User talk:Cailil/archive10

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 To leave me a new message, please click here.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Triton Rocker block

Hello, Cailil. I'm not going to give an opinion on this, though I do have one. What I will say is this, why has this gone on so long and in so many places? To be honest, I'm not sure I could have taken the abuse you have taken up to now, but then that's probably a good reason I would never be an admin. I'm actually surprised there are no more admins intervening in this. Don't let it get you down mate. Jack forbes (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Well unfortunately I've had worse so this kind of thing doesn't bother me =/ All I can say is thing do eventually turn out for the best on WP - it takes time, and persistence but the community does work, either by recognizing disruption or by reforming ppl who could make valuable contributions to the project but who need a steer in the right direction--Cailil ^talk 14:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you are mentioned in relation to this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeal by Triton Rocker.  Sandstein  12:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunlavin Green

Given the punishments you have handed out to the like of Triton Rocker, I and others for far more minor incivlities, can you explain to me why Dunlavin Green's latest contributions have passed without your comment or action?

"there is number of British nationalist posters here who have an agenda to remove all opposition ... you'll see their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors ... British nationalist hijacking of an international figure ... Snowded? He was a bright fella too, but got a woeful slew of shíte from the British nationalists for daring to empathise with the Irish on this issue ... all your royalist nonsense is fine online but ... screaming British nationalist pov ... flag-waving John Bull editor ... there is number of British nationalist posters here ... their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one ... A more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors you will not find in Wikipedia ... if we could just move all traces of resistance to this British nationalist term from this article everything would be so much more aesthetically pleasing to our jingoistic friends over in Britain."

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles&diff=prev&oldid=384364459

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bono&action=historysubmit&diff=376098659&oldid=375868316

--LevenBoy (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunlavin did go over-the-line, on that occassion. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually GD if I had seen that at the time I would have warned him But as I didn't see it I couldn't deal with it.
LB your above post infers your restrictions are punitive - they are not they are preventative. Also be aware that edits that insuate, infer or otherwise suggest bad faith on the part of others (as your post does towards me) IS a breach of your editing restriction. You and others are invited to present evidence of this kind of behviour for examination but please do so in a neutral manner.
DG has been warned and made aware of the probation - if the problem persists let me know, I'll keep an eye on it when I'm here--Cailil ^talk 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but I certainly wish to do my best to avoid any more such punishments in the future, so please give me clear examples of how I can report such incidents, or reference them in administrative or policy related discussions, and allow me to discuss this 'off the record' with you so that I can get it right.

You agree that such comments are utterly reasonable. I think it is fair to suggest that such comments are the clearest evidence of nationalistic sentiments and not good faith, motivating editing or discussion in a topic area damaged by such sentiments. How do I raise that is a "neutral manner"?

If I pay you this respect, will you respect back to the point of accepting that I do not insinuate anything but just state plainly what I see or ask? --LevenBoy (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My point about the insinuation is that really one should just assume that an admin hasn't seen something rather than that they are ignoring it. That's all.
With regard to the nationalist editing issues in many articles and topics on WP like Macedonia, Palestine & Israel and the British Isles (or political partisan issues like we had at the Barak Obama and John McCain articles) it's actually best to look at (and report) what problematic behaviour is happening, where and how (rely on diffs to do the talking) and leave out the whys (becuase that's where assumption comes in). Send me an email if you like but I think the above report would have been fine if you left out the top piece that could be read to imply that I was ignoring DG's behaviour. Instead a framing statement like "could you look at these diffs in regard to civility at Talk:British Isles and elsewhere" would suffice--Cailil ^talk 13:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya didn't see it at the time? Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been on-line in fits and spurts due to my many real life obligations since the end of October. It's best to highlight specific things here if anyone wants my attention--Cailil ^talk 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

I rather belatedly saw the change from M.Litt to PhD. Many congrats... no wonder you've been very busy in the last year or so! It must be a relief to have it done, unless you've now got to adapt the dissertation as a book, when you don't want to look at the bloody thing ever again! --Slp1 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1. LOL Yes that's where I am at - looking at some restructurings and a new introduction to my introduction for a book version =) But seriously it is really hard to lok at it at all--Cailil ^talk 14:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised! Worth doing, though, if one holds one's nose, so that all those years of work can come to something more useful than languishing unread in a university library. Or take a more contrarian approach, and build your spirits by imagining some poor slob having to plough through it as part of some assignment! --Slp1 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Campaign

WP:PLACE only refers to "conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places". The problems we have go much further than that. Thank you for the offer, I would like to take you up and report what I and other see as a long-term "campaign to remove the term British Isles" from the Wikipedia. Firstly, as you have such in an interest in my conduct over the conduct of others, could you please inform me clearly and specifically with examples of what you will consider as acceptable reportage and unacceptable reportage? I do not want to make a report in language that is unacceptable to you for it then to be used against me. Obvious to do so I will have to name names and present my assumptions of their intention which you seem to specifically object to. Secondly, regarding your comment at WP:VERIFY. I know very well what your concerns and opinions about my contributions to the Wikipedia are and I have my own opinions about them. You really don't need to follow me around re-stating them in a way others might consider to be "poisoning the well" of other discussions. I approached you respectfully for advice. If I step towards the line of what you consider acceptable, please contact me via my talk page if you must. I am sure others will find such comments if they are interested. LemonMonday's RfCs are entirely separate from mine. I don't think the problem can be resolved by consensus. I don't think there is any point rehashing the British Isles issue with the same individual due to a lack of manual of style and the weak, undefined policy in this area. I think it has to be resolved at a policy level. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

LB, first of all it's the assumptions bit that is the problem. Full stop. You don't need to speculate on other's motivations. All you need to do is show what they do and how it breaks policy. Their motives, intentions, etc will be self-evident from diffs. Let your diffs do the talking. A report should not be, or should not look like, an attack on another editor - it should just present facts in the form of diffs. "Editor X keeps inserting this in article Z (+diff)"
It should show diffs - relevant policies and if possible edit patterns. It just doesn't need any editorial - one's opinions on the 'why' are irrelevant becuase they are just that opinions, assumptions and speculations (this is all explained in WP:NPA).
Also you are not "being followed", your RFC is on a policy page - as a sysop I happen to watch policy pages so that I know about changes there. It is also a fact that this is the 3rd RFC on, broadly, the same topic within a week that is a problem becuase it's forum shopping.
It is unfortunate that you think others cannot be communicated with vis-a-vis the British Isles naming dispute but I'm afraid that's your problem rather than the project's. We have policies and fora for this topic to be discussed appropriately, and WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (specicially WP:DUE) cover it quite nicely. If that fails try dispute resolution ie mediation. You wont find a policy trump card LB, because all our policies are based on using sources, and editing in, a consentual manner. If you really want you could try putting in a request for clarification with ArbCom on the Ireland naming RfAr re: British Isles and Ireland. It would need to be very clear and specific and I have no idea if they'll consider it but it's there if you want to try--Cailil ^talk 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This links to that RFAR and if you go through the final decision it may help you understand where the rest of the projet is at wrt Geographical naming disputes--Cailil ^talk 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also if you wa ant examples of reportsr: this is the report I compilled when looking into MisterFlash and HK's editwarring back in April and this is an old abuse report from 2007. You don't need to format report like this or make them as sub-pages - that's simply my preferred method. A paragraph with diffs would do the same job--Cailil ^talk 02:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look over all this.

I am sorry if I you are offended that I wrote "followed" but my edits clearly are being followed by a number of individuals. It feels my every breath is being X-Rayed for evil intentions whilst others individuals come on the same pages, are allowed to come rant, are unblocked for much worse than I have ever done or have no any issue made of the behaviour. So far, I do have agreement from others about the need for refinement of general policies (not BISE specific).

