Talk:History of the British Isles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too short

Is this article some sort of joke or something. It seems to have compressed 5,000 years of British history into two paragraphs. This hardly does the credibillity of the Wikipedia any good. G-Man 22:56, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Didn't you notice all the links to longish history articles? Stan 00:03, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Andreas D.C. 04:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC) is there any particular reason why the history of Britain stops with WW I ?

See 1066 and All That Spenny 22:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Series

I want to make a History of Britain Series, this is, of course quite impossible between England, Scotland and Ireland and their various pre-1600 histories. So... I was thinking of making a History of England Series ending at the Union of the Crowns, afterwhich History of Britain would come into affect. A history of Scotalnd will also be made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:History_of_England - this is a table I have come up with, not all of the articles linked to are satisfactory. If anyone thinks it's a good idea - I wouldn't mind some help/imput etc. --OldakQuill 19:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, fair enough but note that England and Scotland as political entities only exist between about 500 AD and 1700 AD. Before that History of Britain is a more appropriate title since the Angles lived in Europe and the Scots in Ireland. After that History of the United Kingdom would be more appropriate since Ireland is also involved. -- Derek Ross 21:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The bit about England being a dominant power appears to be POV.

Bobblewik 09:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Periods

Why is the Interregnum/Commonwealth not listed? It is a distinct, albeit brief, period.

Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[1] [2]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [3]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Architects

does any body know how you would go about finding out about a certain architect or builder in sunderland 1907. im trying to find out information on pallion primary school and have found out that a messrs vaux and mark were the architects and messrs clerey and charlton were the contractors. apparently it was the first venture for school buildings for both parties, that is all i found out ive drew a blank now.

Inaccurate name

This article should be renamed History of the British Isles. --Mal 13:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As if to support my above point, it transpires that the name change from 'Britain' to 'British Isles' was proposed by a British loyalist in the northeast of Ireland. Only the most naïve could deny the politically loaded statement that use of the term "British Isles" is really saying. And at this stage that are few who are so naïve on this issue. All that's left is the ultranationalist British who are never quite at home until they are claiming somebody else's country. And that's the entire purpose of an article with this title. 89.100.195.42 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be renamed History of Britain and Ireland --Damnbutter 12:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

... which is what the British Isles are! --Mal 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In the mind of the insecure bellowing loyalists on the fringe of the last remnant of the British colony in Ireland, of course everything is British because everything must be British. Difference from the natives is what is the protector of their position in Ireland. The day they become Irish like the rest of the population is the day that their privilege over the Irish dies. 89.100.195.42 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed move (i.e. to 'History of the British Isles'). It seems that no-one defends, or can explain, its current title. Using 'Britain' is bad enough in normal circumstances, but using it in the article title is indefensible. Bastin 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:89.100.195.42 is ironic in that the accusations he makes of "insecure bellowing" nationalists having a negative effect upon the article are quite accurate. However these nationalists are not remotely "loyalist" or motivated by any form of pro-British nationalism - they are of the pro-Irish (and in this instance anti-History) kind with himself as the most prominent of them. siarach 12:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening stanza

"The History of Britain, until the last few hundred years, was one of struggle and competition between the separate nation-states that occupied various parts of the island of Great Britain. England became the dominant power, coexisting with these nations at different times under the mantle of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom".

This is quite fanciful. Struggle and competition: British history was 99% non-struggle and competition, but growth, development, agriculture, advancement, literature, education and many other things; "England ... coexisting with these nations ..." is this to imply that England was Great Britain? Great Britain came into popular usage after the union of the English and Scottish crowns although there was never any doubt as to the name of the island. I think that this needs to be re-written, without bias and with a bit more thought. Enzedbrit 09:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another article reflecting British jingoism

