User talk:Pureditor/Archive 1

National anthems
Hello there, I noticed you reverted my edit on the Scotland article. I removed de facto from the national anthem and you replaced it. I won't delete it again as its no big deal, but I have noticed it is the only anthem named as de facto. Joe Deagan (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't know that; but that doesn't mean that an interesting factual point about the Scottish anthem shouldn't be mentioned. It displays a NPOV which is key to Wikipedia. If other articles don't show de facto when they should well then they're not displaying the facts right. From what I can see that is not good for Wikipedia. If you know of other articles which don't display de facto when they should either tell me and I'll fix them or you can contribute yourself. Thanks for not reverting it. Pur edi tor   14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
I reverted your change, so as to avoid an edit war. Many editors on Wikipedia, prefer Republic of Ireland to be shown as Ireland. Trust me, it's a dispute best avoided. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you were to restore your edit, I wouldn't revert it (again). My guess is though, somebody else would. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New poll
See here. I expect you to vote. MickMacNee (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales
Hello Pureditor. If & when you get negative feedback on those articles, concerning constituent country? Don't argue or edit war over it, simply pull back. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. There's a fair bit of agreement on Talk:United Kingdom so hopefully it'll go smoothly but I'll pull back if there's problems. Pur edi tor   22:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Scotland rejects it (so far). Oh well, ya gave it a try; now it's back 'to the old drawing board'. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, see you out there in Wiki & always remember to have fun. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country
There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers -- fone    4    me   20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

turkey
i added a new map because the old one was listed for deletion at the time, so i don't understand what your problem is? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also please do not accuse editors of "of disruptive editing" as this was not my intention, as you have wrongly claimed me of doing so. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of anthems by country‎
Hi, thanks for the undo at List of anthems by country‎. Also, I notice the Toronto flag on your user talk page. Toronto is the greatest ;) Gary King ( talk ) 03:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, it was the right thing to do. I'm guessing you're a fellow Torontonian eh? It is indeed one hell of a city! Pur edi tor   04:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering the number of UK threads on your talk page I thought you were from the UK at first. Gary King ( talk ) 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have relatives from all over the British Isles so I have interest in those articles. They're very interesting to edit. Pur edi tor   04:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary at List of countries
I would be obliged if you didn't put 'NPOV' when reverting my facts (in this case, my extra info on 'constituent country'). You are entitled to revert my edit - but what I included was not 'POV' at all - so you should not say it was. The very article (List of countries) says "This includes distinct political and legal entities which are countries, but are considered integral parts of a sovereign state, notably the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and the Länder of Germany."

So please don't give me 'NPOV' - it is not appreciated. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I offended you, it just seemed a bit odd to me moving something that was already there to the top of the list. Pur edi tor   12:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''While I agree with you, you are are edit warring. Let's get some independent admin involved.'' ww2censor (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah sorry about that. Got a bit frustrated and got a bit carried away. Hopefully it can be sorted out soon. Pur edi tor   19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was going to warn one, I had to warn you both. ww2censor (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And here's an official final-warn from me, too. Next revert gets you blocked - A l is o n  ❤ 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * Sorry, but you had been warned, and reverting yet again was not the answer here - A l is o n  ❤ 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but concerning a completely differrnt page! Pur edi tor   14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to let someone else review the block, but this shows where the problem lies here. You need to stop, as indeed, do the others. Revert-warring achieves nothing - A l is o n  ❤ 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I was warned after that. I made a mistake. I didn't edit war on that article after that at all. My revert there was made three days after I had last edited on the article. You blocking me has stopped me editing the talk page where we are currently trying to arrange a compromise/consensus. Pur edi tor   14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's very clearly an edit-war and 3RR is not an entitlement here. The articles history shows a classic 'slow' edit-war, and it's not achieving anything here. You were final-warned, but you didn't stop. Either way, I'm going back to bed (7am here) - an uninvolved admin will make a call here - A l is o n  ❤ 14:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The warning was about a different page, where I did stop, as I did the page in question. You added the two together, which I believe has nothing to do with the 3RR rule. If you check my editing history, you will see I was in major discussions on the talk page rather than reverting things. Pur edi tor   14:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I may have felt the same as you, but I have been trying not to edit war but encourage Mooretwin to agree that we need to find a solution. When you are unblocked, it is not too long, let's see if there is some way of phrasing the lead one or two sentences of Constitution of Ireland that we can all agree to without saying that it is the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, which we all know it is not. Cool head, lose trousers!!! See you later. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI Questions at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)
This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion/removal of my posts
Pureditor, you struck out my posts on Talk:Republic of Ireland and blindly reverted my addition to British Isles. Do not do so in future without good reason. It is my right to edit anonymously and if you believe that my anonymity is evidience of sock-puppetry then your supposed "knowledge of Wikipedia protocol" is about as substantial as your knowledge of dynamically-assigned IP addresses. --78.152.220.145 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted an incident on AN/I concerning your removal or my contributions/encouraging of other to ignore my contributions. --89.19.82.127 (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Say, while we're talking about it this: couldn't be farther from the truth. We don't ignore IP editors as a matter of practice. We might encourage them to register an account but we don't ignore them by default. It's part of being a Wiki...RxS (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's part of WP:PILLARS; the encyclopedia "that anyone may edit" - A l is o n  ❤ 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Blocked: 48 hours for disruptive behavior on Talk:Republic of Ireland. You falsely attributed this anonymous edit, which you originally made, to another editor. I think this was part of a campaign to get this editor banned by falsely implicating him in disruptive behavior. You also have an undisclosed sockpuppet account, which edits entirely different topics except for one significant overlap where both accounts were briefly involved in an edit war recently. I will assume this was an accident, since the accounts are otherwise completely separate, but I urge you not to let it happen again. Thatcher 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)