You said that I should contact you if any problems with other editors arose rather than engage with them. I feel that Snowded is deliberate provoking a conflict here with multiple reversions of my work [1], [2] and making personal comments accusing me of being "tedious" and "tendentiousness". [3][4] I wish avoid any conflict.

LemonMonday and I have discussed refining the RfC. There is nothing in the refinement to change the context or content of the discussion. Having spoken to him and GoodDay about them, I think we all pretty much feel it is a formality on the way to more authoritative decision making process. The intention with the refinement was merely to state the issue clearly so that individuals new to the discussion would better understand all the shorthand and issues involved.

Left as it was, it was pretty much a closed discussion between the usual suspects. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WRT the RFC on the BISE page - I understand hence my advice to use {{rfc|project}} or {{rfc|policy}}. But bear in mind an RFC needs a longer time - maybe a month to see any input from outside. And for the record I have absolutely nothing against BISE undergoing an RFC - in fact I think it's a good idea - but it must ask different question to the MFD. It must also ask a question without creating a feeling of it being a mechanism to fight 'the Other Side', which LM's original one appeared to be (because of it's claim of misconduct without evidence).
On the matter of the RFC being a "formality on the way to more authoritative decision making process" that's actually a bit of a problem. RFCs are for dispute resolution. If DR is not entered into with the hope of resolving said dispute then DR isn't actually being entered into at all. ArbCom are unlikely to look favourably on such an attitude. And personally I doubt very much that going to ArbCom will give anyone what they want - it rarely does.
Fundamentally saying finding agreement is too hard and asking ArbCom to sort whatever dispute is not going to work. Learning to find consensus and work by consensus even when we disagree with it is part of being a wikipedian.
I keep coming back to this point but you all should consider mediation. The level of ... 'hostility' (for lack of better term) at WP:BISE is just an exaggerated form of the average frustrations found in disputes at articles. Regardless of the area in which one edits all users needs to a) try to work together (even by 'writing for the enemy' sometimes) and b) foster an environment where people of diametrically opposite views can disagree without disrupting the project. That last point is why we (the community when I say 'we') imposed a probation on the BI naming topic - to foster a positive environment for non-disruptive disagreement. Everyone involved needs to get to place where they can be contradicted and say: 'ok fair enough'. GoodDay is the best example of this attitude IMHO.
THis is a very long comment already so I'm going to stop here - I'll look into Snowded's comments now and will drop a line where approriate momentarily--Cailil ^talk 18:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah I seem to have misunderstood something. The RFC at the article talkpage Talk:British Isles was what you were discussin changing. Ah right. Snowded is technicaly correct. You can't change the question after some people have answered. You'd actually need to start a new RFC and close the old one. However, I don't think that page is the right place for what you are asking[5]. I say this becuase you are not actually asking about the article British Isles but the subject - you're not supposed to do that. However I understand the confusion. First I would suggest clarifying your question: Is that RFC about the use of BI versus B&I on wikipedia or in that article? If on WP then this is the wrong venue - I'm unsure where is the right venue - WP:MOS-IE might(and stress might) be better. If in the article show where and in what policy context.
BTW WP:PLACE should help with the Flora & Fauna dispute (as it is about naming of pages).
I couldn't see the diff where Snowded labeled your edit tendentious or tedious could you post them again (and could you post the diff he was refering to) - sorry about that--Cailil ^talk 18:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I am happy to let it go, although in the third comment Snowded addressed at me, I got "paranoid" as well. [6] "tedious" ... "tendentiousness" ... "paranoid", that clearly becoming personal.

I do not want to get into admin shopping as per HighKing [7][8] and I dont want to waste your time but I want this distracting sideshows to stop. If "poisoning the well" is to stop, then that should apply to all others equally and I'd like to see evidence that it is going both ways.

I will look into meditation. It seems there are steps one is required to go through and perhaps an RfC is the first thing to do? Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

LB, you are on civility parole. Labelling my notifications as "admin shopping" ignores AGF and is derogatory. In the absence of TFOWR, I followed the advice given on previous occasions by him to notify the other watching admins, namely Cailil and BlackKite. --HighKing (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent)LB, HK was perfectly ok to notify myself and BlackKite - we've been active in patrolling the area (also he said in each of his posts that he had contacted both of us) and that was TFOWR's direction. Please try to be more conservative in your descriptions of other user's actions.
Re the mediation yes an RFC before that might help - but if not do contact the MedCab but have a goal in mind - ie 'to agree on the use of BI or B&I wrt to the WP:MOS'. Generalized not getting along can't be mediated as such.
The 'distractions' will cease if olive branches are extended--Cailil ^talk 13:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask to be met half way and that they stop their accusations of "forum shopping"? I think that this is a situation where the same rule has to apply to all and should be stated clearly on the Sanctions page, e.g. "accusing others of admin shopping or forum shipping will be considered uncivil as will the over-reporting of others". If you agree, I will add it.

I am concerned that statements such as "LB is searching for a run-around ... to insert BI into articles without discussion" below are surely prejudicial (or assumptive and speculative" as you tell me), and not in good faith but I am not going to spend all my time reporting them to admins. This means I risk admins not seeing them and taking the right action. Can you ask the others not to? Full stop.

I notice this, [9]. Was this developed and if so, where? BTW, I have asked you a direct question at WP:BISE regarding Categories. --LevenBoy (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough LB. But adding anything to the sanctions page has to be by community consesnsus. Rather than adding text to WP:GS/BI I'll make a post to WP:BISE regarding a number of poionts later this week - including this one. But I'll look at this issue in detail later and respond appropriately.
As regards the community procedure I belive that's WP:IRE-IRL now part of WP:MOS-IE and listed at WP:PLACE.
I'll have a look at your question as regards categories in about 2 hours as I'm in transit at the moment--Cailil ^talk 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy

Normally I'd ask TFOWR but he's caught up in RL right now. Also posted to BlackKites Talk. Just a heads up on this, this and the creation of this category. What to do? --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm take it to WP:BISE see if LB has consensus for this[10]. I'd defer to TFOWR (as he has a grasp on the flora & fauna stuff). I'd need more infor to understand what the problem is exactly - he may have just forgot to put Category:Lists of biota of the United Kingdom back? Ask him, ask why and see if you all can talk it out. If that fails I'd suggest waiting to make any further chnages / decisions on disputed flora & fauna issues till TFOWR comes back--Cailil ^talk 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, as above, WP:PLACE might help come to a consensus here--Cailil ^talk 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits for now as per BRD. He had previously asked about Categories at the BISE page. My concern is that LB is searching for a run-around - how to insert BI into articles without discussion. Let's see what happens at the BISE page for now on the basis of least-drama option first. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So as to avoid any further criticism, and that I can learn from you, I give you permission and would like to ask you to strike out or re-write those parts of my comment which you feel were uncivil.

