User talk:68.110.9.62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 68.110.9.62). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on [[User_talk:{{{1}}}|my Talk page]] – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: Antonrojo 13:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possessions of Norway

Please refrain from bad-faith edits. Instead, consider adding useful information. Discuss your points of view in the talk pages. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 19:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Offspring-related articles

I have reverted you to The Offspring-related articles. You need proof that they are a punk band, not a grunge or crossover thrash band. If you vandalize these articles again, I have no choice to ask a moderator to ban you. Alex 101 15:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adhesive

Hi. Can you please discuss the DAB link on this article's talk page before removing again. Thanks TigerShark 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit [1]. THis is a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and change your tone accordingly. --Doc ask? 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove other user's warnings from this talk page, as this is also considered vandalism. Thanks. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you want to be banned or not?

Impostor Please stop your vandalism and using profanity immediately. Calling people a "motherfucker", calling me a "little teeny bopper boy" and saying "Leave me the fuck alone" are not acceptable comments. So, do you want to be banned or not? I could get an administrator to ban you from this. Alex 101 22:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Shanel 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Returning the message

Hmmmmm...., checking back, it isn't too bad, however, you do need to careful. Vandelism, which you have been warned for before isn't tolerated on wikipedia. just take more care next time. Oh and i'll retract my statement, if you like.Random articles 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of sexual behavior

My removal of your totally disputed tag from Criticisms of sexual behavior was not vandalism. You failed to give any reason for its presence on Talk:Criticisms of sexual behavior. I noted that in my edit summary. You need to give reasons for adding tags like that, or they get removed. That's just the way things work. -Seth Mahoney 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The most recent criticism of that page is over two weeks old. -Seth Mahoney 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what you're referring to. Is it the section titled "Needs supporting evidence"? Because it doesn't really look like there's even any consensus as to what the problem is. What problem do you have with the article? -Seth Mahoney 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You're not listening: What, exactly, is the problem? -Seth Mahoney 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
So you're not willing to tell me what problems you see in the article, but you expect me to take you seriously? -Seth Mahoney 22:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice I haven't removed the tag again. All I'm asking is that you please tell me exactly what problem you have with the page, so that it can get fixed. -Seth Mahoney 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You're obviously not serious, and are wasting everyone's time (especially mine). I'm removing the tag. If you add it again, I will request that this IP be banned. -Seth Mahoney 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It isn't clear from the talk page what the problem is. I've asked you for clarification, so that the problem could be resolved. You have refused. Without your participation, there is nothing else I can do. -Seth Mahoney 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've requested that your IP be blocked. If you want to take that issue up, you can find my request here: [2]. If you change your mind and decide to discuss this issue, I will withdraw the request. -Seth Mahoney 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England

Please desist from your wholesale rewrite of the List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England article. Your actions clearly lack any consensus. --Mais oui! 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Mais oui! 23:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Leaving a comment: "You want a fight?" is considered to be a personal attack. If you continue to make personal attacks you will be banned.--Mais oui! 23:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing of warnings

Please be advised that warnings left by others on your talk page should not be removed, per our policy on vandalism. Even though these pages have your "name" at the top, they aren't yours any more than another page is. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigilantes Not Welcome

Do not edit my user and talk pages. Address me on relevant article pages. Thank you in advance. 68.110.9.62 00:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't address you, I reverted your vandalism to your talk page. You're not allowed to erase your warnings. --Rory096 00:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England. If you feel this block was in error, please place {{unblock}} on this page and explain why, or e-mail me. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.
—bbatsell ¿? 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

00:20, 17 February 2006, Bbatsell (Talk) blocked 68.110.9.62 (contribs) (expires 00:20, 18 February 2006) (3RR on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England)

[edit] RE: Wikipedia_talk:Counter_Vandalism_Unit#I_object_to_this_organisation.21

