User talk:HighKing/Archives/2011/May

Video removed from Supporters groups and Ultras
Hi. I'd like to know why did you made this and this without providing a reasonable explanation. Could you please tell me, at least, what's wrong with the video? I'm pretty sure I can fix any problem related to it if you help me.

Cheers, Mahadeva (messages) 02:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the explanation was given in the edit summary. The video is unsourced (a fan video perhaps) and is not clear that the video shows "ultras".  It's a pleasant video, but unnecessary and doesn't add to the article.  What do you believe the video adds to the article?  --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the author of the video, and it shows La Guardia Imperial (Racing Club's supporters) in a match against Estudiantes de La Plata. That information is available in the file summary.
 * Maybe it's not relevant to Ultras, but I believe it adds to Supporters groups (it's quite obvious why).
 * Cheers, Mahadeva (messages) 17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why a video? Would not a photograph?  Is a video necessary?  --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The question should be "why not a video": a video provides vivid experiences, more than images and/or text. It complements the article (i.e.: the video in Wikimedia Foundation). Mahadeva (messages) 20:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, do you agree to place that video again in supporters groups? It's not relevant in ultras. Mahadeva (messages) 01:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you reply to this message in my user talk. Thanks, Mahadeva (messages) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

regarding the user GoodDay
the user GoodDay is a troll, he keeps going around on peoples talk pages trying to stir up trouble for me (even though i hardly log on here anymore), this is what he does. he has no pupose in life, but to stalk certain users and try and stir up false rumours/trouble he has done it many times, note how he adds nothing to wikipedia, he just comes on here to argue. its obviously the highlight of his life. very sad. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be evading your 2-week block, Anglo. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I see GoodDay more like the harmless spirit in a haunted house that occasionally makes its presence felt, and at worst, is mischievous. I usually think of him fondly, but occasionally I want to kick his arse.  C'est la vie.  --HighKing (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From now on, you should open all your comments with "Boo!" --HighKing (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I may adopt that intro. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to RevDel the edit summary of 86's edit, HighKing, but it was... Not awesome. Above and beyond the not awesome of calling someone "a troll", which I'm going to assume GoodDay will take in good stride. For the sake of transparency, the redacted version of his edit summary was   Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:The Story of Your Home
About the citation: I'm a bit at a loss here - I based my description of the book on my reading of it, but I no longer have access to it so I can't give page numbers. I'm not sure Agnes Allen used the term "British Isles"; I used it rather than "Great Britain" because there is at least one reference to Ireland. I could change it to GB, which is at least supported by the Open Library entry, or I could put "British domestic life and architecture". Or are you querying whether it was specifically British rather than general or at least European? - but the reference for that would be the book as a whole, which only uses British examples, and not in a wider context either. A modern book of the kind would be rather different, of course, but the insularity of it has a certain period charm.