At the same time, I have to say that I find such comments suggesting that I am "searching for a run-around - how to insert BI into articles" uncivil and lacking in Good Faith WP:AGF and I would like to ask you to put a stop to them. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No LB your comments are your responsibility - you need to remove any and all assumptions, insinuations, inferences and opinions about others from you remarks as indicated per WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:TPG. I'm going to give the chance to redact the problematic remarks I indicated yesterday. It's up to you to show you've learned from the warnings and blocks - WP:CIVIL and [[WP:TPG] are very clear--Cailil ^talk 18:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Shall I call 911? LevenBoy seems to have deserted the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday

(Also posted at BlackKite's Talk page) Despite this discussion at BISE, LemonBoyLemonMonday has immediately reverted. Reluctant as I am to take this to AN/I, is there any alternative? And if I take it to AN/I, is it right to also bring up the recent SPI case (at the time I was advised to let it ride because LB had "disappeared", but given what's going on now...) --HighKing (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it to ANi - but unless you can prove a concern vis-a-vis sockpuppetry I would let it go. I'm run off my feet in RL but will look at this later tonight / early tomorrow--Cailil ^talk 22:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry case is pretty overwhelming based on the behavioral information, and my concern is that whenever we've experienced "progress" at BISE, along comes a disruptive editor with all the same characteristics and hallmarks of MBM. I'm pretty busy in RL myself, I'll wait to hear on your opinion of BK's. At this point, I've little stomach for yet more drama at AN/I, but if that's the way it needs to be taken... --HighKing (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, could you like to the old sock case I’m unsure ho it’s filed under?
You've made an interesting remark that I missed due to my exhaustion last night: "LemonBoy" is this a deliberate conflation or a typo? If it is a conflation of LB & LM (and the accusation is that they are both MBM) you would need to prove that before making remarks like that. Referring to them both as “LemonBoy” is not compatible with WP:CIVIL or WP:TPG--Cailil ^talk16:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Redacted immediately and humble apologies. Wasn't trying to be smart, it was a genuine mistake! I'm aware Snowded made a similar mistake on his Talk page recently - perhaps it lodged somewhere in my brain... The link to the old sock case is this SPI case from August 2010. --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically 'unlikely' HK. I would leave this alone. LM has been accused of socking in various cases - all of them have turned out to be negative on full CU examination. It's to AGF on that matter.
That revert however is another thing. Have you asked LM about it?--Cailil ^talk 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at that. My understanding is that SPI's give more weight to behaviour than to CU results. The CU came back "unlikely" (which doesn't rule it out completely) and the comments by the CU admins indicates that they believe the behavioural evidence is strong. And we've also seen recently a number of cases involving socks being able to bounce about at will on the Virginmedia ISP (or derivatives), to make it look like they're in different locations. Given LM's recent comeback, I believe it is best for everyone to have this resolved for good, weighing the behaviour evidence alongside the CU result, and perhaps reexamining the CU results in light of the VirginMedia ISP hopping. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Cailil, I trust you are going to take some action regarding the above insinuations from HighKing. Twice now he has filed SPIs against me and still he persists in making unfounded accusations. I object to being referred to as disruptive, an SPI and a sock simply because I put a forceful opposing argument. On the subject of Westward Ho! you'll note that there was no consensus at BISE. The most we got was that the largest area should be referenced. HK replaced BI with a referenced UK, but there are plenty of BI references, and BI is larger than UK, hence my revert, but mainly it was because of the lack of consensus. Now some other matters for you to look at; Please see this User talk:Snowded#"Lemon Boy", and this edit [11]. Again I object to the incivility and childishness of this and hope you will not let it pass. I would also draw your attention to this edit summary by User:Mo ainm; [12]. It was a perfectly reasonable action on my part to place clarification tags on some weasel-like words. For the first tag a reference was provided without a problem, but Mo ainm referred to my actions as "drive by" and then followed up - once I'd provided him with a patently unnecessary explanation - with the above-noted edit and summary. I might add that his reference actually clarifies that the word "slim" is inappropriate. Since my recent block I've tried to remain civil, but it is difficult given the constant baiting that is going on here. LemonMonday Talk 19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you catch your self on you did a drive by tagging on two sentences that a google search would have backed up what was wrote in the article. Mo ainm~Talk 19:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

LM - you are saying that there was no consensus on that issue. That's the opposite of what HK has shown, he linked to a resolved discussion. Can you show me where there was an unresolved one or that there was another consensus?
As it stands it looks like you have violated the terms of the topic's probation by reinserting "British Isles" without a reference. If you had/have a reference that proves your position a) you must cite it in teh article and b) you have to discuss it at that page by weighing sources in accordace with NPOV. Your action in reverting a sourced position and reinstating an unsourced one is not acceptable (under WP:NOR and W:NPOV). The existence of WP:BISE does not give any of you a right to revert out of hand - quite the contrary. Also the exitence of a position at BISE does not over-ride a consensus at the article - did you seek either? If not then your edit does not conform to WP:BRD.
I have asked HK to let his socking concerns go and AGF. I will look at the Snowded diffs etc momentarily.
But as a matter of urgency you need to show where there was no consensus or where consensus was against HK's action--Cailil ^talk 20:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore - once again LM this is all abut sources! If you read TFOWR's point it is that a sourced position should be used. You need to verify your position. I am not saying HK's position should eb teh final one. I am however saying that reverting any sourced position to unsourced one is 100% wrong. Editors must source the material they add or readd - editors are responsible for Original reasearch or defamatory material if they reinstate it. You need to source your position and then along with others weigh teh sources appropriately--Cailil ^talk 20:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source on the Talk page, but no sooner as I'd made the edit the source went offline, and remains so. Nevertheless, here's a quote from it; A wild West country walk | England - Times Online

11 Feb 2007 ... Westward Ho! is an invigorating starting point, because it's the only place in the British Isles with an exclamation mark. ...www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/destinations/.../article1358697.ece - Similar. As you see, it a reputable source. I will put it in the article in due course - waiting for while too see if it is reinstated online in its entirety. On the subject of consensus it is abundantly clear there was none. While we don't count up votes it's worth noting that the majority was in favour of no change. TWOFR's comments can be interpreted either way and although the section is tagged as "resolved", it really wasn't and should have been tagged "unresolved", otherwise it was "resolved but with no consensus". LemonMonday Talk 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The thread was closed as resolved by TFOWR - the resolution being to take sources to WP:RSN, if needed. The BISE thread is/was properly closed. You should take the matter to the talk page and discuss without reverting to an unsourced position. I'm sure if The Times said it can be sourced but the way to deal with this is discussion at the articles page not the 'undo' button--Cailil ^talk 21:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This has all been pointed out the LemonMonday several times in the past. He has an adversarial and confrontational style and attitude as evidenced by his continued arguments and refusal to take this back to BISE for reopening. He is in breach of the topic's probation by inserting "British Isles" without a reference, and he has not take the opportunity to correct the situation by reverting (and I'm glad to see nobody "took the bait" and started an edit war). What is the next step? A block and an entry at the BISE sanctions should be the start - does this need to go to AN/I first? --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