I have told each of you that I am not interested in anything whatsoever, good or bad on my namespace pages. You have an issue with something I do or say, address it on the article where it happened or the Wikipedia notice boards. It's all contained in the history anyways. I believe you lot are too trigger happy with your free reign on revert sprees. That to me, constitutes trolling and because it's on my namespace page I also consider it vandalism. 68.110.9.62 00:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not you want them, you got warnings, and you can't remove them, so if you vandalize again, people know that you've done it before. --Rory096 00:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to archive the discussion with only an IP address, nor do I want to make another account. That's why I did what I did. Like I said, they can check the history...which wouldn't have been so fucked up if you just live and let live. 68.110.9.62 00:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

One of these revert warriors in your group has reverted me and called me infantile. Now, that's definitely an instance of personal attacks, but you don't want to "rat" on your friends, do you? 68.110.9.62 00:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All of the reverts were using God Mode Light. As for checking the history, you're rather conceited if you think that we're going to go into your history, just in case there may be something there (in violation of the rules), and see if there are any warnings that you've erased before we give you a warning that you're just going to delete anyway. There's a reason we have the rule that you can't delete warnings. --Rory096 01:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[3] You are conceited, if you believe that I am awed at your leet skills. I don't care. 68.110.9.62 01:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui isn't a member of CVU. Get your facts straight. --Rory096 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But the evidence still means I am not the be all and end all of the problem. User:Random articles already apologised, so why won't you? 68.110.9.62 02:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you want me to apologize for? Reverting your vandalism? --Rory096 03:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't really know what vandalism is, if you will vandalise and claim others are doing it. 68.110.9.62 18:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are unblocked

You have been unblocked for the past couple of hours. Moe ε 04:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of vandalism

You can find an excellent definition of vandalism here: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Removing tags because their presence is not explained on the talk page of an article is not vandalism, and randomly accusing people of vandalism does not gain sympathy for your cause. Please be more careful in the future of the accusations you make. As for the tags themselves, no reason for their presence has yet been given. I would be delighted if someone would give a reason, as that would give me a good idea of what needs to be done to the article. So, by all means, please do. As far as I'm concerned the tags can stay for a day or so, but unless some idea of why they're there is given on Talk:Criticisms of sexual behavior, I will remove them after that. -Seth Mahoney 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please be aware of the Wikipedia no personal attacks policy. David | Talk 15:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Moe ε 17:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Sceptre (Talk) 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop blanking your talk page. Thanks. Moe ε 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haiduc and you

I'm glad that you agree with my assessment of things that I wrote on Haiduc's talk page. I was not commenting on your role in this, but his. I have some suggestions for you that might ease some of the tensions and make everyone's time more productive. These suggestions are not just specific for you. They apply to most contributors at Wikipedia:

  1. All articles are imperfect. Some are very poor. This is the norm and should be expected. In a collaboration of many people, with some more capable than others, it would be a near miracle if an article appeared fully formed, cited, well-written and error free. The beauty of a wiki is that eventually articles can reach this state after many iterations by many people.
  2. Articles are improved by building upon what is there. Even though there is a strong urge to delete something for being "wrong", it is very important to put effort into what can be salvaged and improved upon. This takes more work, but it has many positive side effects, the two most important being that the article gets better, and people collaborate more agreeably.
  3. NPOV does not mean deciding which side in a debate is correct. In most POV disputes both sides are doing the same thing -- insisting that their view is correct. Energy should be put into finding citations for opinions and their refutations. The POVs of the writers and editors are irrelevant. If the POV of an article is to be challenged, it should be done by adding citations of counter claims. The discussions on the talk page should NOT be about which claim is correct, but about whether the article presents the claim and citation accurately, and in a well-balanced way.
  4. People's agendas are irrelevant. It would be ridiculous to claim to be an editor who is totally without a personal agenda. If they are aware of it or not, everyone has an agenda. It is a waste of time, and counter-productive to discuss people's motivations -- all it will lead to is bad feelings and personal attacks. Instead of discussing the motivation of other editors, editors should look for ways of finding acceptable language for opinions they find distasteful.
  5. If you cannot work on an article without getting charged up emotionally by the subject matter, or cannot stand to see distasteful views presented in an NPOV way, you should probably stay away from the article, and leave it to other editors.
  6. Extra work put into discussions when there is a conflict or misunderstanding goes a very long way. This means making certain that you have stated your case clearly, you consider and address the concerns of other editors, no pronouns are ambiguous, etc... What is obvious to one editor can be totally misinterpreted by another.
  7. Rudeness and incivility only lead to an editor being ignored or banned. Even if the editor is 100% correct in their opinion it is no excuse for not being civil. We are all volunteers here. Nobody enjoys being yelled at.