In the interests of removing the citation tag from the article, what would you suggest? What public descriptions of the book are you referring to in your edit note? I only know of the ones I cited. I look forward to hearing from you - I'll add your page to my watch list for now. Robina Fox (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Robina - I was questioning the use of "British Isles" since all of the descriptions I've come across only state "British" or "Great Britain". The link on the Carnegie website doesn't use either but uses "Elizabethan" and the worldcat library classifies it into "Dwellings - Great Britain - Juvenile literature".  I'd prefer to use something referencable such as "British domestic life and architecture".  --HighKing (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777
What can be done about this block? I am very unhappy about it. Silent Billy (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is to let everything calm down. Sarah77 crossed a line.  Perhaps the admins over-reacted, but it shows how far over the line they judge her comments to be.  Usually, after a period of reflection (and calm), someone will make a better call on the appropriate action to take.  --HighKing (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She has also separately and independently of the indefinite ban been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, including all its sub pages and talk pages, and from British Isles and its talk page - so you have your work cut out to overturn such restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Off2roirob - please keep of my Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand the indef ban, it cover the entire 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. Off2riorob is correct above, but I have to say, even allowing for an amount of baiting by Sarah77, those were some of the worse comments I've seen her make.  The Arbcom ruling specifically states that she can be banned from editing pages where she makes anti-British comments.  Although she hasn't made anti-British comments at British Isles so that one will probably be overturned.  --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear her rants may have sunk her chances of return. I'm not certain, but I think she had a questionable 'section heading' at the British Isles talkpage, which Mabuska changed at 10:30 UTC. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the "British pov uber-alles?" heading? That isn't anti-British.  It's making a point about their being an overwhelming British pov on Wikipedia.  There's a line where comments are no longer relevant to content and comment on a editors (or a race, etc) and that line isn't crossed there.  --HighKing (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarah's history of rants (and blocks), makes her more blockable then the average account. She was doing great for a few months & then bang, now this. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually feel a bit surprised that an intelligent and reasoning guy like you HK can't see the problem in drawing direct analogies between British symbols and Nazi ones - note that she also directly compared the British flag to the Swastika. If this truly is a shared opinion of activist editors here then we really have a big problem communicating what Wikipedia is about. Have I misunderstood something or do you also think it's OK to compare British national symbols directly to Nazi ones? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah here! C'mon!  In the responses above, I was talking explicitly about the heading.  It isn't racist, and it isn't anti-British in the context of the "Famine" Arbcom ruling on making anti-British remarks - so I don't agree with the block on the British Isles page.  I'm disgusted at some of the comments she made though and personally think they are unacceptable.  But I also believe that there was an over-generalization of behaviour, and people started getting the boot in.  --HighKing (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, relieved. It looks to me like she lapses sometimes into angry outbursts that sustain for a while then gets back to some pretty good editing. I have had serious and intelligent discussions with her in the past. I guess one can only kick against the rules so far though. I hope you do see that things Irish people would rightly find offensive (slurs on their national symbols for example) are also found offensive this side of the sea. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - any slur on any national symbol will be found to be offensive, goes without saying. But there's some very broad brushstrokes being used to categorize her behaviour, while I (as you should know by now :-) tend to operate in the detail.  Any many of the comments against her, or made as a summary of her comments and behaviour were downright wrong or inaccurate. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I enjoy reading her rants. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop stirring for a reaction. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I've been wikiquiet for a little while now and seem to have missed a big bang. For me Sarah said nothing racist. All she did was invoke Godwin's law. A minor stupidity. Smack on the wrist time. Laugh at her all you want, but not racism. Of course Mick spotted a chance to get her banned, and now she is. C'est la vie. A casualty of war, methinks. Fmph (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the theme of "stirring for a reaction", do we think that this is a breach of the BISE sanctions? It appears to be and GoodDay is a highly experienced BISE participant who knows the ropes. No attempt to cite or reference source support. Would be interested in your opinion HK - apart from anything else, given that this came immediately after a lengthy talk consensus, it's an incredibly annoying breach of basic manners. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that GoodDay should know better. Not to mention that his edit summary is incorrect - there's been British monarchs since the first Briton walked the earth in Britain.  --HighKing (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The British monarchy began in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that be the British constitutional monarchy? Not the same thing as saying "a British monarch in the British Isles" at all at all at all!  I've replied on your Talk page.  --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Our (friendly?) local poltergeist seems to have forgotten to open his comments with "Boo!" :) Daicaregos (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this stage, he's rattling chains... --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, by calling the Welsh monarchs, English monarchs, Irish monarchs & Scottish monarchs (and their predecessor monarchies) all British monarchs, is a slap in the face to Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh nationalists & Scotland, England, Ireland & Wales' pre-1707 history. Very strange, to see ya'll opposing me on my proposals for the linked article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's possible to have been an English, Scottish or Welsh Monarch, with kingdoms in Great Britain and to correctly be referred to as a British Monarch.  The modern British constitutional monarchy is not the first one to have existed in Great Britain.  --HighKing (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still surprised though, by your collective reaction & failure to seek getting that article split. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A slap in the face to English nationalists? Nothing could be further from the truth. Take a look at some of these titles used by English monarchs:


 * Athelstan: Rex Anglorum per omnipatrantis dexteram totius Bryttaniæ regni solio sublimatus
 * Edmund the Magnificent: Rex Britanniae and Rex Anglorum caeterarumque gentium gobernator et rector
 * Edred: Regis qui regimina regnorum Angulsaxna, Norþhymbra, Paganorum, Brettonumque
 * Edwy the Fair: Rex nutu Dei Angulsæxna et Northanhumbrorum imperator paganorum gubernator Breotonumque propugnator
 * Canute: Rex Anglorum totiusque Brittannice orbis gubernator et rector and Brytannie totius Anglorum monarchus

As you can see, the term was in no way avoided. And from the time of James I onwards, all monarchs styled themselves "of Great Britain", without mentioning England at all. ðarkun coll 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of those are references to the Welsh, e.g. Eadred "King of the English Saxons, Northumbrians, Norse and Welsh". Britannia means both the island of Britain and the Roman province as represented by church institutions, so controlling both Canterbury and York is control of all Britain; after the 10th century Britain is a sort of archaic word for England, just as Gaul is for France or Germany for Germany (speakers called it Dutchland). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have to be careful about these medieval usages; "Anglorum", "Brittanniae", etc, didn't always mean the same things they do generally do now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Athelstan received the submission of all the kings in Britain, including those in Scotland. We can be sure, therefore, that this is what he was referring to. He was, indeed, the first ruler of the whole of the island. ðarkun coll 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He may have, and that might have been why he used the title, but no we shouldn't think the connection is certain. Britannia is primarily a church concept in the 10th century, or else an ethnic concept referring to the land of the Welsh. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. Noticing the section heading of this discussion, what's all this got to do with Sarah777? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED
HK I just noticed this wherein you described HJMitchell as "involved" - prove it or strike it. Him being from the UK does not constitute involvement nor does [taking] previous admin action against anyone in the topic area or against Sarah777-- Cailil  talk 20:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get right on it as soon as you first of all request HJMitchell to "prove it or strike it" for his "borderline racist" charge against Sarah777, seeing as he made those comments first. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, your insinuation that I linked his nationality with his involvement is out of order - please strike it or correct it. I specifically stated that it was, in my belief, because Sarah had directed a comment at him, and he reacted by blocking.  --HighKing (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you're there yourself, it might also be an idea if you struck your comments regarding her violation of the British Isles topic probation, or perhaps I've misunderstood the references of this community sanction - for me it seems very clear that it only covers tendentious editing without references. (In fact, I'd welcome an extension of the terms of reference to cover incivility.)  You language on Sarah777's page us very threatening and strikes me as inaccurate and inappropriate.  Your interpretation seems at odds with the actual sanction here also.  For example, removing the "Republic of Ireland" from a definition of the British Isles contrary to its inclusion in a source, is *not* covered by the sanction.