HK, I've warned LM not to repeat this. I told him precisely that his action broke both the probation and WP:NOR. I've asked him to source his position as a matter of urgency. I suggest you go to the page and try to build consensus with him and others. That is all that will happen for now. If it happens again that would be another matter.
I want to remind all involved that the existence of WP:BISE and teh topic probation should not be confused for a system for finding sources to insert or remove the term 'British Ises' but rather to remove the problem of edit warring and disruption. We do source based research on WP to find the highest quality sources on a subject - not just on whether it's about Ireland, Britain, the UK, the British Ises or Europe. Please keep these matters in teh perspective of what's best for the articles and the project--Cailil ^talk 16:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some further discussion on this matter at Talk:Westward Ho!. Maybe any further comments should be made there. Unfortunately I had to revert GoodDay; an explanation is given as to why - basically his revert coincided with further discussion, unknown to him. Please note, I consider HK's remarks about me, both above and at the talk page just mentioned, to be in breach of WP:CIVIL. LemonMonday Talk 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've said above If it happens again that would be another matter. - See here. This is precisely the edit warring that BISE is supposed to avoid, and it's precisely the reason that the sanctions are in place. --HighKing (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See above, where I explained why it was necessary to revert on this occasion. LemonMonday Talk 16:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent)No LM you're edit-warring. If GD was wrong ask him to self-revert or ask him his position. You're using the revert function improperly. Stop--Cailil ^talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC) HK my talk-page is not a circus and talk-pages are not for the expression of opinions about others. I will follow my own judgement here--Cailil ^talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, I've taken this to AN/I, partly because of the mediation stuff you seem to have been dragged into, but also partly from your comment above. You're not giving me a fair crack of the whip at all, and I can see from your comments that you are of the opinion that that this is an adversarial contest/debate between LM and me. It's not - I've simply refused to engage with him, and took the advice of TFOWR which was to point out breaches and allow admins to get on with it, and let BISE get on with it. I appreciate that you are not TFOWR and you have your own way of dealing with things, but you shouldn't ask me to get involved with LM at a Talk page as if you're stepping in between two disagreeing editors. You're not, and that would only create a completely different situation. I pointed out a breach and I expect you, as an admin, to deal with it because I can't. Simply put, he is in breach, and if he wishes to discuss usage of "British Isles" at an article which has been previously resolved at BISE, then he should simply reopen the topic at BISE. And if he's in breach, I see no reason why we should ignore WP:GS/BI - by doing so, we're simply reinventing a wheel that has already been tried and tested. I fail to understand why LM should be given any different consideration than any other editor. --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)OK, I could self revert and then ask GoodDay to do likewise, and then HighKing as well, but surely it's all a bit pointless now, given that we are back at the situation before any (disputed) changes were made, and the term is now referenced. Additionally, GD has reopened the case at BISE, which I would have done myself if I knew that HK was about to replace British Isles. I consider the remark that my edit pattern is similar to that of MidnightBlueMan to be verging on an assumption of bad faith. I've looked at this and the only similarity is the area of interest. I mentioned WP:BAIT yesterday, and that's happening again at WP:AN/I. Tell me what I'm supposed to do? I'm being civil, I'm expanding my area of interest, I'm discussing matters at BISE and elsewhere and yet still the guns are out. LemonMonday Talk 17:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LM I already told HK this page is not a circus. The remark that your edit pattern is a match for MBM's is one shared by 3 admins. You're following HK and reverting him. The matter is on ANI and if sysops think HK was incivil he'll be dealt with.

HK you need to put down 'the whip'. All involved need to start trying to resolve disputes rather than escalate them. Failing to look for consensus is your problem not the project's and if you and others wont try again that's your problem and theirs not the project's. If I decide to warn someone rather than block on sight I have my reasons. We as sysops are not anyone else's enforcers we block/protect/delete in line with policy not on request. You have escalated this matter beyond what is necessary you have refused to AGF after being asked to do so. These are your decisions. You wil have to 'own' their conseuences
You are both on very thin ice I seriously suggest you both start de-escalating your behaviour towards one another--Cailil ^talk 17:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, perhaps you have your own reasons, fine. But I have no idea what they are, and you only appear interested in pushing LM and me together into a content dispute at a Talk page. That was not the issue. This isn't about a content dispute, or about an adversarial issue between me and him, and I wish you'd stop trying to create one. I reported issues in relation to BISE and sanctions. Stop shooting the messenger. If LM is truly interested in resolving the dispute, he knows where BISE is. I will engage within that structure since it creates a strict CIVIL atmosphere and environment (which is not enforced on article Talk pages). I've escalated the issue to AN/I, because you have now been dragged into a mediation circus which calls into question your impartiality, and because LM reverted GD. --HighKing (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than the revert at Westward Ho!, which I've acknowledged at the Talk page was wrong and should have been handled differently at the time, maybe you could explain what I'm doing now that constitutes being on thin ice? Respond on my talk page if you like. LemonMonday Talk 17:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The reverts at that article are a very serious breach of teh topic probation. You were also playing WP:IDHT vis-a-vis lists policy at WP:BISE for 2 days. You've had full and fair warning for a very long time about your behaviur since 2008. You need to start working together with others towards a source based NPOV at articles--Cailil ^talk 17:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Shall I call 911?, LemonMonday seems to have deserted us. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very strict GoodDay. Not sure a few hours away from Wikipedia can be termed a desertion. Are you planning on hunting him down? Jack forbes (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, my life is boring enough. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-13/Admin Cailil: Definition of Civility

Hello, Cailil. I'd like to point you to the above. It's possible that I just I can't see where you have been notified< so thought I'd do it. Jack forbes (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack--Cailil ^talk 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI on LevenBoy & LemonMonday

Howdy Cailil. I was considering opening up one of those, in order to end all doubts, which would be good for both suspectors & suspectees. However, I'm not entirely certain how to open an SPI. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

HI GD. Well first off you can't request an checkuser to prove a negative. As WP:SPI says: "There must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for CheckUser without evidence will be declined, because CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry.
That there is a similarity, or even a match in edit patterns, between accounts is (after CUs have already come back negative/unlikely) not enough to prove socking; and collusion between two or more accounts or tag teaming is a separate matter.
I believe Doc answered this at the recent ANi: disruptive behaviour (even if the same as a sockmaster's) is a different thing to an account being a provable sock.
I stress that I do not recommend doing this, as unless you are presenting evidence of socking the request will be declined. That said instructions for opening an SPI are at Wikipedia:RFCU#Submitting_an_SPI_case - it's a self explanatory form but please do read the whole page at WP:SPI--Cailil ^talk 20:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, perhaps I've just got a different interpretation of where a CU fits in. You state That there is a similarity, or even a match in edit patterns, between accounts is (after CUs have already come back negative/unlikely) not enough to prove socking. I'd say that your description sets the bar too high - using your definitions, there is *no* way to *prove* sock puppetry beyond a confession. The admin instructions place the following emphasis - CheckUser is a technical tool. If behavioral evidence suggests a strong likelihood of sock-puppetry or abuse, then this may be the case even if CheckUser shows no technical connection. --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

HK I understand CU quite well. In this case the results came back negative. Yes we do assess behavioural traits but this has been checked already. As it says above CU is not magic pixie dust and neither are sysops. There are other things as mentioned above that are not sock-puppetry that may fit may this case - but WP:SPI isn't used for that. The wheels grind slowly at WP sometimes but they grind properly, I suggest you divert your attention to content matters and away from this--Cailil ^talk 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It might have been better if the comments on behaviour were negative, but that wasn't the case. But it is time to move on - thanks for showing patience. --HighKing (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rather than continue the discussion on Jehochman talk page, I would appreciate being able to discuss matters with you directly, just human being to human being, and out from under the usual hail of threats and policy acronyms. Could you step out of the role you have as an admin on the Wikipedia and do just that?

OK, so I did not know what the mediation page did not tell me to do. It is no big deal. I figured that you and half a dozen others have me on your watchlist anyway and so I did not need to, that it was handled as part of the process.

I wanted to discuss matters with you, with a witness involved, so that I could have a second interpretation or third opinion on what was happening and would not be banned unfairly for attempting to do so reasonably by my standards.

Will you do that without someone else being involved? --LevenBoy (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

LB this is a very simple matter.

• Read the policies as regards appropriate behaviour on wikipedia and apply them. They are assume good faith, no pesonal attacks, the talk page guidelines and more broadly the civility policy.
  In their simplest manifestation:
• Just don't talk about your opinions or speculations about other people at all.
• Make edits to articles and talk pages based on reliable sources and in line with the core policies of a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiablity. Restrict your points everywhere on wikipedia to those that will improve articles in line with these policies.
• Withdraw even unintentional accusations about others.
• If you have a problem with an edit - show a diff, relate the diff to the policy and leave it at that.
• Diversify the subjects to which you edit a) to learn how wikipedia works and b) to get a broader perspective on the project's content and hopefully see how your current area of focus is seen by others.
• Avoid any remarks that could be interpreted as personal. "Talk about edits not editors". Remove those that others tell you are in fact offensive/rude/unnecessary/inaccurate.
• Assume other people - even those you don't like - are trying to improve the project. Assume even when you disagree with someone else's decision that they are working to improve the project rather than against you.
• When you have a disagreement with other users, or a process/project/proposal, state your point once and state it civilly. Don't play games to get a point across to others. Don't make comments that are unhelpful or disruptive. And listen to what others are saying to you.

