User talk:HighKing/Archives/2009/August

BI
I must point out to you that there is a clear majority, 2:1, of editors who believe that material is in breach of WP:NOR and should not be in the article. The protection state of the article is neither here nor there: majority view is that the material should not be added back. Also, if you recall, you quoted back at me the following: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." You've had plenty of time to find references, but it appears to me that you have no intention whatsoever of finding sources to show this isn't OR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you know, since you are a most experienced editor, a majority is not a consensus. I also disagree that references have not been found - if you recall, I pointed out a reference for Michelin, but it's a disagreeable process when every time an attempt is made to address your concerns, a session of name-calling erupts.  The fact remains, CT stepped outside the agreed and defined process to impose what appears very clearly to be a personal POV on this article.  I *will* be reverting *immediately* upon unprotection.  I believe we were making progress on the Talk page before this unfortunate event, and I could see where a potential compromise might emerge. Finally, this discussion probably rightly belongs on the article Talk page... --HighKing (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I did not step out of process to impose a very clear personal POV on the article. I protected to prevent blocks and the escalating edit warring. If all that is going to happen is editors promising to continue the edit war then I will extend the protection further. Talk about consensus on the talk page, it's what it's there for, don't edit war. If people start an edit war to make some kind of a point I will block for deliberate disruption. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In light of your failure to answer my reasonable questions, which I've asked on the Article Talk page and on your Talk page, I can only conclude that you have no answers, or don't want to answer, or that you are perfectly happy with the way things stand. BTW, please interpret personal POV wrt your process of rewarding the edit warrior, not the process as laid down by SheffieldSteel which actually worked.  I can only conclude that by protecting the article for two weeks, in the middle of an edit war, will result in editors believing that the protected version has consensus, which it doesn't.  And the conversation stopped immediately the edit warriors got their way.  See below, as once the threat of insta-block for reverting a revert has been lifted, editors immediately threaten another edit war.  So what happens if I revert the latest version without consensus and TRHOPF reverts my revert?  Who will you block?  Or will you block anyone?  Where's the lines drawn now?  You've really screwed up what was a "bright line" you know...  Bad call.  So yeah, why not perma-block the article?  --HighKing (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I can assure you that, should you revert on unprotection, I will be reverting that bold move.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you will be reverting a revert, but you've probably nothing to fear now that CT is holding the reins. --HighKing (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you make that observation, and the fact that you keep on harping about the 1RR rule confirms to me what I've long suspected, that you are simply gaming the 1RR rule. You know you can use it to your advantage to stop anyone doing anything to the article that you don't like, and the requirement that "consensus" must be reached to reinstate the edit can be blackballed by you simply denying there is consensus, even if the majority disagree with you.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you come to my talk page just to taunt me? WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and no ad hominen attacks apply here too you know....  but again, I don't suppose you've anything to fear....  --HighKing (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not tauting anyone. I'm merely making an observation about the manner in which you conduct yourself at the BI article and talk page.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusations of gaming the 1RR rule steps over the line of making an observation. Still, don't sweat it.  There's a definite pro-British tone to these entire discussions where anyone with a tinge of green is taunted, bullied, pilloried, called names, and have to put up with wild and inaccurate accusations.  I'm no longer participating at that page - do what you like.  Your tactics worked!  --HighKing (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

--HighKing (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names
I am open to re-education. However, my thought is that a country name must be the most formal and respectable possible. The " ( " and " ) " detract from the formality of the situation. Since "Ireland" is controversial, then "Republic of Ireland" is a reasonable alternative. "Ireland (state)" is very bad looking. I am open to explanations if you have any. User F203 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of Ireland
HighHanded, as someone says above, "you are far too quick to revert." I resent your baseless assertion that my revision was vandalism. Don't you know you should assume good faith? Or are you so uptight about Ireland's connections with the British crown that you just couldn't stop yourself?

The fact is that there are prescribed procedures for alteration of the constitution, and that those were not followed in the instant case. The inevitable conclusion is that the legislation is ultra vires.

