglophobic vigilante has come bearing ill news and "ill news is an ill guest". Watch out, Tyke, he considers himself to have inviolate powers of edit warring upon your contributions, now that he sees some other people have an unrelated dispute with you. All the more "justification" for him to run roughshod over you to get what he wants. It's been done before. Just check at my own edits for proof. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference... A Merry Old Soul (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dithering here...

I'm sorry we haven't met sooner. There is another you may wish to acquaint yourself with. His name is User:TharkunColl, an Anglo-Saxonist. English traditionalists (even the pro-Celtic, pro-Roman) are apparently the bane of the British Isles here at Wikipedia, but I don't know about that in real life, considering such a sentiment is supposedly more tolerant. Yes, it's said to be more accepting than the "proud Teutonic" approach to English identification, although it seems as though the Celtofascists here are trying to spin the English alone as "foreign" to the Isles, even though it is easy to discover the Celtic origins in Roman Europe, especially the Brythonic kind (as much as Anglo-Saxon European ties are to the post-Classical Rome of Charlemagne and other Holy Roman "Germanics"). They think that pro-Celtic, pro-Roman means hostile cultural appropriation, as they have identified you as "the other", the big pink elephant in the room. It is a sight for sore eyes to see how you manage to reconcile hostile, "mutual-exclusionary" factions of Celt, Roman and German, for most "people" involved in these articles have one agenda to push or another, but hardly any singular Romanists, I'm afraid. Perhaps I should try that. Imagine the double-whammy of negativity from the "Celto-Germanicists". Ahh...there's no way to achieve anything in any of this without some bloodshed, it seems.

Incidentally, if you'd like to get worked up elsewhere, go check out the archives of that talk page...here, for instance. In that article, it is apparently considered nonsense by "the voice of the Republicans" that the Greeks bestowed the name "British Isles" upon that set of islands off of Gaul and that is the ultimate origin, as they instead focus exclusively upon the Tudor-Stuart settlement (extreme violation of WP:WEIGHT and barely even narrowly WP:SYNTH, so wrapped up in violations of WP:NOR!) which modernised the term and put ancient ethnic vagueness into political effect (nor do they care to see that Roman Britain was only that part of Albion, that part of the BI in total which had been conquered or annexed through treaty by Rome, even as Erin would go free...not contradicting the fact that they are both "British", whatever that originally meant aside from the Trojan story). Just about any and all BI related pages are vicious black holes and often, the only way to go about it, is by using extreme caution and wisdom. You will find that whilst your attackers see fit to add and add as they wish, their abuse of you is based upon their own convictions of what they would like to edit one way or the other and if you don't fit their profile, then "you are wrong", not just what you happen to do or write, it is a personal vendetta to expunge all of your works. Many times, after selecting a target, they are simply being difficult and if they are lucky enough, they will have provoked thee into becoming banned, just to see you squirm, as they do whatever it is they wish, to put the spin on this or that subject, according to their absolutist truisms. Of course, you are unable to do anything about it when your editing privileges are revoked and the admins won't even bother to level the playing field for you, only acquiesce to their demands based in vilification and lynchmobbery. They will, most likely, base their complaints upon "improper procedures", which is Orwellian codespeak for "we don't like what he stands for, let's overwhelm him in numbers".

All said, it is very nice to meet you...you, like me, with a youthful tenure here being quite deceiving, would probably enjoy this a lot. I've been a fan for the longest time, of you, TharkunColl (only for standing up to Celtofacism, not for his Anglo-Saxonism), User:John Kenney and User:Adam Bishop, all of whom know quite a lot about this stuff and are able to argue authoritatively as to the root of the matter, being well rounded rather than particularist, without resorting to petty lies, deceit, witchfynding and other nuisances of Wikipedia. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England, again

OK. I get it. You don't like the Welsh. And you don't like me. I think you've made that clear enough, so can you stop the racist attacks now please. You seem to think that only English people should be allowed to edit the England page. A fundamental principal of Wikipedia is to allow criticism within articles. Nevertheless, you don't seem to have grasped the idea that for Wales to be allowed to flourish it is important that English people have a clear understanding of their English identity. I was delighted when England supporters stopped using the Union Flag at football matches, and began to use the English flag (not so delighted at the cricket, but there we are). Their confusion between Englishness and Britishness is at last beginning to fade. I want the England article to be as good as it can be. But part of being a good article is that it should be accurate, and balanced. Daicaregos (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race card, race baiting...is there anything about race you don't corner the market on? Should we all be walking on broken glass to appease your Celtofascist Anglophobia and totalitarian separatism? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. I tried to explain my motivation to you and you chose to ridicule it, and me. Being nice is not a requirement on Wikipedia. Being civil is, and that includes personal attacks. I expect it to stop. I look forward to your contribution to improve the Wales article. However, please treat other editors with coutesy and respect, and before you decide to be WP:BOLD, as you have been with other articles, please read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing, specifically: Be cautious with major changes: discuss, which reads: " Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page." I trust we understand each other. Daicaregos (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses template