I am not able to redefine policy LevenBoy I can only explain and apply it. Wikipedia is based on consensual edits to article written by thousands (maybe more) people around the world, from very different cultures and backgrounds. We enforce civility as a matter of priority to enable an atmosphere in which people who disagree can still edit productively together. Wikipedia is not a game and people are not out there trying to beat you or to win something. Wikipedia is a consensus driven encyclopaedia that records what the mainstream of reliably sourced knowledge says about notable topics and provides these articles for free to the world.
On another note - if you raise an ANI thread, open an RFC/MFD on a article that an editor has edited extensively, or sought dispute resolution with someone it is a matter of courtesy to inform them.
Your comments are your responsibility you cannot delegate others to clean them up for you. You must read policy and work within it yourself to show you understand it - that's what you need to do. It's not extraordinary to demand of 'club members' to abide by the rules of 'the club' - that's basically what we (we being sysops) are saying to you.
On a final note stop claiming that I am or have done things that I have patently not done. I did not declare or rush through a unilateral sanction against you. I am not involved in anyway in any content matter as regards the British Isles naming dispute or anything at all whatsoever to do with Ireland or Britain topics. My only involvement has been as an "uninvolved sysop". My actions and comments, like yours, are public and open to review by my colleagues if necessary. Hence my decision to bring any sanctions before the community for their support before imposing them.
If you can show over the next few weeks that you have learned how to use wikipedia properly then I will gladly remove your sanction. That's what it's for - to help you see how to improve your behaviour and to restrict you from getting into tricky siuations, so that you will learn to avoid them in future.
Take this advice, and Jehochman's, on board or not - it's your decision--Cailil ^talk 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I will let you in on a secret Cailil. Wikipedia policy is like the Old Testament. There is a policy for anything and everything, and many of them contradict each other. They are used as leverage, excuses, sticks and stones to beat people with, generally to game and make war and, lastly, to justify the personal whim of whichever party is the most powerful. Power on the Wikipedia is defined in two ways, who you know and what privileges you have got. Beyond that, it is just a simple matter of will and available time to edit. They may as well chuck them all out and replace them with a simple Crowleyian "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law".

Now, please, I asked you to talk with me. Not at me. Please, don't tell me to read policy as if I have not. Ask me if I have read policy if you need to, or discuss with me our differences in interpreting that policy, because I have read policy and, just like you, I have my own appreciation and application of it. you may not mean it in this way but I am experiencing your approach to be far too hectoring and even aggressive.

I have my values, you have yours. I find one set of things either acceptable or offensive, you have a different set. I will let you in on a second secret, there is no absolute set, no absolute standard on the Wikipedia. To your wonderfully comprehensive list, please add a little salt of realism that not everyone does these at all times and not everyone shares such a pure intent as you. That is my experience.

As far as my sanctions go, they were pushed through when I was not allow to discuss them which was unethical. I did not take happily to someone else putting up a case for me which was not my own. In my opinion, they are far too broad and hence open to being used abusively as a catchall. In addition, the summaries which will remain on my record, are far too strongly termed, unreferenced and prejudicial. I have never indulged in the sort of ugliness and profanities, uncivility, that others do and apparently get away Scot free with.

Similar situations could well arise in other situations. My best constructive advice to you, for your own sake so as to save your time and energy, is that if at any point I felt that you really had acknowledged that there were also causative circumstances to the ongoing British Isles renaming dispute and that my reactions whether acceptable or unacceptable did not happen in a void, then I would feel the punitive regime was a whole lot fairer. I was never made to feel that. I never felt like you admitted it. It is impossible to argue that there are two or more 'sides' to the British Isle dispute.

There are times when it is necessary to discuss or query such motivations. In fact, from my point of view, it would be far more healthy if individuals did put aside the topics for a while and discussed outright their different points of view, and where they fitted in one the Wikipedia, rather than attempted to move topics about the board as if they were playing chess or a war game. I think it would be a good thing if individuals did admit honestly what their point of view was. Differences need not be uncivil at all.

So, I ask you again, wind down the Wikipedia stuff. I know it. Just talk to me as an individual and an equal. --LevenBoy (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No LB there is no time in which you, under your sanction (which is a community sanction BTW) may query the motives of others. I will not debate policy with you or anyone else. Your sanctions, and those on Triton Rocker, are preventative not punitive - they restrict you from incivil communication thus dialing down the heat in the area. Please go ahead and edit constructively - follow the advice given or not, it's your choice. Follow policy or not - again it's your choice--Cailil ^talk 15:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey LB, when you continue to protest about those sanctions on yourself, you're not only questioning Cailil's judgement, you're questioning my (and the others who supported it) judgement too. I'm getting sorta peeved over this, so stop complaining & go forth an edit. PS: Sorry Cailil, but LB's gotta stop treating you as though you unilaterally put the sanctions on him. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK Cailil, the last 4 comments Snowded has made towards me in the last week or so have been rude, sarcastic. belittling or some other way clearly contravening WP:Civility. We have had "tedious" ... "tendentious" ... "paranoid" ... "obsessed" and now looking forward to me be "nuked and paved" [13]. I have raised this before. What is happening about stopping it?

If you refuse to discuss policy with another Wikipedian, then all you are doing is applying your own take on it. I not asking for a debate. I am asking for a simple discussion to find common ground and clarify the terms of the BI/GS sanctions placed upon me. They were created and applied when I was not able to edit, nor was I able to edit when they were first questioned.

What confuses the issue further is when other are persistently allowed to get away with what would clearly have me banned again, as above. How do you explain that? --LevenBoy (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I already spoke to Snowded & HK about the "LevenMonday/LemonBoy" thing - which I found problematic. You are in fact misrepresenting Snowded's above which references your "nuke and pave" remark[14] and you have not even told Snowded that you had a problem with his remark[15].
You are under a behavioural restriction. You are restricted from commenting on others. You will be blocked if a sysop determines an edit/comment by your account is not in line with behavioural policy or otherwise expresses a battleground mentality. I have explained how you should behave above. I have also given you a lot of slack since your return from a month long block, in that time you have demonstrated that you have not learned what behaviour is appropriate on wikipedia. It remains your choice to edit constructively or disruptively; it remains your choice whether you comment in manner that is productive or tendentious; but if you wont listen it's not my problem.
I have not refused to explain or discuss policy but rather to debate it with you - and I am warning you to STOP wikilawyering and misrepresenting others it is disruptive.
It is your choice to abide by the rules of 'the club' (ie wikipedia) or not - you've been given a lot of advice but if you don't want to hear it then, once again, it's not my problem. BTW this edit is noted--Cailil ^talk 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW this edit is noted. Forgive me for saying so Cailil, but that's just the sort of hectoring remark that LevenBoy is talking about. If a user wishes to delete content from their talk page they can do so without having to justify it and no-one should make any inferences from it. Personally I like to keep all content on my Talk page, however derogatory it might be, but other users clearly like to remove content they don't agree with. LemonMonday Talk 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LM, when LevenBoy deleted that comment he acknowledged it. His choice to do that and continue this discussion in the vein that he has are at odds with one another. Your 2c are not asked and not welcome - I told you above to stop using this page as if it were a circus. If a conversion here doesn't concern you stay out of it. You'd both be far better served by making constructive edits to content--Cailil ^talk 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, yes, you did tell me, didn't you? I'll certainly steer clear of this page from now on. LemonMonday Talk 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, LemonMonday is correct. It is well established. There is nothing incorrect about removing comments from one's talk page. What point are you trying to make?

Secondly, I am absolutely sure that reporting provocative abuses to an admin does fall under "being restricted from commenting on others". I approached a responsible admin first (you, at 03:30, 15 Nov), to AVOID your allegations of becoming personal. Here is another one. I am absolutely sure that if I called someone a "POV driven SPA" I would be instantly banned. [16] Why are these abuses not addressed equally?