I'll leave it up to you to assess your own behavior in this matter. I hope my suggestions are helpful. -- Samuel Wantman 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remain civil.

May we remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance. (CJ) --ZsinjTalk 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Also, you need to have sources for everything you add. You did not add a source to your statement. Secondly all the changes I have been making to the article have been supported by all the regular Canadian editors. -- Jeff3000 03:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop personally atacking Jeff3000. You will be blocked if you continue to do so.--Shanel 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twink (gay slang)

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on the article Twink (gay slang). The duration of the block is 24 hours. enochlau (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feb 26, 2006

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. tv316 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try and keep a cool head, despite comments people may make against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments will only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! (CJ) tv316 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Please do not add obscenities to Wikipedia. Injecting unnecessary swear words, racially or sexually abusive comments, or provocative pictures to articles or user pages offends many people. Wikipedia treats such actions as vandalism and blocks people from editing for such repeated vandalism. tv316 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Nordic countries

Please familiarize yourself with the civility policy. Thanks for your cooperation. //Big Adamsky 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic Maryland vandalism

Just a note, this user went through several articles related to Maryland and tried to revise history by saying that Maryland was named for the mother of Jesus rather than Henrietta Maria.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Maryland, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Henrietta Maria, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

--Image:Cyde.png 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Province of Maryland, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Wayward Talk 10:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against deliberate vandalism intended to discredit Wikipedia or serve an activist agenda. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.
Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. Elf-friend 11:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How come I am blocked for obstructing activist agendas from an opposite POV? How come those who I am opposed to for their breach of NPOV happen to go free, except your own bias against me and my POV? You are discrediting Wikipedia by the misapplication of the rules and code we go by. 68.110.9.62 11:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Maryland article

Hi there. I noticed your edits to the Province of Maryland article. I reverted your edits because according to the Maryland State Archives, the Province of Maryland was named after Queen Henrietta Maria, not Mary I of Scotland. Thanks. - Akamad 11:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The source also says that Charles was King of Great Britain and Ireland. Great Britain did not exist yet, so that's anachronistic. Furthermore, her name is Henriette Marie in French and Marie/Maria is not the first name nor was she ever called Mary. The simple fact is, the Calverts were Northern Englishmen who didn't like Queen Elizabeth and partook in the Rising of the North. It is natural for them to put a land named for Mary, Queen of Scots right beside Queen Elizabeth's Virginia. Henrietta Maria was an inconsequential consort, like Catherine of Braganza. There would be little cause to name anything so significant as this after her. 68.110.9.62 11:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles_I_of_England#Style_and_arms...See?!