 * Finally, just for clarity - since I believe you should realize this, as having gone back over your comments in this drama I am getting a strong hint that you have perhaps formed an incorrect opinion on my motivations. I support the indef block on Sarah777 for incivility and POV edit-warring, and I support the Topic bans on the template.  I don't support the labelling of her behaviour as racist, nor do I support labelling her rhetoric as hate speech.  Both are inaccurate, and in their own way, an unacceptable personal attack.  I support the application of Arbcom and Community sanctions fairly and accurately.  Which is why I sought clarification over the sanctions being applied, and the topics they were applied to.  I support a page ban on the Template, but I'm still not sure what block or ban was applied to the British Isles page, and I would oppose this block if it is seen as part of the famine Arbcom ruling or the community WP:GS/BI sanction, or even if it is a general indef block applied to the page - it's not appropriate for her action.  I support a firm hand on disruptive behaviour, using existing policies and escalating blocks.  In fact, if there was less molly-coddling going on with disruptive editors, we wouldn't have all this drama from time to time.  Similarly if Sarah had a number of escalating blocks applied for disruptive behaviour over a period of time, as opposed to an insta-indef, there wouldn't be a sense of unfairness from many editors about the way she has been treated.  Just my 2c.  --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * HK you've avoided explaining how HJMitchell is "involved". You are incorrect in your understanding of WP:GS and WP:GS/BI. A topic under probation is under watch for ALL policy violations and ALL policies are more stringently enforced. The community also specifically added civility and interaction bans to it months ago (TritonRocker, LevenBoy and LemonMonday cases) so it does cover WP:CIVIL. Furthermore arguing that: removing (or adding) Ireland/Republic of Ireland from a sourced/quoted definition of the term British Isles is not covered by the sanction would be pure wikilawyering. Manipulating a source to suit one's POV is one of the highest, worst actions an editor can take - anywhere in Wikipedia - it's blatant POVpushing and would be blockable on it's own. Sarah777 attacked other users before, and after her block, based on where they come from. Just as editors from "the other side" have done. That's hate-speech. They were guilty of it, so is Sarah777. She has had a series of blocks over a period of years. She has had warning. She has had time. She is a very experienced editor and thus she knows when she's breaking the rules. I will not speak to you about Sarah777's case again. But I will say this, if you cast aspersions about another editor, as you have with HJMitchell, I will be forced to assume that you know that you're breaking the rules. You wouldn't stand for being labeled as COI editor just because of you're Irish, would you? -- Cailil  talk 13:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cailil, I'm not going to be bullied by you or anyone else into striking a comment, unless the same request is applied equally to all editors who also made incorrect comments at that AN/I. You know very well that my comments were made in the context of a timeline mistake which another editor pointed out quickly, and they pale into insignificance compared to some comments that were made.  Nor was I the only one to question whether HJM was "involved" - yet for some strange reason you find it appropriate to make demands on my Talk page.  Why is that?  I'd hate to get "picked-on" by you, but I can't see any other reason to date...
 * As to the comment you've picked up on. You started off above in your request by insinuating that I called him an "involved" editor because he was British.  You haven't struck that comment or corrected it.
 * Also, it's in the public record that my comment was corrected. Just as HJM's "racist" edit summary has been corrected and is in the public record.  If you are acting in the role of CIVILITY paladin, do it in a fair-handed manner.
 * Moving on, you state that a topic under probation is under watch for ALL policy violations. Can you point out where this is stated please?  Genuinely, I would like to see where this is stated.
 * The WP:GS/BI covers the addition or removal of "British Isles" from articles. It does not cover any and every discussion involving British Isles.  Stating that Sarah's single edit to the British Isles article is not covered by the sanction is, in my opinion, not currently covered by the sanction.  Nor is it wiki-lawyering to state that fact.  I've asked on a number of occasions for someone to point out where in the community sanction such an interpretation may be made.  To date, all I get is obfuscation.
 * As I've already stated, I agree with certain of Sarah777's blocks. Her comments were totally unacceptable, and she has been appropriately sanctioned by HJM for violations of CIVIL.  But labelling these comments as hate-speech is incorrect.  Unacceptably and grossly uncivil, yes.  But it falls short of hate-speech, and falls short of racist.
 * Finally, you last comment of But I will say this, if you cast aspersions about another editor, as you have with HJMitchell, I will be forced to assume that you know that you're breaking the rules. You wouldn't stand for being labeled as COI editor just because of you're Irish, would you? says to me that you're still trying to make a link between my comments and the fact that HJM is British. That's not true.  Completely wrong.  It's ironic that you're warning me about your imagined casting of aspersions based on nationality, yet here you are casting aspersions about my comments being about nationality.