OK, so let's stick to honest discussion, and avoid debating or lawyering, because we have much to agree upon. For example, both your sanction and policies are far too broad and undefined. I would still prefer a moderated discussion rather than just one on one as we need to build trust as well.

As a starting point, you are free to asks me any question to clarify what my motivations really are.--LevenBoy (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

LB I don't care what your motivations are. There is nothing to discuss. You either stick to editting within the limits of policy or you don't - it's your choice.
Don't use wikipedia to express your opinion about others or about subjects/topics. Keep your comments about sources and about how to improve articles in line with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. There is nothing else to say.
But if you don't like site polciy - tough. You don't like the sanction as imposed on you by community - tough - it's not your choice how we moderate this project.
Edit in line with policy for 6 months and your sanction will get reviewed. However, refusing to get the point (as you have been for months) wont help you.
There is nothing for me to agree with you and nothing to discuss. You can either work within the rules of this site or not. End of story--Cailil ^talk 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/I

I'm not going to comment there because I guess I'm "involved". I would say "No" to the LevenBoy civility block and "Yes" to the LemonMonday topic ban. And I heartily "second" your encouraging of both of them to respond there: but I'm not "holding my breath" about it... Doc talk 05:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc--Cailil ^talk 13:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a very strong statement by FisherQueen and endorsed by Beeblebrox and you, but in fairness it's also one that has cropped up with regular frequency lately - topic ban everyone. And I'm well aware that my name is always cited as being the "cause" of this entire debacle by the "other" side. I'm sick to death of the whole thing, including the complete lack of support by the majority of the Admin community to prevent the disruption. Countless AN/I and SPI thread are conveniently ignored - and then everyone gets pissed off when yet another thread gets started. The disruption on this topic is completely one-sided, but is pretty much aided and abetted by a lack of response by the admin community resulting in zombie after zombie threads being created. Why is that? --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're slightly misreading that statement by FisherQueen HK - I'm not excusing my other colleagues' apparent apathy but ppl are tired of nationalist disputes on WP and in general don't want to get into unravelling what they see as complex issues. I'd suggest just being patient and AGFing about the community's response--Cailil ^talk 15:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

reply

Then there is nothing to do except keep a record including edit difs of anything that is evidence of WP:DE; and in the meantime hope a consensus holds at the Feminism article. I've no idea what more I can say though on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand and feel the same. Thanks for the reply--Cailil ^talk 20:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

COI comments

Hi, please can you clarify your COI comments you made on User_talk:Sandstein as that's a very serious issue, many thanks. I'll give you 24 hours to reply, (and you can every single minute of that time period to do so)--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The guideline WP:COI can be summarized as: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
It is very clear, from your talk page posts at least since September 2010 and your replies to me and to Sandstein today, that you are very passionate about issues around women's and men's rights. It is important where one feels strongly about an issue that one stays as neutral as possible and even writes for "the enemy". When one wishes to add one's personal point of view on a topic to a talk page, or an article (ie soapboxing), rather than conform to the parameters for general editing, and talk page usage, as laid-down in wikipedia's various polcies this illustrates a conflict of interest.
Now as I said to Sandstein, I'm concerned about this but I'm sure now that you have had site policy vis-a-vis BLP explained to you by Sandstein that you wont repeat the same mistake--Cailil ^talk 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see Cybermud is also mentioned in the text. Does this "concern" apply to him also? Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I of course fully reject these false COI accusations. I'm quite a tolerant person but this is just too much now, I would have let all the other concerns go but I have to draw the line somewhere. I realise it's not a full on accusation, but in the light of everything else it look like an obvious attempt at a smear at present. In the interests of fairness I'll accept a good faith retraction of both the COI comments with no apology required due to the two comments not being especially blatant. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP Feminism in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Feminism for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Janitor on Duty (or was it 'dooty')

Thanks for cleaning up at Dr. Al's Talk. I wasn't sure that admins actually still used a broom and dustpan. Have you any word of my ole mentor? Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No I'm afraid I've heard nothing from or about Alastair for a long time. I wish him all the best though--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one 'hits the spot' and has made your day better. While I was here I noticed a Discussion above regarding Incivility. With your permission, I have borrowed your capsulation of what to do and added it to User:Buster7/Incivility#Grenades are NOT UN-Redeemable Please accept this Nice Koekjes as small payment for the use of your words. Feel free to share by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Zimbazumba

Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimbazumba. I had been thinking of starting an SPI myself. I have commented there and requested a checkuser. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

whether to note IDs of same editor

We've now together experienced two editors whose behavior was problematic (you criticized one and maybe you don't agree on the other) and with whom you may had previous contact under other IDs of theirs—one as a previously-blocked user (blocked again since) and the other having previously posted under an IP. The problematic behavior cost me hours for disentangling. Outing is generally inapropos absent a complaint requiring it. I'm not enthusing about seeking their departure via a complaint because, in perennial controversies, like-minded people keep turning up anyway. You're an admin. Are you interested in knowing of either case? The earlier editor does not seem to have returned under another name and the newer editor might or might not reappear, so maybe it's moot, but maybe not. Your thought? Nick Levinson (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to send me an email Nick. I might be precluded from taking direct action (depending on the topic area) but I can definitely advise you and/or report any problem I see - I've had to deal with this kind of issue in many topic areas on wikipedia so I'm very happy to look at any information you have wrt this sort of issue.
So do send me an email and I'll have a read of it and an investigation into it--Cailil ^talk 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Kaldari, hereby award Cailil The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for his work on rooting out abusive sockpuppets. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

=) Thanks Kaladari-Cailil ^talk 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Matriarchy Talk

Could you please take a look at Talk:Matriarchy? You can guess which editor and I are in substantial and, repeated disagreement. We agree on a few things. The editor, who is not an admin, is being a flamethrower and continues to repeat and exaggerate charges and to charge pre-emptively. Apparently, my inclusion of one controversial writer has led the editor to try to destroy as much else as possible, and to believe that it is impermissible for me to do research that might result in re-adding the writer. There are continuing accusations of my misrepresenting sources without finding a single instance of my doing so. There are repeated efforts to have me justify including something neither of us wants to include and, to my knowledge, has never been in the article. There is a gradual narrowing of the areas of disagreement, but not by much, and now the editor plans to not respond anymore but merely to edit without discussion ("I'm taking a break from this conversation so knock yourself out with your replies.... When I come back, I'll delete the [list item] ..."), which suggests refusing progress toward consensus. The subject itself attracts a lot of hostility and editors usually want to remove, not fix; gradually the editorial relationship among many editors is improving, but very, very slowly. Thank you in advance for your advice. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick - I'll have a look. I'm afraid I'm extremely busy at the moment so if I think this needs more attention I'll pass it on to another sysop--Cailil ^talk 03:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I'd be fascinated to receive a link to whichever policy says, "Editors who swear in edit-summaries are liable to be blocked," because I've got a whole drawer full of diffs of people who need to be dealt with on that basis, and I'll get it over to you straight away. However, I'm more interested at the moment in what is your opinion on this comment of Sarek's. Do you think it was appropriate/useful/constructive/permissible? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:CIVIL and WP:EDITSUMMARY TreasuryTag. I warned you for your use of edit summaries and your incivility. You've had warning and direction now, so if you fail to act accordingly then it's your problem. Take ownership of your own actions and stop complaining about other people. If you want to sort this out with SoV try dispute resolution not dispute escalation--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, because neither of those pages say anything of the sort (indeed, WP:NICE says, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility,") so I guess you're mistaken. I know who you were warning, that's what a lifetime of speaking English has taught me. And since you have essentially decided to rebuke me but not make any criticism of Sarek's ludicrous behaviour, you will pardon me for considering you biased and not valuing anything you have to say. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually TT they do. Line 1 of the nutshell of WP:CIVIL: "avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users". And watch your acusations of bias - that is an accusation of bad faith and I take it very seriously.
You've had a final warning, don't be tendentious, and by the way don't post here again--Cailil ^talk 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and before I forget you must have missed the part of my first comment on ANi that stated: "I don't care care if you were baited..."[17] - which is a reflection of my views on SoV's comments to you. And I'm sure with 'a lifetime of speaking English' you will understand that when you read my remarks again--Cailil ^talk 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, and I apologise. I did indeed miss the comment where you explicitly rebuked Sarek in the same way that you explicitly rebuked me. I'll have to read things more carefully next time. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about AN/I topic ban proposal