How are you going to defend this apparently false information? Are you going to contest the article about King Charles? You've got no explanation for it, do you? 68.110.9.62 11:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would George Calvert's land be named for somebody who just became queen? 68.110.9.62 11:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me, ask Maryland State Archives. And as far as I can see, there is nothing in the Charles I of England article that contradicts the statement that Maryland was named after Henrietta Maria. - Akamad 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If the State of Maryland can mistake his personal style and rulership of valid nations, then that puts their other info into question...but you are non sequitur here; intentionally? 68.110.9.62 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but Encarta also states that "The Maryland colony was founded in 1634 and was named for the wife of English King Charles I, Queen Henrietta Maria". And the Library of Congress states that "He named the land after the King's wife, Henrietta Maria, or Mary." - Akamad 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It becomes a problem if Encarta and the Library of Congress doesn't even get the dating right. The colony was founded when George Calvert was alive, but the "patent" in the way of official forms and the like were not settled with the reinforcement of the king to make the Virginians accept terms until his son Cecil took the initiative. This is evident in just about any website online, official or not. I don't know why these sites you cite omit these factors, but they are included in all the biographies of the elder Calvert. People forget the whole impetus behind the colonial grants to Lords Baltimore began with Sir George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore and due to his relationship with King James, while it was all renewed for the relationship with Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore and King Charles. Colonial grants were subsidiary to a feudal barony. You have to explain away George down in Virginia planting his colony until Virginians harried him out, then Cecil returning with help from Charles. Explain why George would name it after somebody who was just a princess, instead of the whole reason for Northern Englishmen like him to defect back to Catholicism. Henrietta Maria did not have any power and charm over the populace but Mary, Queen of Scots had a whole lot. You have to remember that Henrietta Maria was French and the English wouldn't celebrate her. Their wedding was strategic from the outlook. You'd also have to take into account that George Calvert was born in the time of Mary I of Scotland and his family had sympathies for her. Henrietta Maria wasn't a proprietor like Quaker William Penn, nor inspirational as the Duke of York who was for Jacobitism. There was no movement associated with Henrietta Maria, as there was for the mother of King James. All these colonists were activists for lack of a better word. Prince Rupert Land was named for a distant royal, but it was a mere territory that became owned by the Hudson Bay Company. There is also more significance for that, since it was Rupert's German Lutheran family which eventually ascended the throne in 1714 as the House of Hanover. The House of Stuart wanted to leave their own mark instead of feel like incumbents to the Tudors and this was a way they thought they could keep the name Virginia at the same time, since Mary ruled Scotland (in her own right) with superior claims to England (in many minds). England wouldn't name land for a Frenchwoman, since France already had colonies and it would be seen as increasing the enemy's prestige. Basically, Maryland was a haven for old and fading English reactionaries whose last figure was Mary Stuart but Henrietta Maria was too young to have anything to do with it. It all began in dying Plantagenet resistance to the Tudors and collapsed along with Jacobitism. 68.110.9.62 10:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well either way, despite searching, I am yet to find a source that states that Maryland was named after Mary I of Scotland. Perhaps you can point me towards one. - Akamad 10:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the only other alternative, since Mary, Queen of Scots was seen as the start of the Stuart family in England by Roman Catholic Englishmen rather than King James. The Virgin Mary is too unlikely for such a Protestant era; Henrietta Maria of France too obscure and laced with enmity. 68.110.9.62 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I can't see a reason to change the articles unless a reputable source can be found, and even then, we would still have to keep the mention of Henrietta Maria because Library of Congress amongst others state that Maryland was named after her. - Akamad 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, my only request is that Mary Stuart be added as a probable or possible alternative. Too many confuse the historic capital of Maryland (St. Mary's) to be the same as New York, New York. Nobody names a quasi-state after a saint; it's never happened in Northern Europe. In fact, I think it was only the Habsburgs who did that with the Spanish Empire. English Roman Catholics did not salute the Spanish Armada either. 68.110.9.62 11:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues with Mary Stuart being named an alternative if a reputable source can be found. - Akamad 11:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a dearth of accurate records of the colonies from American sources, save for the Pilgrims and Puritans. I'm afraid the true nature of the South is lost in time, since that land was not retained by the British and was practically destroyed in the Civil War. It is more the case of hostile and disinterested Northerners speculating as to the naming of Maryland, when Henrietta Maria had nothing to do with recusancy and Mary, Queen of Scots did. The truth will be lost forever, if it's just attitudes like yours that hold back consideration of all the factors involved. My problem with this is, that too many people use sources in an irresponsible manner. What if you see sources spreading obvious rumours around, like the reference to St. Mary? That exact circumstance has already been done before with the Maryland-related articles. I was blamed for it too, if you'll look to the subheading just above this one on my talk page. The weight of casual and misinformed accusations against me has been used to block me with false reason. Perhaps you can see how I have little respect where it is not given? I'm here to extend truth. 