What utter British imperialist tripe is an article under this heading. Of course it is only rabid British nationalists who propagate a myth of a "British nation" covering Ireland. As hard as you try, your nationalist myths and xenophobia regarding the Irish people and their rejection of British colonial occupation will continue to be futile. And it's not that you are intellectually challenged- or at least not simply that- because if there's one thing the world knows about the Irish it is that they reject in unison British colonial labels like this self-serving utterly fanatical "British Isles" raiméis. Muppets. You are all on the run- not least to Iraq for George W. Bush. You are the has-beens clinging on to a herrenvolk sense of nationhood over the "Paddies". You are servant boys for the neo-cons. You are excluded from Europe and dynamism with your ridiculously archaic measurements, monetary system and bitterness about the success of the EU. Ireland never has been and never will be a British Isle, and if you British recognised democracy you would accept the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Ireland on this issue. Maybe you would all like to call a vote in Ireland on whether the Irish want a return to British colonial occupation, or independence? That would expose your "Ireland is British" nationalistic delusions very quickly (and not at all for the first time). 'Delusional' doesn't cover you. 89.100.195.42 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ireland is and always has been and always will be a part of the British Isles - this is not a political or ethnic term but one of simple geography which predates the creation of a British state (and of course there is no such thing as a British ethnic group/race - unless you count the early pre-English ancestors of the Welsh,Cornish and Bretons) and this "controversy" over its use and the inclusionof Ireland is a modern invention. siarach 21:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

'is and always has been and always will be a part of the British Isles this is not a political or ethnic term'. Of course it isn't: it is simply coincidence that the British state invaded Ireland hammered the life out of the native Irish, dispossessed them all, transported thousands into indentured servitude and set up a Protestant Ascendancy for centuries that forced the natives to live under Penal Laws in complete subservience to the British masterrace and their imposed culture, language and law. No, there is clearly nothing political about "British Isles" at all. No connection at all! You benighted gobshite. 89.100.195.42 12:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate you on making sense right up until the insertion of a colon at which point you start gibbering nonsense and exposing yourself as the worst kind of rabid nationalist utterly incapable of objective,relevant or rational thought or appraisal of history and reality. siarach 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of a 'rabid nationalist utterly incapable of objective, relevant or rational thought...' it is interesting to note that our irredentist British poster, Siarach, is now in denial of British colonial rule and the division of Ireland along racist and sectarian lines by that same British rule. How swiftly these British nationalists work when their nationalist projects, such as the creation of the British state and its attempt to colonise Ireland, are shown for the sectarian discriminatory projects that they are. PS: As any educated person could tell our unionjack embracing correspondent, the Celtic world was divided into Q/Goidelic and P/Brythonic Celtic, the latter being British Celts who developed in Britain; the former being the section which developed in Ireland. Still, don't let historical fact interfere with the "We're all British" agenda of British nationalists like this Siarach fellow. 89.100.195.42 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ive denied nothing of the sort. I have, however, ignored most of what you have posted because it is utterly irrelevant. Quite why i punish myself by responding to trolls such as you i dont know but unless you surprise me by actually composing some kind of objective, pertinent response or argument against the already qualified use of the term "British Isles" for the British Isles i wont bother from now on as your determined agenda is quite detached from any kind of rational, neutral view of the term. siarach 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Link

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html?ex=1330750800&en=b9b6996d54ba5cc6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Shinobu 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper article

This should really be a proper article, describing the history of the British Isles in the same vein as History of Scandinavia does for its region. I will probably try to do that some time next month, but would prefer input from others. Bastin 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of article