Per SoV's request I added language to specify the scope of the proposed ban. Please have a look to make sure you still support the proposal. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Racism

Hi Cailil, I saw your post here, noting your intolerance of overt racism (“if I see anyone using or endorsing (whether tacitly or openly) racist, bigoted, sectarian, or any other form of hate speech or chauvinism they will be indefinitely blocked in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE”). Would you mind taking a look at edits at David Haye here, the User:Talk page discussion here and the response at my Talk page here. I expect this is far too late to act on now, but I would appreciate your advice on how to handle anything similar in the future if you have the time. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk)

Daicaregos, I have to be honest my first reaction to this was "wow". You're absolutely right this is problematic - it's probably a little late to do anything about but I'll warn the user in question.
What to do about this - report it, it's soapboxing and pointy--Cailil ^talk 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your swift response. Would you see anything similar to this as an AN/I matter, or elsewhere? Daicaregos (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can show a pattern ANI, otherwise a sysop would be enough deal with one offs--Cailil ^talk 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles

You recently comment on an issue to do with Template:British Isles. The template has been protected to allow for discussion of its title.

It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:

• British Isles
• British-Irish Council area
• Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
• British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

hey

I will try to but i am pretty busy these months myself. Real life, major work. Hope you are well, I may write more, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi SLR, that sounds great!--Cailil ^talk 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban

OK, so you've topic banned me. You were entitled to do so based on the wording of the sanctions, but I would appreciate your explanation of the the following: The sanction states "Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors.. ". However, since 10th May 2011 User:HighKing has removed seven instances of British Isles and fact tagged one other. Some of the removals are straight unsourced substitutions with an alternative term and some are sourced. Bear in mind, however, that it's relatively easy to find sources providing an alternative usage of most terms if one looks hard enough. I suggest that these recent removals are systematic in their nature and are therefore a breach of the sanction. It is widely understood now that the sanctions are still in force. It's also perhaps worth drawing your attention to this edit: [18]. HighKing is obviously keen to develop standards for BI usage and by his self revert has indicated that a moratorium on removals would be in order during their development. However, since no other editor has been forthcoming with ideas, rather than put forward his own suggestions he's recommenced removal - on a systematic basis. As I noted earlier, even the sourced replacements are systematic in nature.

I have not edit warred on the majority of these articles, engaging in just one revert in each case, with one exception where the article was also subject to edit warring by two other editors. My question is simple; why do my actions warrant a topic ban when HighKing's actions don't even draw a comment? I again suggest his BI removals are systematic in nature and therefore subject to sanction. LevenBoy (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read over your ban description - you are in fact banned from discussing or involving yourself in discussions of British, Irish, and British Isles naming disputes and this includes discussing those involved in these disputes. There are a number of sysops now reviewing editing in the topic area thanks to Sarah777's recent outbursts and events prior to that. All editors' actions will be reviewed. Bear in mind that the topic's probation is based on removals/alterations/insertions of the term British Isles without a proper source based reason - fact tagging unsourced instances of any term/claim etc is not an inappropriate action. In your instance you were warned and you repeated the same behaviour after that warning. Please be aware that discussing the topic, including other editors' actions, further will, I'm afraid, be a breach of your topic ban - hence I cannot discuss this with you but again all editors' actions will be examined--Cailil ^talk 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I see HighKing has been allowed to continue his crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia and nobody has stopped him yet his opponents find themselves topic banned. Seems things never change around here. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest stepping back BritishWatcher. Nobody has "crusades" or "opponents" on wikipedia. That kind of battleground rhetoric is exactly what the topic probation is designed to prevent. You and others have been advised to follow dispute resolution practices and processes if you want to resolve disputes with HighKing and others--Cailil ^talk 18:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan

Dear administrator,

I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670 talk 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Cailil, I need some advice. I just do not know what to do about GoodDay. His latest wheez is to change a series of infobox nationality fields to British, directly against WP:UKNATIONALS andMOS:FLAGS. He is aware of both of these. I left a note on his Talkpage requesting that he self-revert, which he deleted (with a charming edit summary). I don't want flame what appears to be a volitile situation, but something should be done. I just don't know what. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I just read some of WP:UKNATIONALS & MOS:FLAG. Seems to me, those were put together by & promoted by devolutionists. Just another example of the devolutionists 'group ownership'. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with Daicaregos. If he wants to revert my changes per BRD, so be it, as I'm finished with boxing article infoboxes. He's forever shoving English, Scottish, Northern Irish & particulary Welsh in my face & on top of that, continously seeking somekinda banishment on me. His OTT Enforcement report on me, was only another example of his attempts to be rid of me. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: If Daicaregos want to continue to ABF, fine. Meanwhile, I'm not reverting my edits for his sake. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

