User talk:Eckerslike

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

British Isles
Please read the first source. I'll quote what it says:

"In October 2005, after Folens announced that they were scrapping the term, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern stated: "The term 'British Isles' is not used by the Irish government and has no official status. . . the term was not recognised in any legal of intergovernmental sense."

Also "the Irish Embassy in London had been urged to monitor media in Britain for "any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation."

So the Irish government have said and commented about the British Isles. ''' M I T H  11:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Howdy. It might help ya out, if ya reveal your previous User-names. I'm sure ya don't need having other editors suspicious of ya. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for edit
Could you explain this edit please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied on my talk page, to avoid further fragmenting the discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert
Hi, I see that you have. Why was this? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's was a mistake. Eckerslike (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Community restrictions
. Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Liam Neeson
I have reverted your insertion for a second time. As per BRD please take your proposed change to the talkpage. Any more disruption and you will be reported for edit warring without further warning. Bjmullan (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been reported. See here. Bjmullan (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cornish nationalism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. M D Potter. Any comments? 19:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Cornish nationalism
I have started a discussion on the talk page there to achieve a consensus on the wording in the lead. I suggest you engage in that conversation rather than continue reverting against the original, three-year-old stable version. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted some vandalism there, which is great and all, but you reverted back to your own preferred version rather than the established wording. You have also decided not to engage in the discussion, nor reply to me here. Is this how you plan to continue? If so, I'll take it to ANI, since I can't think of anything else to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2014
Your recent editing history at Duchy of Cornwall shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Leeds
I have undone your revert. I am not claiming that 'Leeds' is the same as 'City of Leeds'. But neither is Leeds defined as the ONS urban sub-division. Quite simply, there is nothing that defines the actual settlement, so when quoting population figures etc we have to be very clear what is being cited. If you disagree discuss on the talkpage. This formulation went through extensive discussion, and has been stable for a number of years. Polequant (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Liam Neeson: guns
Hello, I saw you reverted my edit in Liam Neeson. I must dispute your claim that it is a statistical fact that guns are 'proliferating' in the US. I don't want to get into an edit war so I address my concern about your reversion to you directly. Gun ownership, by percentage of US households, has declined since the 1950s. That is a statistical fact! --SVTCobra (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES
Please be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. A complaint about the flag issue was recently filed at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
You have questioned the reliability of a series of sources on the Northern Ireland article without explaining why you consider them unreliable on the talk page. Would you please do so otherwise they can be reverted as a whole Snowded  TALK 05:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

About the main Wikipedia page for Leeds
Hi,

I want to discuss the main Wikipedia page for Leeds. I was having a discussion with Keith D about this and he seemed to suggest to talk to you also. Now what I want to talk about is why you reverted the page back when I added the statistics for the Built-up area and the metropolitan area on the main Leeds Wikipedia page? Now according to Keith D the statistics shouldn't be on there, and instead they should be on the City of Leeds page. Now he didn't really give a relevant or meaningful answer and instead said the Leeds Wikipedia page is for the settlement, now when it comes down to it the settlement of Leeds is indefinable and it certainly isn't the Urban subdivision. So where does this drivel come from? And why is it so important to keep them statistics off of that page in the first place, it certainly doesn't really add up especially when the entire Leeds page has information on there that refers to more than just the Urban subdivision or as Keith like to call it the so called settlement of Leeds. And why does this rule only apply to the Leeds Wikipedia page and not to other pages like the London or Manchester pages? Lad 2011 (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, as you have editing the Leeds page would you like to comment on the discussion about a suggested merge of Leeds & City of Leeds pages as Talk:Leeds Keith D (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any remaining concerns that could be addressed regarding the merger? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

April 2017
Your recent editing history at Wales shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snowded TALK 06:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cornwall
Hi