User:Aatomic1 has blanked the article three times and redirected it to British Isles. He/she has claimed that this had been discussed "ad nauseum" however no such discussion has taken place on this talk page or the British Isles talk page. If a merger is/has been proposed, it should be discussed using appropriate procedure. sony-youth^pléigh 00:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has Aatomic1 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your bluster isn't quite as convincing as evidence would be. Sony-youth asked where this debate was: a request that I am repeating now. You have refused to tell us where it is. We can only conclude that it exists only in your mind. If you'd like to have it now, by all means, let's, but we all know what any rational debate would decide. Bastin 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sony-youth,Bastin. You have both contributed to the Talk: British Isles naming dispute and as such should be aware of the attempt to stop this particular spat extending to every page where there exists the words IONA, British Isles etc etc. I can see Bastin does take himself 100% seriously Aatomic1 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... I haven't been involved in that debate, actually. Nonetheless, I am aware of the POV-pushers that refuse to recognise the commonly-used English language term 'British Isles'. I am also aware of the Wikipedia policy that dictates that your supposed 'solution' by deleting the article is vandalism. Bastin 15:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the "spat" and created the template that 83.71.245.185 (Aatomic1?) placed on this page. I proposed the 'sub-page solution' for the main British Isles article talk page. I think its noteworthy that an editor from each 'side' of the "spat" is questioning your blanking of this article. I am unaware of any discussion to merge History of the British Isles and British Isles articles. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may respond to Bastin first. I did not blank the article; I transferred the article to History of Britain which I believe is the name under which the current article was originally created. If there has been any vandalism it must be the person who subsequently blanked that article - Bastin...er that is you isn't it?.

In response to Sony-youth. I have picked up on Bastin's tongue in cheek comments, which you obviously have not. The fact that you and Bastin are involved tells me one thing -that he is brighter than you. Aatomic1 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic, as I pointed out on your talk page (although, since you have a habit of removing and editing my comments there, maybe you passed over it), you blanked this article:

• 19:52, 4 May 2007
• 20:09, 4 May 2007
• 01:42, 5 May 2007
• 08:47, 5 May 2007

Bastin has never blanked the article, as the history shows.

You're right, I have missed Bastin's tongue in cheek comment. Bastin, what was it? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• 17:52, 4 May 2007
• 23:45, 4 May 2007. You missed these as well Aatomic1 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC) PS Change the incorrect time above will you - I dont want you whinging about me doing it.

That's a different article. I reverted your edit because you merely copied and pasted from this article and incompetently and incompletely removed references to Ireland. That isn't constructive. Bastin 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

22:02 28 August 2006 No I think you will find that it is this article. I reverted that edit because it merely copied and pasted from this article and incompetent and incomplete references to Ireland were added. That isn't constructive.Aatomic1 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And that article had already been moved here. Why would you unilaterally decide to move it back? However, the History of Britain article currently redirects here. Would it not be better to redirect it to the History of the United Kingdom, which is where History of Great Britain is directed to as well? (Don't know what you mean about "incorrect times", Aatomic, they're the times I see here - different times zones maybe? If it bothers you post the 'correct times' and I'll change it.) --sony-youth^pléigh 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do Aatomic1 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For exactly the same reason as your Unilateral move. ( Glad to see we are all here together Aatomic1 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

excuse me...burp Aatomic1 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Add link

Can someone add Tudor re-conquest of Ireland in the links section?--Shtove 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Have done so, please comment if the positioning is unsuitable. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline template

I've created a timeline template of the History of the British Isles. My plan is to put it into that article, like the timelines of Irish State in the Irish states since 1171 article. I'm sure there plenty of mistakes, although I've deliberately left out some states/people for simplicity's sake. The "events" I've added are also obviously "Hiberno-centric", so would like the imput of other's to settle what other events should to be added. General comments are also welcome. Since the table is fairly complicated, if people want leave suggestions for events and things they would like changed on the templates talk page, I'll add them. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the addition of this template is not what the dispute was about, and does not appear to be contentious in itself, I've added it with a new heading. Please raise any comments or requests here or on the template's talk page. .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

The article was protected as a temporary measure to enforce a "cool down" period to stop an edit war. Since there has been no discussion for a while I would hope that the protection can now be lifted – if anyone feels the issue is still unresolved, please make the case here. If agreement is not reached, the dispute resolution process will be appropriate, and a renewal of edit warring will not be accepted. Any comments? .. dave souza, talk 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Have reverted back to original Article. I have Wikipedia:Content forking issues (with ironic thanks to Bastin8 for helping me articulate that one). I have been accused of vandalism by both Bastin8 and Sony and the article was reverted and blocked as opposed to being simply blocked. I would love a go at dispute resolution process Aatomic1 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Before dispute resolution lets try to resolve this between ourselves. My issue with the move is as follows:

• Britain and the British Isles are two difference concepts. Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not included in Britain, but are included in the British Isles.
• "History of Britain" is more suitable for the history of the United Kingdom or of Great Britain.
• At present History of Great Britain redirects to History of the United Kingdom, original this had struck me as appropriate but looking though the article just now, I don't think that it is, and a seperate article should be developed there.
• "History of Britain" would be more-or-less synonymous with "History of the United Kingdom" in present-day common (and historical) usage of both terms.
• There is a dearth of truely British Isles history on the page at present but this should be resolved by developing the article, not by redirecting it to somewhere misleading.

In short my proposals are as follows:

• Redirect "History of Britain" to "History of the United Kingdom"
• Develop the "History of the British Isles" to something that more appropriately reflects the British Isles, not (essentially) solely Britian.
• I do not think that it is appropriate to develop "History of Britain" as a seperate article to "History of the United Kingdom" as in common (and historical) parlance the two words are synonymous.
• I think that it is appropriate to develop a seperate "History of Great Britain" (of "History of Britain") as it would be better treated there as opposed to its present situation in the "History of the United Kingdom". --sony-youth^pléigh 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have two Bible text books Chronicle of Britain ISBN 1 872031 35 8; and The Penguin Atlas of British & Irish History ISBN 0 140 29518 6. The first mentioned textbook subsequently states Chronicle of Britain incorporating a Chronicle of Ireland. I have one dictionary (Chambers ISBN 0 550 140000 X). The entry immediately following British Gum (dextrin) is British Plate (a kind of German silver). This article was started life as the History of Britain; it was redirected to the History of the British Isles and was subsequently changed back by myself. This has resulted in knee-jerk reverts and accusations by yourself and Bastin8 of vandalism; an accusation which, by my reading of the relevant wikipolicy is without foundation.

As the political correct debate stands at the moment I believe the above named publications deal with the issue as Wikipedia should; leave it out of headings in the historical arena to minimise offence. Aatomic1 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, the you would like the article moved to History of Britain (incorporating History of Ireland)? But at least both your "bibles" (a Penguin atlas of history is a surprising "bible" - does it have many pictures?) maintains that Britain and Ireland are two different entities - the atlas, I presume, is of British and Irish history, and the chronicles (of Narnian proportions, no doubt) are of Britian and Ireland, respectively.

My heartiest congratulations on owning one dictionary. I salute you, sir. Now onward to dispute resolution process. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

After a rather sudden knee-jerk reaction, I've looked back over your last sentence above (which I had glossed over in fury before writing the reply above.) Are you proposing this move as a solution to the British Isles/Ireland issue? I think you may have misread the situation - putting Ireland in "Britain" would be ten times worse than putting her in "British Isles." --sony-youth^pléigh 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope my editing will explain where I am comming from. I am trying not to mix apples and pears. I would suggest removing The Emergency' and Celtic Tiger from your timeline. Possibly you could then add, say Calais (1347 - 1558) and possibly additions to the British Empire. A similar timeline would be helpful in the History of Ireland - as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Aatomic1 09:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As Sony says, "History of Britain" is clearly inappropriate as a title for a history of the entity most commonly known as the British Isles. Discussion about alternative name proposals is welcome, but names must comply with Wikipedia naming guidelines, not whatever bibles someone has in their house. .. dave souza, talk 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How does it not comply with naming Guidlines? Aatomic1 12:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A timeline of Irish states is here. The timeline on this page is specifically of the British Isles (GB, IRE, IoM and CI), so Calais doesn't fit. A similar one about "Britain" - and later its Empire - would be interesting. Maybe a timeline of states headed by the British monarch (starting with English? or 1066? not sure how to handle 1603, what direction would it come from?) would be a way to approach this. It would be a lot of work, but if there is strong interest, certainty that it would be used, and others are willing to provide places, dates and transitions, I'd consider doing it (since I've some experience having done two at this stage.) Likewise, if one would be requested for the UK, England (including Wales, I guess) or Scotland, I wouldn't mind, but I would need help with English dynasties, which I presume would be important.