Hi. Could you explain to me the criteria you are using for determining which articles should have the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal template? I am particularly puzzled as to why the Tony Blair article should have one, as he has not been an MP for some while and did not feature in the recent revelations. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 05:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was also puzzled why only Labour MPs were getting it, but now assume you are working your way down the page. It could take a while... :) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ash (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England

Hello, Yorkshirian. You have new messages at Hayden120's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hayden120 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Neville

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

August 2009

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

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

WP Syria

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

Catterick

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

Old North

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

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

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia

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

DYK nomination of House of Neville

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

Great Britain

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

PS: Tactically, I do think that you are much more likely to win people over by proposing one change at a time. Say, by starting with the biodiversity section which most people are likely to find uncontroversial, apart from I expect needing a few tweaks. Then, gradually, suggest the most important changes to the other parts of the article. One of the problems with adding 40K bytes in one edit is that it is simply too much for most of the editors involved in pages like this to cope with at one time, and their instinct will be to hit the revert button, perhaps even without reading what you are proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be far better to add section by section at a time rather than a full change, certainly would make it easier to give feedback, theres just so much information and text to take in (for me anyway) and there are certainly some problems with the changes. I like some parts of the changes but am not sure about other parts. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for House of Neville

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

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Trouble with Naming Conflicts

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

Naming conflict page

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

No, that's meat puppetry and such a request is inappropriate. If there's a problem, take it to somewhere like WP:ANI. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand Meatpuppetry. Yorkshirian is not a new user, recruited by me. He is involved in these discussions which apply to relevant articles we are involved in. he has a legitimate concern in this dispute and in the instance where one person is repeatedly altering an important guideline without consensus, it is redolent that this be pointed out. Xandar 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power of prayer

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

Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC

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

Vatican template

I don't see the point why you delete human rights and lgbt rights in Vatican City template when, as i have written, it is common that state topics template's contain these in "politics section". 79.163.220.176 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first of all - Human rights is not Mumbo jumbo - at least not for the Vatican since they signed it John Paul II in UN, if you wanna say something, you should first get know what your Church says about it. :) I agree that this article doesn't exist so it is now unnecessary to fill it in, but i must disagree with your biased statement about LGBT rights article. Vatican City is sovereign State which is recognized by UN and its members and as I said in state topice template it is common to fill in LGBT rights article in politics section. If you claim that this article is gay lobbying LGBT rights in Vatican City, you can share your ideas in discussion but do not act like homosexuality doesn't exist because even Catholic Catechism discourse about it (I know because I'm Catholic and I have read it). So if you have any specific argument which is not "homosexuality is irrelevant topic" (what does it mean and why?!) share it with me and we can discuss it. Saudi Arabia, UAE are also theocaracies and they contains "LGBT rights section" and it doesn't bother anybody, I don't understand why Vatican City should. I restore LGBT rights. 79.163.220.176 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you don't get the idea of sovereignty. As Vatican is such a state and has the right to enact whatever they like laws. LGBT rights is still important part of civil code. I don't understand why you can't see that Vatican is not only 1000 people state but also one of the biggest tourist attractions in whole Europe, they have millions of tourists visiting every year, and believe or not some of them are interested what status does homosexuality have in that place, they have the right to know if they can be punished for homosexuality in this area and I strongly disagree with you that adding "LGBT rights" to this template what is in fact common policy, and you do not throw out this from over countries templates it seems more like you are leading subjective and propaganda. Our Great Pope John Paul II is dead in the matter of fact, but what he has signed is still recognized by Benedict XVI. And it seems you haven't read Roman Catholic Church Catechism there is nothing like you wrote "in fact it actively opposes it" if is, please quote this. Additionally you have written on your page: since this is an encyclopedia not a pressure group. And what you do seems to be a pressure, treating Vatican like it was overcountry. And for the last, I said that I agree that Vatican has no article about human rights, but it does have article about LGBT rights. Whatever you think it seems to be weird for me, because in the matter of fact article about LGBT rights in Vatican City does not stand that Vatican is killing gays or something but you can read there something astonishing like "legal". 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing: I'm not lobbying for anything. So I request You to stop impute this to me. OK? 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP changes because I'm now in another city. I will make an account to make our war easier. As I am A Roman Catholic and I am also homosexual I still strongly consider it is an important part of Vatican City politics and also Catholic Church politics. Otherwise I can not agree with your ad personam arguments and imaginary lobby. The only organisation I am member of is Catholic Church. I do not lobby for anything. I beg your pardon, in many countries as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Australia and so on, Catholic Chuch is the strongest opposition of LGBT rights so don't try to make me believe or acknowlegde in what you are saying: "since it has no effect on the life or politics there. It is not a significant issue".

79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]