I have a complaint about your reversal of my improvements to the lead section of Cornwall, I do not want to get in an edit war, so I am observing 0RR and have left a comment on the article talk page asking for your comments. Please get back to me on this, I suspect it is a simply a disagreement related to the order of the lede, (which you attempted to change before). &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  12:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are close to getting into another edit war on Cornwall, A discussion has been opened on the article talk page to allow your concerns to be discussed. Dysklyver  14:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I blocked both you and User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver for edit-warring on Cornwall for a minimal amount of time. This is because you were edit-warring, and I wanted tgo show you in a serious manner that this should not be tolerated. Sinmce you seem to discussing the issues on Talk:Cornwall now, the block was immediately lifted, but you will be blocked again if you indulge in edit-warring again. DDStretch   (talk)  18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Clegg
Don't you think the parentheses indicate both what his legal name is and what his commonname is?

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not clear what the parentheses imply. It is better to state the purpose of the alternative name in the lead as all the examples at WP:PROPERNAME demonstrate. Eckerslike (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Leeds Wikipedia page
HI, Exckerslike

I wanted to discuss the reason why you keep removing the Leeds city population statistic from the lead of the Leeds Wikipedia page. You said in your edit summary that the population statistic is for the whole district. What I would like to know is why you keep repeatedly removing this key information from the Lead without any justification? I noticed that in one of your more recent edits you suggested that the population statistic is for Leeds and ten separate towns. I don't know whether you are aware but the Leeds city boundaries got expanded in 1974 under the Local Government Act of 1972, and got regranted royal charters city status. The ten other places you mentioned are no longer independent towns and are instead just parts of Leeds.

80.2.15.69 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See City of Leeds for the whole district. The Leeds article is about the urban area commonly referred to as Leeds (Try telling someone from Wetherby that they live in Leeds). Eckerslike (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. Who actually separated the Leeds Wikipedia pages into two? The Leeds Wikipedia page should cover everything about Leeds the city, from it's main urban core to the wider district boarders. (Just like it does for every other City and Metropolitan borough on Wikipedia) It seems to me judging by your response of:(Try telling someone from Wetherby that they live in Leeds) that it's nothing more than a personal agenda based on no factual information at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on facts, not someones personal viewpoint.

80.2.15.69 (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the status quo then you are free to propose merging the articles but be warned that this is ground that has been covered many times before without sucess. My reference to Wetherby has nothing to do with an agenda. Wikipedia articles are based on the common name of places and not dictated by current British Government policy. Perhaps a better way of putting it is if you ask a random person on the streets of Wetherby where they are. how many do you think would say Leeds? (Note: Barnsley, Bradford, Doncaster, Rotherham and Carlisle all have seperate articles for the town and wider government district) Eckerslike (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that this ground has been covered many times before just shows how absurd this situation is regarding the Leeds Wikipedia page. I would like to know who has the authority over these matters? Because it's quite clear there's some ulterior motives behind the decisions to have two separate pages for Leeds. And what do you mean by Wikipedia not being dictated by British Government Policy? If you don't base Wikipedia pages on up to date factually information then it's not an encyclopedia is it. Whether you like it or not, Leeds Metropolitan Borough has city status and has had for nearly 40+ years, and anything within that boundary is Leeds. It has no relevance whatsoever what some random person in the street thinks. Facts are facts and that is the only important thing that matters regarding this. 80.2.15.69 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If you ever find an authority on this site let me know! I don't see much point in continuing this conversation. If you want to merge the pages then you have to take it to Talk:Leeds. However, if you consider the government as the only source of facts I cannot see you getting very far. Thankfully this is not North Korea. Eckerslike (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So if you don't go on royal charter and government definition of where city borders are drawn in the United Kingdom then does that mean it's purely made up by the likes of yourself for your own agenda then? I'm guessing so seen as you haven't even provided a shred of evidence to prove otherwise. I will be editing the population Statistic back into the lead of the Leeds Page, if it gets reverted by the likes of yourself you'll be getting reported for distorting reality and having no factual evidence to justify your actions. 80.2.15.69 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)