User talk:Van Speijk

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Access (credit card)
Excellent edit summary here in line with WP:GS/BI and all that, except Mais Oui had actually self reverted an unreferenced and unsourced change (for the very reasons you gave in your edit summary), and now you've gone and set it back again. Please take a look at the history. --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, see what you mean. I missed that. Sorry. I was about to revert with a comment that it needs further investigation, but someone has beaten me to it. Van Speijk (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lake
Van Speijk, I bet I can guess what your favour lake is ... Bjmullan (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh ?? Van Speijk (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice
This is a formal warning for breach of the Community topic probation on the British Isles naming dispute further disruptive edits (like these) in articles, talk pages, or related discussions of the topic, will result in restrictions being placed on this account. It is inappropriate to speculate on the motives of another editor and it is inappropriate to cast aspersions about them. It is also unacceptable to make ad hominem or other wise belittle others, or their contributions (as you did in the above diff). This is even more strictly enforced in areas under topic probation.-- Cailil  talk 22:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cailil is within his rights to issue this warning notice, and you are outwith yours in your complaint on his talk page. Please consider walking away from this area for a day or two until you can calm down. Please consider dispute resolution for any further complaints you have against other editors. --John (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

British Isles restrictions
You are probably aware but just to make sure you should read General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log which clearly states that adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. You need to provide a reference. You have been warned. Bjmullan (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's start a record of your infringements: #1 Rosie (given name). Bjmullan (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
This edit summary is misleading as it is only used to mask you POV pushing. If you think someone is a sock I suggest you submit a report to SPI otherwise keep your edit accurate. Bjmullan (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The summary is very similar to some of yours I've seen in the past. As for that "editor" not being a sock, it's a a near certainty. It's a single edit IP user based in Ireland, probably from a mobile phone, and you tell me to raise an SPI? Lol! Van Speijk (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two things Van Speijk; All my claims of socks were true & I don't live in Ireland. Bjmullan (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were, and I think you know this one is probably true as well. Don't get me wrong. However much I might disagree with you I don't suspect you of being a sock; I'll give you that at least. Van Speijk (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-revert on Northern Ireland
Do yourself a favour and self-revert on the 1RR Nothern Ireland artilce. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wondering why you left me this piece of advice and not a similar one for User:Brocach? Van Speijk (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They didnt breach it. Nearly 48 hrs. Not 18 minutes. Murry1975 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha. So you think I should self revert and then come back tomorrow, or the day after to put it back? Fact is, Brocach should never have reverted Snowded, who was simply applying BRD. The former is engaging in a slow edit war, and another user, Bjmullan, who has contributed very little at all to the discussion, is targetting my edits due to a POV dispute elsewhere. Van Speijk (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As well as breaking the Troubles 1RR I see you have again put a misleading edit summary as your excuse. Me following you! Get real; you are a BI POV pusher. Bjmullan (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So let's assume good faith and accept that you would have done the revert at NI even if someone else had done the edit that I did. :))))))))))))))) Van Speijk (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record Van Speijk and to prove that your edit summary was misleading here is a list of article where I edited before you: Northern Ireland, Thomas Coville, Town and gown, Carlingford Lough, Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border, Coleraine, Rosie (given name), Salutation, HSS 1500, Public house, UK & Ireland, Terminology of the British Isles and River Shannon. Bjmullan (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest will you! I've forgotten which article you're even talking about. Van Speijk (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two misleading edit summaries in one day, I think it is you who should give it a rest. Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Can everyone please take a chill pill and stop with the accusations. Everyone walk away. No more accusations and everyone assume good faith. Both of you are breaking it. I very much suggest that neither of you edit articles the other is editing for a while as it's obvious the two of you are clashing. It's not worth it. Canterbury Tail  talk  00:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of the United Kingdom
For years, I tried to get constituent country into the intros of all 4 articles (England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland), but the devolutionists out numbered me. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt it will be accepted now either, due to an excess of nationalism. It is, however, an eminently sensible suggestion. Van Speijk (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, Countries of the United Kingdom should be changed to Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

UK MoS
Though I can't take part in it (due to topic ban), I support your proposal of creating UK MoS. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When does this ban end? Van Speijk (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no end to it, as far as I know. The Irish, Scottish & Welsh nationalists don't like me & would quickly jump at any chance to get me perma-blocked from Wikipedia. Therefore being topic-banned is sorta the better of 2 options. I mostly agreed to the topic-ban, so that my mentors wouldn't be harrassed anymore by my detractors. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a stupid and unnecessary ban and you should request that it's revoked. Van Speijk (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:
I've done it, what was it you wanted? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've recieved it. Don't worry, its all coincidence. I don't even work for that company. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the strikeout. Very civil, and much appreciated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shriram (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

British Isles Topic Probation Enforcement

 * Given these comments I feel it necessary to remind you that a "clean start" will not allow you to create a new account to edit without restriction in either the Troubles or British Isles topic probation areas. As policy states: "It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account. Changing accounts, and then resuming to edit in a contentious area, carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize you and connect your old and new accounts. You may be viewed as evading scrutiny, which carries a risk of long-term blocks and bans."-- Cailil  talk 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be following my edits. I'll put that down as hounding then. Van Speijk (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Deletion review/Log/2012 May 30
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Deletion review/Log/2012 May 30. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Hi Van Speijk. I don't think you and I have ever interacted before. I am here to tell you that following a request at my talk I have to issue you with a final warning as regards harassment of other editors. This may take the form of unduly combative conduct on talk pages, of following editors you are in disagreement with to other articles, or anything else which is unconducive to civil and harmonious editing here. My proposal is that following your next instance of any of these problematic behaviours I (or another admin) would block your account indefinitely following which this would be reviewed at AN/I or another venue. This is not intended to preclude action being taken against any other editor(s) who are also misbehaving. Would you be able to accept this warning and avoid these behaviours in future? This would definitely be my preferred outcome here. I hope you can do it. Please let me know if there is anything I can clarify for you. --John (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Ireland

 * (Discuss) Should Republic of Ireland be moved to Ireland? Kauffner (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2012 (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) 14:04, 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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)