 * Finally, you've stated on numerous occasions in the past few days that you are Irish. Where in Ireland are you from?  --HighKing (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * HK you have not explained how HJMitchell could be involved nor pointed me to where you corrected yourself - please do so and will withdraw my above comments as appropriate. The reason that you may be unclear about the BI sanction situation seems to be because you misunderstand the concept of topic probation. Probation can come in a number of forms: 3 of which are article (or page), editor, topic. Topic, as it is in this case, covers everything remotely connected to the subject of or editing around British Isles naming dispute. Because a) the subject is complex and ranges across numerous articles and categories; and b) because some of the editors involved have started following each other around (as, I'm sorry to say, you have experienced with MisterFlash) the dispute has 'spilled-out' into a behavioural one as much as a content one. Apart from that the way probation works is that any uninvolved admin can prevent disruption by the use of discretionary sanctions (this does not included permanent blocks as I and numerous other sysops pointed out to HJM and we are all in agreement that this was not correct and is not the situation Sarah777 finds herself in). Even in these cases most admins will do what I have done and take the issue to ANi for community input. On top of that sometimes in probations there is a specific formula for specific sanctions given in the event of specific violation of policy or bans. That's the situation here. We have specific preventative measures in place for civility, interaction and revert warring in relation to the insertion/removal/alteration of British Isles topics (Sarah's edit to that quote fits this) as well as the generalized probation on the topic. Separately 4 years ago Sarah put herself in the position that she was sanctioned by the ArbCom for using anti-British rhetoric - that's what got her indef blocked. She did it before being blocked for a week and then continued while blocked. Forgive me HK but I wont give a physical location for myself on the internet. I've lived most of myself in a places near Dublin. I thought you were aware of my nationality since the TritonRocker incident? PS I don't appreciate the 'paladin of civility' remark - I know it is meant in semi-jest but it comes off in a totally different fashion. Please remember this is a text based medium-- Cailil  talk 16:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cailil, I appreciate your responses. I understand the concept of topic probation.  At WP:GS/BI it clearly states "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".  It does not cover anything remotely connected with the subject.  If there's a wider meaning to what a topic ban constitutes, does an explanation/article exist?  The complexity of the topic, and the fact it ranges across a wide range of articles is covered by the applicable are which states "Anywhere on Wikipedia where the term "British Isles" is either added or removed".  I maintain that Sarah's topic ban of the article "British Isles" falls outside the remit of that general sanction.  In fact, all of her past week's editing falls outside this community sanction.
 * On the original topic of you requesting that I strike my comment. I have made it clear, twice now, that I will only withdraw the comment (and happy to acknowledge he wasn't an "involved" editor) if you also request other editors withdraw their inaccurate comments, including allegations of racism.  Otherwise, you'll need to explain how you've, out of the blue like, decided to land here and make demands.  I'm flabbergasted to be honest, especially when other editors came out anyd flatly stated he was British and anti-Irish.  And especially given your own inaccurate comments - you have continually insinuated that my comment of HJM being involved was somehow connected with his nationality, which is wrong.  The comments you highlighted pointed out make no such allegation or even hint at it.  --HighKing (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on now, this isn't a quid pro quo situation HK. You cannot cast aspersions about others. HJM is either involved or not, it's black and white. As it stands I'm only aware of your comments but show me diffs where others have "flatly stated [HJM] was British and anti-Irish" and I'll follow that up separately. Also I've given you the opportunity to explain your accusation but you have not. And BTW I never said you claimed his Britishness made him involved - I stated: "Him being from the UK does not constitute involvement nor does previous admin action against anyone in the topic area or against Sarah777". That's a statement of fact - nowhere have I claimed that you made racist remarks. Secondly I was confused about your point on WP:GS/BI, I had mentioned that Sarah777 could be banned under WP:GS/BI on ANi and her talk page put haven't implemented it. GWH page banned her from Template:British English for one month for disruption to make a point (under Famine ArbCom). Then Future Perfect page banned her from the British Isles article and from WikiProject Ireland, and also blocked her for 1 week. These bans are implemented under the Famine ArbCom and her indefinite editing restriction relating to that case's ruling - this was ruling was 'activated' by both Sarah777's 'biased editing' (WP:DE, WP:POVPUSH, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT etc) and by her anti-British remarks. (However her actions relating to the British Isles naming dispute could be sanctioned by enforcement of the probation and would be if anyone else had behaved this way.) If she wants this reviewed she can ask ArbCom or WP:AE to do so-- Cailil   talk 19:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As regards explanations of bans/probations etc see WP:RESTRICT-- Cailil  talk 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on now, this isn't a quid pro quo situation HK. You cannot cast aspersions about others. - Sure - and yet I haven't seen anyone else being requested to strike their "racist" comments cast at Sarah, or their "British" comments at HJM. Nobody says anything about it's being quid pro quo either, but bullying me with veiled threats makes it look to me that you're singling out anyone you faintly dislike or disagree with.