68.110.9.62 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I realise there is a lot of heated debate on this talk page, but I'm not going to get invloved in any of that. When it comes to the Maryland articles, I hope you can see my point that if sources such as the Library of Congress, Encarta, Maryland State Archives, Senator Barbara Mikulski's website amongst others state that Maryland was named after Henrietta Maria, there is no reason to delete it from the articles. - Akamad 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but I'll only agree if we can get a primary source of Charles's demand that it be named after his wife...instead of all these weightless rumours perpetuated as "reputable sources". 68.110.9.62 12:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we are going to find a source on that. But the sources I mentioned are in my opnion, "reputable sources". - Akamad 12:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See here: Talk:List_of_the_monarchs_of_the_Kingdom_of_England#Recent_edits. You'll notice that my appreciation for government stamps of approval went unheeded, like smacking my head against the wall. You'll have to understand that I will hold their expectations for others, if I am not allowed to do it. There can't be double-standards in the way we edit, with some privileged to defy consensus about primary sources. I've already been blocked over it, if you see my block log. I'd hate to see you make my mistake. 68.110.9.62 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to bed (I live in Australia), but I'll continue this discussion with you later. - Akamad 12:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If the British monarchs say what they say, then the article can mention that, along the lines of "The British monarchy states that...", this is what should be done if two conflicting sources are found. This should also be the case if sources can be found that dispute the Maryland issue. - Akamad 06:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem in this case is though, that would necessitate a whole alternative rewrite of the article...perhaps dividing the whole page in half. Or if one puts a reference to the Royal website, they will be confused by Wikipedians' perceptions of the monarchy and the officiated version. How does one begin to reconcile the collective preferences of Wikipedian editors, with essential workings of the state that derives its very image by the concept of constitutional monarchy? I was over-ruled in the cause of Royal Prerogative in the case of the issues, with what appeared to be a know-it-all attitude and of course it was me who was blocked for what they deemed ludicrous. It's not like they even considered the official website, as the article has not been updated to reflect any of it. These editors have a nigh Roundhead Parliamentary bias on monarchical progression and how it relates to national affairs. I don't dismiss the Royal website, or especially the Maryland one. The problem is, that many Wikipedians have taken it upon themselves to present an almost alternate reality of the circumstances. I agree with the source that depicted Charles as King of Great Britain, but it was the United Kingdom more importantly. You won't find Wikipedia agreeing with reality very often, since they think the UK derives from the British-Irish union and not the Anglo-Scottish one. The very fact that the "Union of the Crowns" occurred with James and not George, is a factor the Irish take into play when it comes to sovereignty. They never had much of their own power in deciding these things in the UK; it was all a Union of England and Scotland controlling them. That remains the case of Northern Ireland today. I am not the only one to have problems taking Wikipedia seriously when it completely distorts things like this. People say "United Kingdom" because it's a political emphasis on the joint relationship of England and Scotland as opposed to the bland "Great Britain". Then again, it is also the same with the "United States" and "America". To go short-form, the American colonists in 1776 referred to Great Britain and not the political aspect of the United Kingdom even as it already existed since 1603. During the earliest days of the colonies, people referred to the Americas and Americans rather than United States. We say UK and US now. Wikipedian editors have hacked minor details and twisted them into extremes of difference. This is driving me nuts! I really can't believe the prerogatives of many editors here. 68.110.9.62 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. - Akamad 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I always honour those honest individuals who are steadfast and true. 68.110.9.62 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --Nlu (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as in online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. (from Internet troll)

Big difference between trolling and giving people warnings for blatant personal attacks. If you can't be civil, you will be warned and blocked. The intent of warning you is to get you to calm down, not to upset you. If you're offended, that's your problem -- we are not trying to offend you by warning you about behavior that will earn you censure on the Wikipedia community.

Also:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. (from WP:VAND)

Putting warnings on your talk page is an attempt to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia by alerting you that your comments or edits are considered disruptive and destructive by the community. Removing those warnings is a form of vandalism.

We'd love to have you if you are willing to work with the community in a constructive manner. If you continue to be disruptive, particularly by making personal attacks, you will not be welcome here.

Hbackman 21:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 20:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.110.9.62.html"