User talk:HighKing/Archives/2013/February

Multiple GAA renamings

You might want to state your views at this discussion of yet more renamings by Laurel Lodged. Brocach (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:ANI page "If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to a self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. If not, let the ANI case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities)." Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles linked to the GAA. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion opened at WT:GAA, your views welcome. Brocach (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your preferences at the WT:GAA page - it's very helpful to have this calm and well-ordered discussion on what has previously been a very heated topic! There is a new proposal which has come in after your contribution, which you might also like to comment on. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HighKing. You have new messages at Talk:Great_Britain_and_Ireland#Britain_is_not_.22Britain_and_Ireland.22.
Message added 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Report at WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, me old Hackneyhound sock. I always wonder how you can get away with using so many socking accounts. You're probably one of the best socking accounts around - where do you get the time? --HighKing (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HighKing. You have new messages at Talk:Great Britain and Ireland.
Message added 05:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We are...

... "collaborating", HK! Who'd'a thunk it? — Jon C.^ॐ 20:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Jaysus! What's the world coming to! --HighKing (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I should've guessed it was you that originally removed "British Isles" from the Anglo-Celtic Australian article. What exactly was wrong with my edit? I fail to see what is "completely untrue". — Jon C.^ॐ 12:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jon, thanks for discussing. I was surprised you added it in, but just about everything was wrong with your edit to be honest. This article takes a lot of sources from the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) and that tends to be the terminology used. As to your edit comment, you asserted that there wasn't the same distinction between "British" and "Irish" in the colonial era. What gives you that idea cos it's completely untrue (especially when we're talking "deportation") - there has always been a distinction, even when Ireland was part of the UKoGB&I. At no time in history were Irish people classified as British (as an aside, please show me references if you find them, I'm interested in this anyway). The "British and Irish" classification continues to this day. Reference-wise, the ABS survey clearly differentiates and if you check the other references you'll find a bunch more. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying – it seems the sources anachronistically differentiate between British and Irish even in the 19th century. Oh well. Though my edit to the article body, rather than the lead, seems sound. Perhaps the ref you just provided should replace the one in the lead, which doesn't support the statement it's purporting to be referencing. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't think the ref should be required to be honest.... I would have thought that the "norm" is to differentiate, so not differentiating requires a reference. I've no objections if you think it should be added in - I don't think it is needed ;-) --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not when Australia was founded and settled... *whistle* — Jon C.^ॐ 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem users

HK, your contributions list says it all, for anyone who's interested. It is a catalogue of edit wars, imposition of your pov vis-a-vis name of the Irish state and usage of British Isles, and you are making what appear to unnecessary changes to the alphabetic ordering of the UK and Ireland. Your actions appear to spawn various complaints and investigations. Could you explain why this is? The Roman Candle (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you have "run into" me before, here [1], and now when I look at this again, your edit involved the removal of British Isles from the article! The Roman Candle (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Nice open-minded question and phrasing there too btw. Since you've looked over my contributions list, pick out an example of an "edit war", or an "imposition of my POV" which is against community consensus. This generic hand-waving is the tactic often used by me favorite stalker. Speaking of which....

99.9% of the so-called "complaints" are from a sock-farm where it appears I have an obsessed stalker that reverts any edits made that involve "British Isles". How would you know that though? He/They've all been banned/blocked now, and are mostly left with editing using a Vodafone mobile IP. Recently another sock made a complaint at AN/I and not only were the edits upheld, a couple of editors praised the edits and stated they improve the articles in question.

You say "imposition" of my POV vis-a-vis the name of the Irish state. To me, that says more about your POV than mine, since I'm simply correcting articles according to the community-wide WP:IMOS guide, discussed and !voted upon years ago. Obviously, your POV differs, but my edits have the support of the community and there are many articles where the IMOS isn't being put into effect. Also, it's fairly normal to list countries alphabetically so in some cases I've relisted the names.

But I have to say that your style of writing and your recent tactics, *unfortunately*, makes me suspicious that you're just another sock. Especially given that your account was registered in November 2008 (just FYI, between May 2008 and December 2008, 11 known sock accounts were created and are now blocked). And the fact that you were caught reverted one of my edits (that you mention above) in July 2011. And the fact that your account shares the attribute of long periods of dormancy. But most of all, your comment at this SPI against factocop. Totally out of the blue. Yeah right.... --HighKing (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Highking don't read good. That is actually an SPI against User:The_Maiden_City, not me. Should of gone to specsavers.Factocop (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got a very vivid imagination, that's all I can say right now. And you are provoking further problems as we speak, with more reverting going on. You really do need to look long and hard at your own actions rather than pointing the finger at others. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See, it's exactly this vague sort of passive-aggressive scolding that marks you... Never any specifics, just verbal vagueness... --HighKing (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this specific enough for you [2]? The Roman Candle (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That was an excellent example of an improving edit. It would be nonsense to suggest that Irish merchants contributed to the establishment of the black community in Britain. Try much harder, Roman! Brocach (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Again with the vagueness. Same pattern as always. So you've now identified an edit, great, that's step one. Next step is to actually describe what you don't agree with in that edit, why it is wrong, etc, etc. BTW, I also assume you've looked at the reference. Or probably not ... or you wouldn't have brought up that edit. Still, maybe you've another reference or something concrete beyond IDONTLIKEIT. --HighKing (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about it. It's one in a series of edits that other editors seem to take exception to. I picked it up near the top of your list. I haven't checked the refs and I don't intend to. I use it merely as an example. It may be valid, but what is the reason for doing it when the original text wasn't in error? And please don't accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT. If your edits improved an article then I'd be happy to support them, as here [3]. The Roman Candle (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Roma, you complained about what appears to be a perfectly fine improving edit, then refuse to say what you ever thought was wrong with it. How seriously would you like people to take you? Brocach (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness, the sock-master has been captured ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Is it just me thinking it's a little coincidental that we haven't heard from "The Roman Candle" since Factocop was reblocked?.... --HighKing (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You've noticed, too. As I've often said before, 'once a sock-master, always a sockmaster'. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)