 * As it stands I'm only aware of your comments and but show me diffs where others have - it doesn't take a lot to reread the Sarah777 thread at AN/I, and you much have already been reading that thread to pick up on my comment, so you're really stretching the imagination to say you haven't seen any other comments.
 * I never said you claimed his Britishness made him involved - I disagree. If you read the first sentence of this section which preceded the sentence you plucked out, it reads as wherein you described HJMitchell as "involved" - prove it or strike it. Him being from the UK does .... .  Later, even after I stated I had not said anything about HJM being from the UK, you said to me You wouldn't stand for being labeled as COI editor just because of you're Irish, would you? - again as if it had some bearing on my casting of aspirations.  I suggest my interpretation is a reasonable one.
 * With the greatest of respect Cailil, you have never asked for an explanation. You've demanded "prove it or strike it".  There's a difference.  And as it turns out, if you reread our exchange, I've given an explanation.  --HighKing (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes HK I'm asking you to prove it or strike it. That's an opportunity to substantiate, explain, give a reasoning for, the remark or to retract it, but you have done neither. However if I've missed the post where you did indeed explain it please re-post the diff where you show how & why HJMitchell is/was "involved". You've not substantiated the claim that others accused HJM, "flatly", of being "anti-Irish" - post diffs and I'll look at them separately. I'm happy to follow that up if you show me some diffs. Making accusations of serious misconduct (accusing HJM of being involved), where there is none will damage your credibility with others. Reread my posts, I'm offering you two olive branches, I'm not coming here with two sticks. It's perfectly understandable if in the heat of the moment one makes a remark that is not 100% in-line wrt policy; it is however an untenable position to hold days later, when given the opportunity to prove or retract said remark. Do you still hold the position that HJMitchell is "involved" per WP:INVOLVED?-- Cailil  talk 14:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It remains my position BTW that I will withdraw my remarks as appropriate on the provision of diffs. I am more than happy to correct myself if shown (with diffs) that I need too-- Cailil  talk 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I've just asked USer:MastCell to have a read of this. If I'm out of line he'll knock me over the head pretty quickly and I'll be happy to correct myself-- Cailil  talk 14:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Prove it or Strike it" is not "asking for an explanation". Nor is it coming here extending two olive branches. In terms of an explanation, you linked yourself to my posts where I gave the reason of that the indef block (and the emotive rhetoric by the blocking admin) immediately followed a comment by Sarah777 directed at the blocking admin. To spell it out, the explanation is that I erred in the timings, and believed that HJM's indef block immediately followed a comment by Sarah777. This was immediately pointed out by another editor whose comment is immediately after mine.