RE: the Emergency, personally I believe its a very defining period in post-independence Anglo-Irish relations, so I wouldn't like to take it out. What's the opinion of others? RE: The Celtic tiger, possibly it is too early to say if this is truly historic (it hasn't been written about historically, and is a current event, more or less), but it does represents the first substantive period of wealth in Ireland in over 200 years and only the second in nearly a millennium. Its consequence for the society and politics of Ireland is undoubtable. It also marks the end of a 150-year period of immigration from Ireland (at the last census - 2006 - in fact), and thus represents the end of the famine in many ways. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• My Afd would probably read something like this We already have a History of the UK; a History of Ireland; a History of Jersey; a History of Guernsey. Why do we need a History of the British Isles and what extra does it bring to the encyclopedia? Aatomic1 14:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. And the "article" isn't really a "History of the British Isles" - its a collection of links to various main articles on different aspects of it. I don't know if this is allowed on WP. I don't personally see the harm, but it should at the very least be cleaned up and organised. Writing a real history of the British Isles would be an arduous task - the main British Isles page attempts, but give only a cursory summation of the reasons for the rise and fall of polities on the British Isles in chronological order. I wouldn't like to see the page go, but as it stands I can't see any reasons for it except that it could serve as a point of origin to hold the "series" template together (the template is too small to really show the history) - but I genuine think it could be useful for that. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with "Regents: ..."

Opposed

1. Oppose Every other list of regents (see Annotated list of regents) takes the form of the current Regents: British Isles. It would only add another list to this article which is already a messs. What else would merge? List of Monarch of the British Isles? List of Prime Ministers? List of Governments? List of Political Parties? Its a bizarre proposal and I don't see what the point would be. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose I am a bit new to this, so apologies if I am speaking out of turn. This seems silly. I also went and checked the link in the suggested merger proposal at the top of the article and it is a very incomplete list. Surely though an article called "history of the British Isles" is more than just a set of lists of monarchs or chieftans or whatever and ought to be discoursive? LiberalViews 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Speedy close this. There is no such article in WP: namespace only a redirect to a user page. Jooler 08:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Orignial research in introduction

I have changed this line in the intro:

Additionally, since the independence of Ireland, historians of the region often avoid the term British Isles due to the complexity of relations between the peoples of the archipelago (see: British Isles (terminology)).

to this:

Due to the complexity of relations between the peoples of the archipelago, there are a number of alternative terms to British Isles (see: British Isles (terminology)).

That "historians of the region often avoid the term" is Original Research, based on a number of different factors. "often" is the wrong type of word here, and an 'act of avoidance' could be arguable too: somebody may simply choose to say "Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles" for example - are they avoiding it due to complexites.."? Withought better data, we need only say that there are a number of alternative terms, and give a link to BI terminology.

The word "historian" can sometimes be misleading. For example, does a polemical text by a sociologist perhaps, offering alternatives because the term is disliked, equate to an historian avoiding the term?

Of the two famous recent histories: Kearney mentions that the terms is objected to, but calls his book "British Isles", and uses the term for modern society, while Norman Davies calls his book "the Isles" and avoids the term in the main text. We need more data about genuine historians to confidently say "historians often avoid using the term due to complexities."--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge options

Shouldn't this timeline be in British Isles? Either that or much of the history form there moved to here.

