User talk:TharkunColl

Seeing as there's a combined list article List of monarchs in the British Isles, why are you so anxious to have a List of English and British monarchs created? GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list is truly awful, confusing, and confused. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present info simply and concisely, not befuddle the reader. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article survived an AfD over a year ago (not sure). Remember, the British monarchs are equally successors to the English & Scottish monarchs. My goodness, the British monarchs have Scottish & English royal blood - they're combined genetically aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetically the British monarchs are mostly German. You keep asserting that the union is equal but you have not provided a shred of evidence. The English state dominated the union. Why is this obvious fact of history so difficult for you to grasp? What's the capital of the UK, London or Edinburgh? That is just one example of a myriad of similar questions I could ask. TharkunColl (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying there's an English primacy feel to the UK (Elizabeth II tends to be called 'Queen of England', but never 'Queen of Scotland'). As I've said earlier, if you can get a consensus for your proposed changes, I won't revert - but as it looks now, the consensus is 'leave lists alone'. Ya know, things would've been alot easier if Elizabeth I of England had married and bore children. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah we might never have got to take over Scotland then. Much better to trick them into thinking that their monarch becomes King of England, then a hundred years later boot out his descendants and bring in a bunch of Germans who can't even speak English and so are easy to control. TharkunColl (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna let others respond to your English takeover agrument, as we're not convincing each other. All we're doing is taking up 'talk page space' with our 'tug-of-war' discussion. It's only fair of me, as the consensus currently backs my argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a peek at discussion at James I of England, an editor there prefers that article be moved to James VI of Scotland (which I oppose). GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Thark. Is this just a seasonal visit, to brighten these short Winter days - or ... dare I wish ... will you be round all year long?? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - I might stick around for a bit! TharkunColl (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wundered: Did George's succession to the British throne (1714), bring about the saying By George, I think he's got it? GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It may be something to do with Saint George, patron saint of England since the Middle Ages. Anyway I'm off out now. Catch you later. TharkunColl (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be outvoted, and have now reached your 3RR limit as well I'm afraid

I'm afraid that's not how wikipedia works, my friend. You will need to provide actual reasoning. In lieu of psychic abilities, I have no reason to change my opinion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, you can make no more reversions. Why don't you wait and see how it turns out? It's still under construction at the moment. TharkunColl (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want an unstable article then? I suggest you take the opportunity to make some sense on the talk page, where I have opened up some discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've shown an interest in this matter, would you like to comment atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)? Michael Sanders 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fascinating man. Do you know The Regicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson? It's focus is John Cooke, but he has some fascinating insights on how English-speaking political tradition still won't own Cromwell. Yet, as you say, he abolished absolutism forever.--Gazzster (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that one. But yes, Cromwell deserves a better place in British, even world history. He was the first person ever to draw up a written constitution for a state, which is ironic since we are the only country that doesn't have one now - which I think is a very good thing, incidentally. TharkunColl (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good for Britain, I'd agree (not having lived there, though my mum was British). Although isn't there a debate in Britain about a possible danger of parliamentary absolutism? I think it works in general because Britain has had centuries to work it out; you've had civil wars and revolutions, Runnymede, de Montfort, etc. In newer nations, like my own, only a written constitution can work.--Gazzster (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that a written constitution inhibits democracy. Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it likes, but it is constrained from acting tyrannically by centuries of convention. When Ted Heath refused to resign as PM in 1974 after losing the general election and attempted to continue governing, he was literally laughed out of office by the media and threatened with the sack by the Queen. His attempt lasted mere days. TharkunColl (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald III was also a contemporary of William Rufus, King of England - or in his own language, Guillaume le Roux. Or how about the former English king, still very much alive in the 1090s, Eadgar Æþeling - or in modern form, Edgar the Atheling. Or does your policy only extend to speakers of Celtic languages? And if so, when does it become no longer appropriate? The Bruces and Stewarts were certainly not Celts (in fact they had mostly Norman ancestry and spoke English), yet you had Gaelic versions of their names. You even had a Gaelic version of the name of William of Orange! How is this possibly useful or justified? TharkunColl (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are confusing different issues. The Gaelic names of all Scottish kings, not put there by me (although I reformatted them), were there because Gaelic is and was a major language of the Scottish kingdom at all periods. That has nothing to do with this topic, and is a entirely different consideration from native names for the Gaelic kings of Alba, used by almost all historians who write about them today. As for the descent of the Bruces and Stewarts, if you take the kings and trace their actual ancestry, you'll realise your belief comes from cultural fallacy, that of Agnatic seniority. As for language, we don't know that they adopted English until the 14th century. All of this is not relevant to this discussion though. And blatant irrelevancies such as these, by diverting energy and distracting from issues, can only hamper progress here, as I've learn through experience on wiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic is not a major language of Scotland and hasn't been for many hundreds of years. Indeed it was never a majority language and only rose to promince because it was the language spoken by the early kings, after they had conquered the Picts. The Bruces and Stewarts were Norman by ancestry because they inherited Norman attitudes and culture. And since the 14th was when they came to power your assertion that that was when English became the language of the kings fits exactly. TharkunColl (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic is not a major language of modern Scotland, but it was a major language of the Scottish kingdom for all of its existence, the majority language language before the 15th cent, and the only major language before the 12th century. This is not relevant here though, as the issue you're pursuing concerns the Scottish monarchs page and isn't editorially related to this discussion.