 * I've already pointed out the comments you should redact. Several times.  For clarity, the first comment in this section is the one that gives most offense.  In fact, everytime you accuse/insinuate/allude to me having a nationalistic agenda or slant or engaging in ridiculous behaviour or accusing other editors of having nationalistic agendas, is deeply offensive.  Lumping all editors engaged in BISE into the same boat wrt behaviour is offensive.  But coming here to bully and coerce me into redacting a comment - one of the mildest comments made around the entire Sarah777 episode, and one which was clearly an error - is offensive, and reflects badly on you in an attempt to perhaps goad me or give you an excuse to block me.
 * Nor am I going to rat out other editors who made comments by providing diffs - you already know where to look, and you even directly commented after one such comment without drawing attention to it. If you truly were interested, as you say you are, in not putting up with attributing behaviour due to nationality, you would have placed similar notices on other editors pages.  For me, there's a more obvious reason you popped onto my Talk page, and it has very little to do with any of my recent comments.  Go wiki-hound someone else - I've reached my limit on this issue.  If you believe this episode deserves a block, go ahead.  --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your comment was based on confused timing however I can find no diff where you corrected yourself on ANi - both comments are as posted. Why if you recognize your mistake do you refuse to strike them? I have stricken the lines in my above comments which offended you. They were not and are not accusations of nationalistic bias. They are statements of fact. A female admin would not be "involved" in a dispute at Women's rights because of her sex. Neither HJM, Errant X or I are involved in the BI dispute because of our nationality, an african american admin is not "involved" in a content dispute at Civil rights movement due to race. My above comments were not made or meant as accusations merely as statements of fact and were stated alongside the other fact that previous admin interactions in the topic or against Sarah would not constitute involvement. I have however removed them because you have correctly pointed out the appearance of lumping all involved together at BISE and that is unfair to you. However I suggest reconsidering your remarks directed at me - you are not being coerced, wiki-hounded, bullied or 'threatened' with any sanction. And I will ask for an explanation, or removal, of this remark: "For me, there's a more obvious reason you popped onto my Talk page, and it has very little to do with any of my recent comments."-- Cailil  talk 16:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably just leave it there Cailil. HighKing should not have used the term "involved" as within the strict Wikipedia definition HJMitchell was not involved prior to making this ill-advised block. Nevertheless, it was unfortunate that he made the block on several levels. One, an admin who displays a national flag on his user-page leaves himself open to appearing biased when he then makes certain blocks, as in this case. Two, the block reason HJM gave was highly inappropriate; it has now been revised. Three, the nonsense about the block being "infinite" was also highly inappropriate. Taken together, the block did not give the appearance of being appropriate in the way that it was given. I think HighKing realizes and has acknowledged his mistake by now; why not go and have a friendly chat with HJMitchell and see what he has learned from this debacle? I certainly hope he has learned something, though he didn't appear to have when I asked him about it. In any case, I think you can move on from this interaction with HK. --John (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note John and I will leave this matter to HK, but I still would like an explanation, or removal, of that "more obvious reason" remark noted above. I spoke to HJM immediately on the day of the block and corrected him quite starkly about that 'infinite' remark which I agree was simply wrong. I hope he has learned from this. BTW I disagree with you about an editor posting simple facts in the form of user-boxen (the simple factual ones rather than the overtly politically and deliberately provocative ones) about themselves giving the appearance of COI - that runs contrary to the assumption of good faith, but that's another matter-- Cailil   talk 17:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking those comments. My "more obvious reason" is as I've already stated - that I firmly believe you've decided to pick on me.  Lots of reasons spring to mind, mostly revolving around your attitude to BISE and the editors trying to find a solution there.  You are constantly making comments designed to belittle the workings at BISE.  In fact, for me at least, your comments from last December are a reason why I've abandoned BISE.  Is this what you meant by "lecturing" those at BISE last December?  How nice for you to lecture us - do you really think that's the role of an admin on these issues?  Or on any issues?  Where are you coming from - get off the stage.