UKNationals is just an essay with the caveat "Consider these views with discretion." - in other words, it can be ignored. MOSFLAGS seems to have more than one interpretation, looking at Tennis articles in breach of MOSFLAG:#Tennis articles in breach of MOSFLAG. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's frustrating, when UKNAT & MOSFLAGS are thrown at me as though they were Wiki-policies. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay I'm seeing this Daicaregos. Immediately this a WP:V and WP:NOR issue. WP:MOSFLAG is a guideline - that does not mean it can be ignored but rather changes need to be consensual. In this case I would ask you GD what is the source based reason for these changes?
  Secondly GD, please avoid edit summaries like this[19] - don't use edit summaries to reply to others--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-personality conflicts between myself & Daicaregos, is the core of these spats. Rightly/wrongly, I sometimes feel as though Dai is merely attempting to provoke me. I made these changes per BOLD; in the past, editors complained that I took everything to the talkpages & advised that I simply go forward with any deletions/additions. It just seems that as soon as you go near anything British (particulary Wales), there's misery from that editor. I just wish he'd stop waving his 'British is bad' flag in my face & let someone else bring their concerns to me. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the source based reason. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales are not independant - they make up the United Kingdom. These attempts to hide British & United Kingdom from infoboxes of British boxers, seems quite peculiar to me. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• • GD, I understand that the truth is simple (ie Boxers in the Olympics fight for Great Britain etc) but WP:V asks for verification of that where disputes arise. I would ask you to assume there is no political motivation in Daicaregos message here. While it is clear to me that you're both following WP:BOLD I would remind you both that there are Manual of Style criteria in existence for these kind of disputes and that in line with WP:OPENPARA a biography should be named/defined principally by how the subject is most commonly known/described (this should be easily sourcable). And WP:MOSFLAG is there to help too, however, if you feel the MOS is wrong GD, simply seek consensus to ignore it (where your IAR/Bold action is challenged) either on an article by article basis or at WP:MOSICON.
    Having said that about the MOS, I can see where confusion may arise based on it, in that WP:MOSBIO asks for: "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)". But it places a caveat that: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.". This is a clear case where consensus needs to be reached. If you guys can't agree I would use article RFCs (again on article by article basis or at the policy) for wider input and consensus.
    Separately if there is (and I can see there is) a more personal issue between the both of you I would seriously suggest mediation to resolve the dispute--Cailil ^talk 14:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past, I brought up a source (TSN) backing David Haye as British, but he wouldn't accept it. It doesn't help aswell, that there's usually no more then 5 editors, who take part in these discussions. I'm trying to be patient, but things just seem to be titled towards the devolutionist side. That doesn't mean that every editor, who pushed for English, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish & Scottish usage over British usage, is a devolutionist. It just that, the result doesn't appear overly neutral. There's no reason why we can't have atleast something British in those infoboxes - whether it be the Union Jack, British or United Kingdom. Total exclusion, doesn't seem very NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay does not accept that England, Scotland and Wales are verifiably countries. No amount of reliable sources will convince them. GoodDay is entitled to that opinion. However, looking at the David Haye Talkpage it is clear that GoodDay has no respect for consensus on that article. Despite having failed to achieve consensus for their prefered version, GoodDay returns to the article again and again, replacing 'English' with 'British' in the infobox. On individual articles it is irritating, but GoodDay seems to have embarked on a mission to replace English, Scottish and Welsh with British on dozens of articles, with no attempt to gain consensus, and even where GoodDay knows very well that it is against consensus. That is why I sought advice. It has nothing to do "Wiki-personality conflicts" and everything to do with consensus editing. Daicaregos (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Cailil. To answer the concerns to the above, I'm currently seeking a consensus at WP:BOXING, for adding something British, to the British boxer bios infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I chip in here, about the flags. At the moment there are various discussions going on about the use of flag (icons) in info boxes and elsewhere. There are definite moves to limit the use of flags and some users are stating that the MOS means there's an automatic consensus and that it should therefore be slavishly followed. I for one don't accept that and as Cailil says above, it can be ignored. I'd be very interested in seeing the views of those editors who really care about boxing, tennis, darts and other sports-related articles. I maintain that if their consensus is to use flags then that should carry a lot of weight. Maybe more weight than an apparaent consensus of those many editors who don't real;y care for the subject of these articles. I know Wikipedia is for everyone to edit and articles are not owned, but it is dismaying to see editors who are not concerned with a subject move in on articles and cause difficulties with peripheral issues such as flags. Look at 2011 UK Open Darts. The competition is about to start but the article is blocked, all because of the peripheral flags issue. I did ask the blocker to think again about this but so far he's not responded. GoodDay, maybe leave the flags at least for a while and see what the boxing editors think. WizOfOz (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the infoboxes alone, until we can get something clarified at WP:BOXING. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good but if you can't get any progress there open an RFC on the issue--Cailil ^talk 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Progress? Well, yes. In that GoodDay says s/he's going to stop doing something disruptive. But GoodDay saying they're going to do something is not the same as that thing happening (I can provide numerous examples if requested). You may not have noticed GoodDay's continual disruptive editing: e.g. at David Haye, where GoodDay simply disregards the consensus reached at the David Haye Talkpage. And have you looked at GoodDay's Talkpage? Few editors could have so many complaints against them without attracting Admin action. If you don't have time to become involved, fair enough. But please don't pretend everything's hunky dory, or that this is an isolated incident. Daicaregos (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

When I closed the AE thread last week Daicaregos I stated that other issues should be dealt with as normal by dispute resolution. Above I mentioned mediation. If you don't want to do that then I suggest WP:RFC/U or other dispute resolution avenues should be attempted--Cailil ^talk 23:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Daicaregos (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at David Haye, which Daicaregos is harping about, was quite weak. Of the English usage supporters, only Daicaregos showed much interest in boxing, the other registered account had more interest in Cricket & the IP account was on Wikipedia for just that month (February 2011). PS: As Daicaregos often harps about reliable sources (i.e countries), it surprised me that he rejected my TSN source. I could bring forth more Haye is British sources. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also opened a discussion at UKNAT, concerning boxing bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this particular case, the fact remains that we have a pattern of behaviour. If GoodDay gets frustrated on one article, we have seen a mass of small edits related to the the theme. The sheer number of people going to GoodDay's talk page and asking him to modify his behaviour is becoming legion. Sooner or later that behaviour is going to result in another ANI report, or possibly a series of such reports. Its a lot to ask Cailil, but I think it would be a service to the community if you could have a look at the general pattern of edits and provide some advice as a neutral party with some knowledge of the area. Fully understand if you have better things to do! --Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, you say GoodDay's changes were made in good faith. I would like to draw your attention to a few things that led up to him changing these boxing articles. There was a discussion concerning the intro of the UK article in which GoodDay took a particular stance. At one stage in the discussion it looked probable that GoodDays preferred choice would be the one to prevail. At this stage he left this rather smug post at Daicarego's talk page who differed in opinion as to how the intro should be written. After some time opinion changed and the editors involved came to an agreement that did not include GoodDays choice of words, so he posted this message on the article talk page. Obviously not too pleased. Now, take a look here at the date he started on the boxing articles, articles that he knows Daicaregos takes a specific interest in. Coincidence that it is not long after he knew his preferred version of the intro would not be introduced? I know what I think but I'll leave it to you to decide what you think. Cheers. Carson101 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the posts Snowded and Carson101. I will have a further look but this will take time. I remain of the position today (and be aware that I could come back to you in a week with the same answer) that if you have substantive concerns that GD needs to modify his behaviour an RFC/U is the first appropriate action. That said, all edits not based on sources (WP:NOR) are problematic and I'll have a look at all involved. Diffs like the ones Carson101 provided are helpful (as there is a significant amount to go through considering all involved) so if you want my attention brought to something in particular show it to me--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no more interest in the British and Irish political articles & things linked or supposedly linked to them. If Snowded, Carson & Daicaregos want to open a Rfc/U on me, they should do so. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, upon reflection, I wish to point out that Carson's assumptions about why I made the edits I did at the British boxing articles, are accurate. I was infuriated by the current results of discussion about the UK intro & second paragraphs & thus 'in a fit of anger', moved onto the British boxing articles - looking for a fight. Therefore, due to my inability to control my temper around these topics, I request that I be restricted from such articles - except for on my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok GD well if you feel you can't control yourself in this area stay away from it. I wont be placing a restriction (topic ban) on you by request, as that would be as inappropriate as blocking on request (see WP:BLOCK). Also if you see that your edits in an area are problematic and are willing to stay away such a sanction is rendered moot. Therefore I will ask you to agree to stay away from this area ("disengage") for as long as you feel necessary until you can control yourself. I would suggest 3 months of a holiday from the area. However, if you make another series of edits "looking for a fight" anywhere I or an another sysop will be forced to take action to prevent disruption to the project--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really trying to avoid the drama of an RfC Cailil and was hoping a word from an uninvolved admin might help, but I do realise its an imposition. If you want to get a sense of the issue then this exchange on my talk page shows examples of slurs on the motivation and actions of other editors with a good track record. We then have the most recent exchange on GoodDay's talk page not to mention an earlier one where even Jeanne Boleyn moves from trying to support to frustration. GoodDay's honesty above is helpful, but I won't make a recommendation on wether you should follow it or not. --Snowded ^TALK 04:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New kid on the block

Toug ma Tojer appears to be a new editor, blissfully unaware of the dangerous waters in which they tread. Perhaps you could keep a weather eye out? RashersTierney (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Am looking at this--Cailil ^talk 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you still be just looking if the user name were spelled "Tug my todger"? That's the way it is pronounced, as far as I can tell. Bielle (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bielle, they've been left a warning and I'm waiting for a response and will proceed after that as appropriate--Cailil ^talk 23:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I had seen your warning, Cailil, before I wrote about the name. Together, the type of edits plus the name, shout "troll" to me. Bielle (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics discussions on GD's talkpage

Howdy Cailil. I'll go the safe way & merely delete comments from my talkpage. Though it would seem rude to the posters who's post would be deleted, it would keep the temperature down. Also, in exchange, I'll refrain from futher comments at the Naming convention-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)