Next time you read an edit you don't like, think whether there is legitimate reason to revert it. Don't just label it "vandalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.213.84 (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Anon IP. I reverted your edits as vandalism, and would do so again.  You didn't provide references for the claim, you didn't leave an edit summary, and to me it looks like the edit is trying to make a dubious political point of some sort.  Coupled with the name calling above, I see that I was correct.  --HighKing (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
HK, if you wish to surrender, please stick to waving the white flag in your own quarters. There is no "consensus" on Wiki. There is majority rule. They are not the same thing. Look it up. If you want to preach "this is the way things work here" at least don't cloak reality in pious nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I love you too. --HighKing (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no "too" ways about it. Sarah777 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I always knew that you'd abandon your (former?) friends when you got famous...  --HighKing (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I felt kind of pervy looking in here. It's like two lovers having a tiff! You can work it out guys with a little bit of help. At least stay together for little wiki. :) Jack forbes (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack? Is your real name Tom?  Seriously though, sometimes Sarah gets her hands on a really big shovel and just keeps digging long past the point she wants to make.  And sometimes I do too.  Don't we all?  And if a little pious nonsense pricks her into de-escalating, great.  Hopefully when I'm digging, someone will return the favour.  --HighKing (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your First Barnstar

 * Yes! I'm so happy... BTW, I made my own barnstar a while back...hang on I'll dig it up.  I meant to award it to GoodDay a while ago...for being sensible.  --HighKing (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you reliase he wasn't (only joking) BigDunc  21:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the star HK. Just a request, would ya move it to my mainpage & adjust it so future posts don't get trapped into it. PS: and I'm a teetotaler, hehe (drinks no beer). GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, HK. You da man. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RoI
I noticed something today and put it here. -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * outrageous! :-)  I'll not be filing any tax returns to a non-existent country!  Methinks the high court will rule in my favour too!!!  --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done Evertype. Blatant use of the term Republic of Ireland by the Irish state. Tsk! Tsk! ~ R.T.G 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was subsequently pointed out to me that it was a good and valid use, since these envelopes are sent to people both north and south. It's a perfect time to use a disambiguator.  --HighKing (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I motion that we provide the wiki to people of the north as well as the south!! ~ R.T.G 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope
Somehow, I still have it. -- Evertype·✆ 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A faint glimmer. --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah
HighKing I suggest you bring the evidence you compiled on Sarah's page to ANI as it will get a lot more eyes there. I would but I am in work and only have a short break back now in 5 mins and have just noticed it. BigDunc 12:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing from Ireland Voting Process
'''I'm withdrawing from this process due to events and discussions today. I feel conned and cheated for getting involved in this process. When I agreed and signed up, we were creating a process on "How to Solve the Problem". There are many steps in this process, and we had all outlined and agreed on what needed to be done previously. Most of the "long-term" editors agreed to what is referred to as "Mooretwin's" proposal (and also inspired by an earlier Scolaire proposal). It's become obvious to me now that many of these same editors have decided, for whatever reasons, to use this majority vote to *not* solve the problem, but to retain the status quo for another period of time. I'd like to remind editors that the ArbCom ruling does *not* result in an article title lockdown for 2 years, but instead is to agree a "process" whereby agreement is reached. A vote for "F", in my view", is a vote to *not* agree a compromise, and a vote to *not* solve the problem.'''
 * Please do not comment on this statement --HighKing (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no
Oh no. -- Evertype·✆ 19:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jumpers, I wanted to comment on the above section. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see HighKing give up hope, and sorry to see his vote deleted. -- Evertype·✆ 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland compromise
You may have missed this post in the middle of the long discussion, but I hope it clarifies my position:


 * Yes, you supported it during the Task Force, but I fought a lone battle on the Arbcom pages, arguing that there would be no solution to this dispute without a COMPREHENSIVE package compromise that dealt BOTH with the article names and the usage convention within articles. My pleas were ignored and it was decided to deal with both issue separately, thereby removing the incentive for compromise. With the package compromise rejected, I no longer have any incentive to vote against my preferred option, as I have no guarantee that I will receive anything in return. The whole raison d'etre of my proposal was that "everything had to be agreed or nothing was agreed" - this raison d'etre was rejected, despite my best efforts, and I will not risk appeasing the anti-ROI-brigade here when there is no guarantee that they will appease the pro-ROI-brigade on the other issue.