If this is just a timeline and it remains here, it should be called something like "Timeline of the history of the British Isles", "Timeline of British Isles history", or "Timeline of the British Isles".--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've just pointed out on British Isles talk, another alternative is to merge British Isles terminology into the Birtish Isles article, and have serious separate history and dispute articles. Having 4 articles is simply too much. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars

We know have assaults on three pages (British Isles, this one and Terminology) by Matt and Tharky to make changes that they know are controversial and should be discussed first. Can this please stop and discussion be centralised in one place. Given the knowledge the two editors have of the history of this issue is pretty close to valdalism --Snowded TALK 03:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell have I done? I could report you for that, given the crap I've had from you. I made one single purely compromising edit to the IPs edit on British Isles Terminology. The IP copied word for word the compromising edit that Rockpocket managed to make on BI. But for me (and Rockpocket too), it was only a compromise to build upon. Why should it be copied verbatim to BI Terminology? You called it a "logical" move, but reverted to before the IP's edit (ie you removed all the new changes -2- after the standing edit, as you so often do) which was fine by me, although I tend to try and build on things myself. One edit is all I made, and to just the one BI article (all I've edited at BI in at least a week). How can you 'edit war' with one edit? So why another "Matt" attack? Everywhere I go now I feel you are going to pour scorn on me, and I've hardly even edited the past week! IP's are IPs and trolls and trolls - but the way you (a relatively 'straight' editor as things go) have gone after me in the last couple of months is appalling - whatever you think of my various reponses to it. I can't do a bloody thing without some kind of dig or counter-motion from you (even when it's pointless doing so), and your judgement can be just awful Snowded - it's really, really poor sometimes, like you left your brain on the plane. All you've done is made Wikipedia even more unappealing for me, even now when I'm hardly editing. I see your name now and my heart just sinks. "pretty close to vandalism"? - that comment is far too close to trolling. You really should look at yourself every now and again. Your 'telltale' teacher's pet distorted-lenses, sometimes even 'flying toy' approach to Wikipedia is a complete trainwreck for another adult to see. I can see no rationality in your approach to the edit table at all. We all have a right to make edits - even difficult editors like Tharkuncoll, whatever all those recent edits to BI are - I haven't read them all through, but I did noticed that you recently backed-up a well-known banned user's substantial edits to BI. A little hypocritical, no? You then go to an admin supporting the return of the multi-socking 'Wikipéire', while you make this clear attack on two openly British editors! (and being British is just about all we have in common I can assure you). Now why would you do that? I'm entitled to wonder, am I not? What is it that all these articles have in common? You may not have much tolerance for open mention of the 'n' word - but I'll tell you now that what you really want to bring about is very unlikely to happen, because the polls that matter in our democracy are not in tiny controlled situations like you find on Wikpiedia, they are in the fresh air of real life. And the whole issue should have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia anyway. I can leave here with my head held high, as I can honestly say that I haven't tried to corrupt this place once, despite all the crap I've heard the past weeks from various IPs, cross-eyed desperado's and, frankly, agenda-obsessive over-competitive power trippers. Thank you so much for giving me the perfect opportunity to get that off my chest.--Matt Lewis (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OTT Matt, we see parallel changes on three pages to a previously agreed position. This has got nothing to do with being pro or anti British its to do with not arbitrarily changing things but using the talk page and not indulging in personal attacks just because someone has the temerity to disagree with you. I have talked to an admin about conditions under which a sock puppet might be rehabilitated to Wikipedia and if he is then he wouldn't be fir the first to prove a useful editor. You might also remember I suffered as much from him as you did on Wales and elsewhere so I hardly support his positions. --Snowded TALK 09:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What "parallel changes"? That just sounds 'plausible' but is rubbish! The lecturer's "we" just makes it sound authorititive too. And you have the gall to call me OTT after writing the above! Where have I changed anything simply for disagreeing with me? All my edits are policy based and explained - If you can be bothered to look above you, you will see where I fully explained my edit in here of a week ago: that is the length I go to too explain things. If you ever read the BI archives you will see the countless thousands of words I've written explaining myself. There is nothing "arbitrary" about any of my work. Would you now defend any old IP address over me? I'm entitled to revert a change I don't like - and I did it, once. Is your "back to normal" edit somehow more 'worthy' than my slight tinkering of an IP's? No. I've simply done nothing wrong (and nothing much in fact) - you just wanted to have a public attack at Tharkuncoll and myself, and for a reason best known to yourself right now. It was just totally uncalled for. And in talking about "temerity" you are starting to sound like the trolling IP I've been plagued by recently - just a general meaningless dig at someone who has given everything he's got to work within Wikipedias rules, and nobody else's. It's been work work work.