Gaelic is not a major language of modern Scotland, but it was a major language of the Scottish kingdom for all of its existence, the majority language language before the 15th cent, and the only major language before the 12th cent. Regarding the emergence of English as the language of the kingdom's elite, that's a complex historical topic. It's emergence in the 14th cent. probably owes more to the decline of French because of insularization and the decline of aristocratic links with French-speaking England, rather than the histories of those family. Scotland had acquired and integrated since the 11th cent. a large English-speaking region (known then as "Lothian"), and scores of pockets of English-speakers resided in enclaves throughout other parts of what became Lowland Scotland. Both the Stewarts and Bruces came to Scotland directly from France, and it's more likely in the Stewart case at least that they were characterised for the first two centuries by French-Gaelic bilingualism or French-Gaelic-English trilingualism, not English monolingualism. Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith, 3rd generation Stewart, used the Gaelic nickname Ballach ("the freckled) in letters to the Pope, and that part of Kyle (a totally Gaelic speaking area) ruled by Walter II was called (in an English-speaking (!) Latin source), "Walter Og's Kyle" ... Og meaning "the younger" or "little", distinguishing him from Walter I fitz Alan! In summary, the early Stewarts in Scotland seem to have been at least partially nativized (in Gaelic culture), the fate of Norman aristocratic settlers everywhere. And even in the fourteenth century, if you read anything about Robert II and his family, you'll realise that that monarch was as Gaelic as any other magnate whose lands were primarily based in the West Highlands and Firth of Clyde. While non-aristocratic church guys of burghess decent like Barbour and Wyntoun led the charge of English in late 14th century Scotland, Robert II was producing sons like Alasdair Mór mac an Rígh, the "Wolf of Badenoch", while Gaelic medicinal and superstitious tracts were being written in the margins of Stewart owned manuscripts. So it is not quite as simple as you seem to think. Anyways, this is all irrelevant to this discussion, and is distracting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please might I add my POV here, as the above really is a POV and little else and is largely not supported by pre-Second World War academics. It is well established that both the Bruces and the Stewards came to Scotland from England. It is just ludicrous to suggest they by-passed England and came directly from Normandy. Doubtless this is yet another rewriting of history by the ultra-pro-Scottish-nationalist brigade of writers but its pathetic. I can't be bothered arguing with the language issue. My family were well established in the Lowlands before the 14th century when English was well-established amongst virtually the entire population of the Lowlands with some Norman-French being spoken by the educated classes. All these attempts to turn established history on its head does Wikipedia no credit whatsoever. David Lauder (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Bruce links with England before Henry I's invasion of Normandy in 1106 have been debunked since the war. Since you didn't even believe Professor Archie Duncan on this, you'll never believe any one. As for the Stewarts, they demonstrably came to Britain in the same reign ... but so far as I know no proto-Stewart was ever invented to put them here earlier other than Fleance and Banquo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your (and Archie's) POV. The Bruces were firmly established with lordships and manors in England before one of them came north. When the countless dozens of pre-war historians, most of whom had strings of credentials, are proven to be national frauds then I (and everyone else) might sit up and look. In Scotland it is easy to get really good posts because the population is tiny. Archie might have had more difficulty elsewhere in landing his plum jobs. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't him that debunked it, he was just repeating and agreeing with it. No evidence for Bruce presence in Britain before Henry predates the 16th cent. ... and England in the 11th and 12th cent. has exhaustive records. Slagging off one of Britain's senior historians whom no modern historian disagrees with on this matter because of this matter really won't work. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "slag him off" just made a couple of pertinent points. Both Sir James Balfour Paul and Sir Thomas Innes were great scholars in their fields but countless people sl;ag them off. No academic is beyond question whatever his job. The College of Arms in London has copious MSS of the Bruces in Yorkshire prior to the Robert decamping for Scotland. I cannot recall the exact dates. I took notes. I suppose I could find them if I tried. There is not one single credible reason why anyone in France would go directly to Scotland at that time. Even Dalrymple said it was barbaric. I do not accept for one minute monstrous generalisations such as "no modern historian". Unless you can prove to every Wikipedian that you know them all personally. Hundreds (thousands?) of them. Please don't try and put others down with that kind of silly statement. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Bruces in Britain before Henry I's invasion of Normandy; the train of events which brought them to Britain are well known - they were locals who helped Henry out in Normandy and were rewarded. It appears from modern reconstructions that Henry brought David to Normandy in his campaign ... David had some kind of lordship over the Cotentin peninsula, and the Bruces became senior in David's French following; David has no following which had spent more than a generation in England ... i.e. they were all new men. They were petty barons who came to Scotland when David did and received a lordship the size of an earldom (I think that would be more than enough to come to Scotland), and some smaller estates in England. Robert I fell out with David because of The Anarchy, was deprived on his "Scottish" possessions, which were given to his son; and you know the rest. No pre-Henrican Bruce existed until they were invented in the 16th cent. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know they came into Scotland with David. No-one is disputing that at all. The dispute is where a claim was made that they came directly from Normandy to Scotland, bypassing England. The Bruces were given lordships and built at least one castle (Skelton) in England prior to Robert going to Scotland and possibly that explains why most of them continued to be buried in England long after they acquired their Scottish possessions. It is also entirely debateable that the exact measurements of a possible grant of lands in Scotland was made by David to Robert de Brus prior to their arrival up here. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TharkunColl, you may without knowing have violated WP:3RR, and I have listed your actions on the appropriate page. I don't really care whether or not you have cross the 3RR line, but may I say that your confrontational approach to editing and unwillingness to discuss things is unacceptable in a co-operative consensus based project like wikipedia. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I made an edit. Then I reverted 3 times after that. The first one was not a revert (I have myself in the past been informed that this is the rule when I tried to complain about someone else). TharkunColl (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it alright now? Michael Sanders 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. You have to be careful because columns can be distorted very easily. TharkunColl (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's new developments at Template: Scottish Monarchs, take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very sensible solution. Create a new template for the Picts. TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you've been warned already about rude comments barely a month ago, I would suggest you stop commenting on this page altogether - you clearly don't have any interest in editing the page itself currently (you last edited a page related to the topic on 25 August 2007 ([2]), and seem to be solely causing trouble. Comments such as [3], [4] and [5] are childish, baiting, and offensive. I have blocked you for 2 weeks to give you time to think about your future conduct. I was only going to block you for 24 hours before I noticed in your block log you have already been blocked for trolling Talk:Muhammad before ([6]). As this clearly had no effect, a longer block may do the trick. Neıl ☎ 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also would have refused this unblock request. You have been doing the same thing at the Muhammad page for too long. The blocks will only get longer in the future. We require a civil editing environment to allow for the level of collaboration we need. 1 != 2 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Tharky promised to leave the Muhammed page alone, would that get his block shortened? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a block is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, so if he promises to stay off the Muhammad page there should be no reason not to unblock him. I also don't see why he should be blocked for asking about Islam's view of paedo-ism, seeing as by our modern view of the issue, muuhammad married a woman far under the age where she could give full consent, or even be anywhere near physical maturity. Merkinsmum 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to cast any judgements on the severity of the block, but preventative is the operative word here. Thark has been a serial disruptor across numerous Wikipedia articles and/or talk pages; this example is just one of many. His self-induced "break" has obviously not been long enough for him to fully reflect on the consequenses of his actions. --G2bambino (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the block is to prevent TharkunCoil knowingly baiting Islamic editors on Talk:Muhammad. It will prevent him doing so for at least two weeks, and if he returns to doing so a longer block will be imposed to prevent him again. That is not punitive. Neıl ☎ 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the ruling now, Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to block specific editors from editing specific articles? Wouldn't that work best? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware there is no specific way to block someone from an article. What has occured is people are banned from editing an article, usually by the arbcom. When this happens, any violations of the ban will usually result in a warning or perhaps a direct block regardless of whether or not the edit was constructive. This is AFAIK particular rare in talk pages of articles which is what this concerns (although it may have happened before). However the best solution here is for TharkunColl to either reform and contribute constructively to said articles, or if he/she is unable or unwilling to do so, he/she can go into self imposed exile from the article/s in question. Being blocked or banned is a serious thing and ideally we should not have to impose either Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is impolite for User:G2bambino to come here and gloat at User:TharkunColl. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloat? Besides the obvious point that my words in no way show any reveling in your present circumstances, I was just recently blocked myself; why, then, would I gloat? To the contrary, I was pointing out, in contrast to your friend Merkinsmum's evaluation, that, in my experience, your approach to editing at Wikipedia has been, to put it lightly, almost consistently troublesome, despite a few glimmers of collegiality here and there. That's all. --G2bambino (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, mate. How could you resist commenting on the misfortune of your archenemy? I've seen you guys carry on. You goad him on as much as he does you.