Mooretwin (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on. Where was it rejected exactly?  I agreed and entered this vote based on the compromise I believed everyone had accepted.  Sure, there were dissenters, but there are always dissenters.  I freely admit that I didn't engage in the process around deciding what exact words should go here or there, so I wasn't aware that you had to fight a lone battle.  I've always supported this proposal, and I never saw your proposal and the tentative compromise/agreement reached being set aside.  In fact, long before this current kurfuffle, I was reminding people of what we had already discussed, etc.  I believed that the vote was to ratify an agreement, which for the most part is based on those previous discussions.  And it's up to the majority of editors from both "sides" to reach agreement (i.e. consensus).  I see only a teeny number of editors that are at the extremes of !no compromise!.  But, I'm starting to get a hollow feeling.  I'm now getting the distinct impression that editors believe that by sticking with the status quo, the problems will be solved.  Some of the language has been very triumphalistic, and doesn't sound like the voices of sensible editors that have arrived at a decision to compromise and end this. You and me have been around the blocks a few times.  Opportunities like this vote don't come often.  But to be clear - are you saying that the compromise was rejected and you are not voting with that in mind.  If so, I'd like to know.  If so, no offense and with respect, I've been mugged into this process and I'll withdraw.  Please don't take it as a threat - I know that one vote will make no difference whatsoever.  But I geniunely feel pretty sickened when I see the language being used recently (from *both* sides!), and when I think back to to when we all said we agreed .... it's an opportunity that's being pissed away.  --HighKing (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've misunderstood the process, but I was angered when the first Arbcom process began because it overtook the Task Force proposal and went back to square one, asking for statements, etc. In my statement I put forward the Task Force compromise. I also argued strongly that everything had to be agreed together and that issues shouldn't be picked off and dealt with separately. The first Arbcom process collapsed when the moderators all retired and a new Arbcom process was put in place with a single moderator (Masem). Again, I put it to Masem and anyone else who would listen that there was already a solution from the Task Force which should be implemented. My interpretation of his, and others' reaction, was that the Task Force was redundant and a new process was in place. Eventually I became bored and frustrated and stopped participating in the endless discussions as no-one appeared interested in the Task Force. Those editors who had the patience to participate in the discussions eventually decided to deal first with the article-naming dispute by way of an STV vote, and then separately to deal with the in-article conventions issue. I protested that dealing separately with the issues would not work, but my protestations came to nought. At that point I more or less withdrew and did not participate until the poll was published. As I no longer had any incentive to compromise, I voted for my favoured article naming solution.

At no point was I ever under the impression that the Task Force compromise had been accepted, either implicitly or explicitly, and that the STV vote was a means to implement it. (If it had been accepted, why have such an elaborate vote at all - why not just vote on the four principles of the Task Force compromise?) Maybe I have misunderstood/misinterpreted things, but the above is my understanding. Mooretwin (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I don't get this. I'm starting to believe I have somehow ended up in a parallel universe.    At no point did I believe the compromise had been set aside, and we were starting anew, and that editors who had previously agreed to the compromise would use this as an opportunity to turn their backs on all the discussions we'd had previously, and spurn the chance to put an absolute end to this bickering and edit warring.  --HighKing (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My impression was definitely that the Task Force had been overtaken by events and the Arbcom process began at first principles. Maybe I am mistaken, but that is my clear understanding. If I could be bothered, I'd hunt out previous discussion where there was put to me explicitly. Mooretwin (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you can't even be bothered weighs heavily on me. --HighKing (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know where to begin looking. It's probably been archived. Are you saying you don't believe me? Mooretwin (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that you believe it. I've never seen it being set aside myself, and if I had seen it, I would have objected strenuously.  But I zoned out of a lot of the discussion around the text of the ballot paper, and the wording of it, etc, and perhaps I missed it....but I don't believe I did....