 * We've clashed heads in the past, but never about me being incivil, I view this attempt to get me to grovel and/or to trap me as a new low. There is zero justification for your continued harassment on this "involved editor" issue and picking apart every comment made here.  Had you read the comments, you'd have seen I'd erred on the timelines.  Yes, I should have struck the comments and had you simply asked me to strike the comments since I had gotten the timelines wrong, I would have.  But blazing in and making it seem like I had made an "involved" statement due to nationality was always going to rub me up the wrong way, as it has.  And picking up on my comments, out of the many editors that made comments with many worse than mine, also points to an admin out to punish or whip into shape or block.  I'm angry at this Cailil, and you shouldn't be allowed the admin mop to use it in this manner.  I'd appreciate if this entire section was rolled up as finished.  --HighKing (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * HK you are way out of line speaking to another editor like that. My comments have nothing to do with 'the mop'. My comments would be given as starkly as tersely and as straight-forwardly with or without it. The failure of some of the editors at BISE to comply with NPOV and NOR (2 of 3 core policies of WP) and to work within behavioural standards outlined WP:5 is their problem. If one doesn't like WP:5 nobody's forcing one edit wikipedia. But we will force everyone to comply with that. I don't dislike you or anyone else on wikipedia I generally follow WP:DAMN except where editors are personally abused and when I pick editors up for that it's not them I dislike it's their edits. Again HK you're refusing to strike a remark that you accept is an incorrect accusation of serious misconduct by HJMitchell. I wont post here again but I will have this examined-- Cailil  talk 21:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything, *you* have *no* idea how you are coming across and *you* are way out of line. BTW, I do my damnedest to edit according to WP:5 and now you cast aspersions that I don't (even leaving aside your cleaning up your response).  Outrageous!  I'm disturbed by the underlying attitude of your comments.  You talk about "lecturing" editors on policies, and threaten editors with blocks for "advocating hate speech" when clearly they were simply questioning that labelling of Sarah's comments, or coming onto my Talk page demanding I "strike it or prove it"?  If you were "merely" an editor, you'd come across like a total dick and told to feck off.  And I'll be damned if I strike any remark as a result of being singled out and picked on in this manner.  --HighKing (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm striking the comment above as regrettable unnecessary invective that serves no useful purpose other than to rant and shake my fist at the sky, especially when Cailil was trying hard to de-escalate. Rereading this episode, I believe we've both made our points, and appear to fully understand each others points.  Leaving the "involved" comment at AN/I serves no useful purpose either and I will place a comment there to clarify that I erred.  --HighKing (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reading around trying to make sense of this, and flags appear to be a central issue of sorts. I must say I found this above comment foolish, "One, an admin who displays a national flag on his user-page leaves himself open to appearing biased when he then makes certain blocks, as in this case." One problem here John is that you yourself say on your own user page that you are Scottish, and are using HighKing's talk page to address (and rather chastise) Calil, not his own. It's all in interpretation. HJM has already been criticised for having an English flag on his page by someone, and it was pretty damn inappropriate then - an admin really should not be following it up. Wikipedia should be above this petty nationalistic bickering, not accepting of it. I disagreed with the way HJM blocked Sarah and hope to help get it overturned, but when I see admin seeming to score points over another admin I feel badly about admin in general, as it simply never helps the situation - esp when camp-creating editors like Sarah are involved on subjects like these. Lack of general respect for admin has been central to all this too imo, which should be pretty clear through reading most of the edits people are making. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of pissing off everyone above, any chance that this thing could be de-escalated? Seems everyone wants an out but no one wants to back down. RashersTierney (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. Deep breaths. Walk away. Fmph (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stronghold Kingdoms
I have gone with your suggestion of renaming British Isles as Britain. Thank you for the advice. I would be grateful if you could check this and see if it still needs an in-line citation which I have removed on changing the name. Link is here for your convenience Stronghold Kingdoms VoltairSHK (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've a few suggestions - I'll put them on the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)