--Gazzster (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for. Sorry.--Gazzster (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Gazzster, everyone, how about we all stop goading? 1 != 2 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been blocked, I must be very boring lol:) Merkinsmum 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have to be a bit more careful this time I think. TharkunColl (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the blocks will get looooooooonger and longer otherwise, and you'd have to use a computer in a library to come on with a new improved sockpuppet account solely for evil lol.:|) Merkinsmum 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - or something like that. TharkunColl (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, welcome back Tharky.--Gazzster (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TharkunColl (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say Tharky, are ya sure that's a good idea? going around the Muhammad page again? Anyways, there's discussions going on about possible moving of some monarch pages, take a pick. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which monarchs? TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check my latest contributions, they'll lead you the way. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Richard I of England, William I of England, William II of England, Philip II of France, Frederick II of Prussia etc. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through and to be honest I have no strong opinions either way. My only suggestion would be to never give a monarch a number if he himself would not recognise that number. TharkunColl (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Also, I've made my first (and only) comment at the Muhammed page. Hopefully, my atheism will calm the waters there. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly suggest you reword your announcement, and especially the header. Pairadox (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? If not, please feel free to edit what I wrote in any way that you think will uphold NPOV. TharkunColl (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to edit another person's comments and merely offer suggestions instead. How would you feel about

Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed.

-- Pairadox (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK done it. TharkunColl (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pairadox (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your subpage to Talk:Muhammad/images which was the established title we had been using until it got archived and redirected to Talk:Muhammad. I'm sure you can understand why "censorship requests" is not a helpful title although in many cases it would be accurate. In the cases where it is not accurate we should not be belittling our editors just because they wish to discuss the images and in the cases where it is accurate we would not create pages where users are specifically meant to discuss issues that go against Wikipedia policy. gren グレン 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the sections that are active. Please remove only the sections that say nothing but "remove images" and created by unestablished users. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tharky, my ahtiest comment & my notice of Lamest War nomination both got erased during the day. Things sure are nasty on that discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my own remarks keep getting deleted as well. TharkunColl (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it - you were blocked for this previously, if you have nothing constructive to add on talkpages don't edit them. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wrong to state that one holds freedom of speech sacred? In what way is that baiting? TharkunColl (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that requires you to make some crack about "any old 'prophet'"? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? In reference to your edit summary, please explain what it is precisely that you find offensive about upholding freedom of speech. TharkunColl (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tharkun, one more baiting comment on the Muhammad talkpage or any related topic and I will block you for three months. Don't even try and claim dismissing him as any old "prophet" wasn't baiting. You know it was, I know it was. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - you don't like Islam, we get it - there are plenty of places you can go and express your dislike. This is not one of them. I hoped that the past block showed I was serious on this. I strongly suggest you don't post anything on any Islam-related subjects as it's pretty clear you're unable to control yourself. Neıl ☎ 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Tharky, it's best you stay away from the Muhammad article. It's not worth getting a 3-month block over. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO T.C., if you find dhimmitude to be offensive, just think of the Nordicist blanket you want to suffocate the British under, by boxing in their character as derived from foreign invaders who suppressed their way of life through paganist nonsense. You do no better than Sharia. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry "Lord Loxley", but I have no idea what you're talking about. TharkunColl (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, everybody is "Lord Loxley" and you feel free to disrespect everybody. Your hypocrisy will get you. Enjoy it! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody is Lord Loxley, just you. The style and length of your rants, and their incoherent, loony subject matter, gives you away a mile off. TharkunColl (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that you will never give up your tendentious edit warring with everybody who comes your way, regardless of who they are, always on subjects related to the monarchy and muhammad. I await your permanent banning, mister know-it-all. Your zealotry is giving me an erection. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]