 * That's not what the problem is though. If this vote has now become a vote whereby a majority of voters can continue the status quo, as opposed to a vote where both "sides" can some together and agree a workable compromise to end 7 years of edit warring (as per my position paper), then I'm not participating in that, and it's not what I signed up for.  And I would also question why would you decide that a compromise is necessary, make a proposal, get lots of agreement, and then believe that everyone had decided to ignore that and just get what you believe to be an Arbcom-sanctioned ratification of the status quo.  Seriously, it'll solve nothing.  I feel horribly deflated and let down now....  --HighKing (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, have felt deflated and let down for a long time. At no time since the Arbcom process have I ever been under the impression that its purpose was to implement the Task Force compromise. Indeed, I spent much of the early stages of the Arbcom process arguing for the Task Force compromise to be adopted - why would I have been doing this, and why would people have been arguing against me - if the basis of the Arbcom process was to implement the Task Force? If you look at the last discussion here it gives an indication of the kind of arguments that were taking place, including with Masem, trying to get agreement to dealing with the issue comprehensively.
 * You say this vote has now become a vote whereby a majority of voters can continue the status quo. My point was that any vote on a single issue would, by definition, be a vehicle where by the majority could get its way on that particular issue (whether that be the status quo or otherwise), without having to consider compromising on any other issue. I made this point consistently, but was ignored/overruled. So we are where we are: it was decided to deal with issues separately and not collectively. I was angered by that, but the process is in place and I have participated by voting for my preferred solution.
 * You ask why I would decide that a compromise is necessary, make a proposal, get lots of agreement, and then believe that everyone had decided to ignore that and just get what you believe to be an Arbcom-sanctioned ratification of the status quo. The answer is that I have seen nothing written anywhere that indicates that Arbcom intended to implement the Task Force compromise, and at the same time I have seen things that give me the impression that Arbcom has superseded the Task Force. Could you show me somewhere that demonstrates that I am wrong?

Mooretwin (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (outdent)I've followed the diff you provided. There's nothing there that says we put aside that proposal. In fact, part of the reason to go to Arbcom was because we needed more participants (in order to ratify) not because there wasn't any common ground. Arbcom has superceded the IETF in terms of authority, not in terms of objective and cooperation. Looking at the archive 5 for example shows that at the end of April, people were still endorsing a Mooretwin approach and in May, after the first round of admins resigned, you reminded everyone of your proposal. In the middle of May, once again your proposal was brought up, and Masem asked if we should consider how a decision would inpact other articles, and the conversation was that piping would continue, etc, and you reminded people how this is what you suggested. I can see where you must have thought that you were shouting in the middle of lots of opposition, but that just isn't the case. But Nuclare stated on 15th May that must of the current discussions stemmed from your proposal. And I stated ''Mooretwin's proposal was deliberately structured as a package. The benefit of the package was that it demanded a little bit of compromise from nearly everybody, but that it actually had as close to a consensus that we've seen. I don't believe you'll achieve the same thing by addressing points singly. I welcome the active participation of Arbitrators on this topic. To which Masem's buddy admin collegue replied I agree. Moderation isn't going to work with the present discussion; there's too much inertia in totally separate directions. I'll contact the committee tomorrow; I'm very, very tired.'' So that was middle of May. In Archive 6, at the top, there's a section on all manner of related topics, and a proposal to rewrite the IMOS. On 9th June, once again BritishWatcher refers to your proposal and endorses it. I didn't participate much in June - but looking at the archives I can see how you again and again asked people to consider a solution encompassing more than just the article titles. I see your point. It's a pity I didn't see it at the time. I've always endorsed it. I still do. Because it's the only way to end this edit warring. --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There have always been supporters of a full compromise package which was in line with Mooretwins proposal, and most wanted to get consensus but it just never happened. There was agreement that it was going to be impossible to get consensus and we moved to full community poll to decide the verdict. Unless agreement can be reached on the talk page of the vote or at the collaboration page to basically ignore or change the vote so it fits in with such a propsal i cant see it being possible anymore. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a difference in opinion. I believed it already had consensus (a full package), and still did. There were editors arguing over the name of the article and the contents, and that's what we were voting on.  But "a compromise" had already been agreed.  It's unacceptable to now attempt to take advantage of this vote to effectively end an opportunity to compromise.  It's not what the vote was about, and it's not what many of the pro-"F" editors had previously agreed to.  It's breaking your wiki-word, and it this vote is meaningless without a consensus.  Arbcom did not give a mandate for enforcing an opinion, but to agree a process.  There was no process agreed which said that no compromise was going to take place - I've checked the archives.  --HighKing (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What was included in the full package, there was reasonable agreement on how to handle ireland in text / other article titles but we accepted wed confirm and nail that down after the vote itself. That hasnt changed, but the vote was always meant to decide where the main ireland articles were located, because we failed to get consensus on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you remember, the vote was called because there was tons of debate about various flavours of alternatives. And we have always had ... extreme views ... as part of the debate.  Essentially this vote was to agree on the compromise on the term for the article.  I understand perfectly why RoI is acceptable to some, and not to others.  I accept that.  It was my understanding that other editors also had come to the point where they also accept that, and to present a full choice to voters, we included both extremes, and the compromises.  And lo and behold, once the vote gets underway, what do we get?  It's why I have said that many editors have reneged on their previous promises, and this process has broken down.  You are now trying to maintain that no compromise was agreed, or that there was no consensus.  I'd argue that the principle of a compromise was agreed, and consensus couldn't be reached on some of the exact parts, such as the name of the article, or how to deal with content, etc.  Voting for "F" is a decision to *not* compromise, and that undermines the fundamental principle of the vote in the first place.  I'm withdrawing because I have been cheated and conned into a process that is trying to masquarade as a rubberstamp on the status quo.  This bodes ill for the upcoming 7 years of bitching, whining, editwarring, etc.  And I'll remind editors that *this* opportunity was spurned in favour of ... drama.  --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree when the vote planning started no where was there any agreement or several editors saying vote for the moderate options as a compromise. The vote meant compromise and consensus on the main naming issue had failed and we needed the community to decide. Theres future need for compromise on how to handle other articles / inline use of Ireland but thats it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Please read my position statement.  Please reread the archives (as I've spent the last hours doing).  Just because one editors says No to something does not mean it has been rejected.  This vote had to represent the full choices.  But the process can only succeed with agreement reached between "both sides".  Now how is voting for "F" going to achieve that.
 * You've obviously decided to opt out of agreeing a process by voting for "F". That's entirely your perogative, but I suppose it could have been made clearer pre-vote.  My assumption (and I suppose my mistake) was that it was "bleedin' obvious" that a vote for a "moderate" option was the compromise.  Otherwise, you're voting for an "extreme" position (which is different than having extremist views.  But it's a realization that an argument can be made for *any* of the choices.  And they're mostly logical and good arguements.  The only way to resolve the issue is to compromise.  As I said ... I thought it was bleedin' obvious).
 * No offense, but we've probably said all we have to say on this. Let's just leave it.  --HighKing (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
If things haven't been settled on September 13 (at Ireland Collaboration), I shall consider Evertype's suggestion. Afterall my 'first choice' (Option E) looks doomed. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. Have ya ever seen Tim Conway & his Adolf Hitler puppet, on the Carol Burnett Show? GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never. Do you have a Youtube link or something?  --HighKing (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At YouTube: Look up 'Carol Burnett Show Tim Conway German Accent. Sorry, I'm not good at making 'links'. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: LOL
HighKing, sorry for laughing - honestly, I didn't mean any disrespect, I have great esteem for you - but it was a vote that we signed up for. I never caught sight nor sound of it being part of any "compromise package deal". It strikes me as being disingenuous for some (not particularly you) that were all for a vote - a straight up vote to put this issue to bed - to start claiming now that a "compromise" would be better. I find it extremely disingenuous that such a "compromise" just happens to be what those editors want.