About Wikipeire (which is very serious, more than you seem to understand) - would you really want 20-sock-plus Wikipeire back if he just happened to be British? If he didn't support your view of not using 'Republic of Ireland', and of breaking up Britain in general too? I can't understand the sudden 'open hand' in the face of everything. Those who seriously disagree with you on Wikipedia get the Snowded we see at the top of this section. Reading your initial offer of help to him, I notice he had a dig at "Matt" for chasing him, while accepting your help. Hardly a good sign, is it? Can you trust someone who professed to being "confused" why someone would chase down a cynical puppetmaster (as did I - when I did all that work to bring him to light)? His mention of my name at that point looked very much like one user winking at another to me. And with Wikipeire, you are not just getting just one vote, you are getting a handful. Just imagine I wasn't there to chase him? He would have a group of established puppets by now. He wasn't just socking in a retrospective sense - he was socking along with his latest socks. You or Alison don't seem to have fully understood that, Alison sees him as a good editor gone bad, and on some other editor's word I think. But where are his good edits? Unless she knows more than I do about what he did throughout 2007 while he was Melvo, I can't really see any at all - the Editors indie band was his outside interest. You should really be asked to prove why he is so valuable to Wikipedia. And what a poor precedent to set for a subject already so plagued by trolling IP's! If you move on to re-habilitating Gold heart and Wotapalaver you'll never lose a poll again, that much is for sure. I don't know what Alison is thinking of (less work at SSP perhaps) - but I'd be amazed if it was passed by arbcom given the people he's pissed off. And when he finally gets caught cheating - the damage will be done, and it's back to square one. All the mentoring time etc completely wasted. And mentored people actually have extra levels of protection too - it's like a safety net, and he's guaranteed to push it as people do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt I have read the countless words you have written on Wikipedia explaining yourself (probably one of the few). I have also worked with you on several pages. I am happy to discuss changes here. On Wikipeire if you read my suggested conditions for his return you will see they are harsh. I do think he's a potentially good editor gone bad and worth redeeming. I could well be wrong, but I would prefer to fail a few times and be shown to have been naive than condemn him for ever. The accusation that this is being done to win votes is a clear nonsense and unworthy of you. OK I realise you get frustrated and need to vent and I can live with it given all the good and detailed work you do, but I really do wish you would contain the accusations a bit

I'm not merely venting steam - sometimes you see my name on the edit list and you simply see red. There are a number of times (like above) where you clearly haven't read my comments. You may have read a number, but I simply know for a fact you don't follow them all (and I wouldn't expect you to either). But less haste would be nice at times - you too often have a go at me (and in a tone that suggests I have major flaws as an editor). If you think that I have got at you first, that is neither here nor there. I don't mind being called variations that essentially mean 'too abrasive' - but you have rather unsubtly moved on from that to question the nature of my edits, which is outrageous of you. I may be too frank at times, but my edits and manner of editing are perfectly fine. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that MattLewis' edit on the Terminology page was another classic and left the sentence as a grammatical nonsense.."and the Irish government has also discourages its usage". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) And the edit on this page was one where MattLewis knows that the text he removed can be endlessly supported by citation. Oh dear. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Less of the ganging up, Wotapalaver. "Endlessly supported by citation" is a new one for you - you normally repeat "many many many" like a child. One "many" would do me - but we simply don't have 'many' citations in support of presenting your favoured position as pure undisputed fact - so that ugly thing the 'English language' has to be used to explain fairly what evidence we do have. (excuse my foul mouth in using the word "fairly"). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so there are only "many many many" references. Of course to claim that the fact is disputed you'd have to produce some that argue in the opposite direction. Still waiting. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)