But beside all that, honestly, I didn't mean any disrespect. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the vote concentrates the mind and encourages genuine compromise. -- Evertype·✆ 16:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if people keep the "bigger picture" in mind. Do you think that people will now "compromise" on things like other article titles, article content, etc?  In good faith?  After being stitched up on the first step?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice ... er ...double fooled?  I don't think so.  --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone was "stitched up", but I agree with you both on everything else: the vote concentrates minds and we need to see the bigger picture. I've opened a thread at WT:IECOLL with that intention in mind. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * E is not doing badly. I still maintain that if we can concentrate votes on C, D, E and away from A, B, F we have the best hope for the future. Or I can give two fingers to the Ireland articles and can go back to editing Writing Systems. -- Evertype·✆ 07:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Re:. I don't really know what the etiquette is on that page; I was just commenting on it, I'm not an admin or anything. Since this isn't a "right this minute" kind of thing, I'd wait to see if an admin responds. If it gets declined or archived, I suggest a note on ANI if the vandalism resumes, rather than RFPP, where more admin eyes can look into a rangeblock vs. long-term semi. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ok ty --HighKing (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Re:. I don't really know what the etiquette is on that page; I was just commenting on it, I'm not an admin or anything. Since this isn't a "right this minute" kind of thing, I'd wait to see if an admin responds. If it gets declined or archived, I suggest a note on ANI if the vandalism resumes, rather than RFPP, where more admin eyes can look into a rangeblock vs. long-term semi. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ok ty --HighKing (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo
Thanks for fixing the typo suppose it just proves my infallibility :) BigDunc  16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lol --HighKing (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeters & Ireland naming poll
Don't give up hope HK, you've convinced me that a 'sockpuppeter' shouldn't be banned from the Poll, unless he/she committed sockery at that Poll. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah sure, it's just the latest in a long line (longer by the day) of mistakes made. And Masem has adopted a policy of ignoring questions and staying away, which isn't working. I don't believe Masem was even aware of the ballot tampering until I pointed it out, and then he backed up the removal, without properly verifying any of the detail. It's a thundering disgrace and a joke. Hope? Long gone. If it's one thing this poll has shown, is that ultimately WP and it's editors are actually *happy* with contention, name-calling, POV editting, etc. This was a pretty big opportunity to put things right, and instead we've ended up with more polarized views than even before. The spirit of compromise is long dead, and anyone that continues to call for it is either mad, or is bullied and name-called into submission or off the page or off the vote. Sorry. --HighKing (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody should feel bullied from that Poll, no matter what Option(s) they prefer. Keep involved. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Sea
Stop changing the population of Dublin on the Irish Sea article. Check the Wiki page 'Dublin' before doing so, my edits are accurate and I will continue to revert what you are changing. Research before destroying someone's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.61.103 (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reversions on British Isles
So, should I re-open the administrator complaint? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The notice is still on the page when you edit, so until that is removed, it should be enforced. Unfortunately, we had a recent case where Canterbury Tail refused to enforce the rule and rewarded the edit warrior.  Not sure if reopening the case will lead to anywhere, but it should be reopened if only to clarify the situation.  --HighKing (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained previously I did not refuse to enforce it, I completely forgot about the rule. Anyway it had gotten way beyond that point by the time I intervened. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CT, we've obviously very different memories. But the self same editor, Hippo43, has reverted a revert again, followed by TintoDeSerrano and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ...  --HighKing (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For your information...
A WQA has been filed in which you are involved here: Wikiquette_alerts. --Taelus (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Taelus. --HighKing (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup - it looks to me like Setanta is just taking the piss....but thanks for the notice. --HighKing (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)