User talk:Lancashire Druid

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lancashire Druid! I am Dougweller and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles"[edit]

Hi, Lancashire Druid, and welcome to Wikipedia! You've probably worked out by now that "British Isles" is a hot topic round these parts. In the past some editors have systematically either added or removed the term "British Isles" from articles, and that's caused problems. To address these problems the wider community decided to apply sanctions to the topic, and editors who systematically add or remove the term now can be "topic banned" - see this page for details.

I see you're discussing the issue at Talk:Great Britain, which is excellent. If you see other articles where you feel that the term should be added or removed you should raise it at WT:BISE, where "specific examples" are discussed. You can also discuss any issue with me.

Happy editing! TFOWR 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TFOWR!! I just went to the page you mentioned. Is that for real. I thought this was a Wiki system, so you can count me out of it. Thanks anyway, but I'll move on. Lancashire Druid (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! This is a wiki system, but it's so vast, with so many editors, that disagreements are bound to occur. We have a whole range of mechanisms for dealing with disagreements, from "third opinions" that aim to settle disagreements between two editors, to fully-fledged arbitration for deeply entrenched, long-term problems! Obviously, my preference is to avoid any dispute as much as possible! TFOWR 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you seem to revel in it, along with a lot of others. No problem, I'll stick to my druids. Lancashire Druid (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I revel in the mediation side of it, don't get me wrong. It's being on one side or other that I shy away from ;-) Before this I helped out with third opinions and at a noticeboard for handling "incidents". TFOWR 16:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lancashire Druid. You have new messages at TFOWR's talk page.
Message added 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I've tried to answer your question, but it's a bit of an essay! Sorry! Click the blue link above to go to my talkpage, where I answered. TFOWR 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lancashire Druid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No explanation why I've been blocked. I haven't edited in ages and today I just commented at the Noticeboard on another user I've been watching. I haven't even edited an article today. I just made some observations. Why am I singled out. My three edits today were 1) a warning to participants in the debate that someone started a Twitter feed, 2) That the user subject of the debate had made a nother relevant edit that wasn't listed in the case against him 3) I drew attention to an example of what appears to be deletion of material for a possibly non-valid reason. I did not use profanity. I just made some basic points and I don't see how these could be so disruptive as to warrant a permanent ban. I noticed the edit summary by LessHeardVanU - just "Gone", so it seems he's permanently excluding me

Decline reason:

The blocker's comment left at WP:ANI is: "Blocked as a SPA - in the dozen or so edits over the two years of existence they spent over half arguing over the term British Isles." I am inclined to agree. The "British Isles" issue is a permanent locus of dispute on Wikipedia, and we have no need of people who argue about it but do not add much, or anything, of value to the actual Wikipedia. Sandstein 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block log says (Disruptive editing: The Troubles SPA) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lancashire Druid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not quite. In the 18 months I've been active I've made 100s, maybe over a 1000 edits. I read Wikipedia extensively and make many changes on the fly, not logged in. Virtually all are what would normally be considered minor edits. On the one occasion recently when I felt I had something to say I thought I should log in to say it, but no, I obviously got that wrong, since it was not appreciated and I was blocked. I am not in breach of any policies and have not acted in any way that is uncivil. I simply made three observations that could hardly be described as disruptive. Is this now the policy - permanently remove any editor that offers a view of a controversial subject?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. John (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You might want to rethink your statement above - by editing while logged in and logged out, you're formally violating WP:SOCK, and indeed, if you have edited anonymously since this block was enacted, you violate WP:EVADE. The intent of blocks is never to silence dissenting opinion - as long as such opinions are confined to collegial discussions on the talkpages of articles in order to assist with WP:CONSENSUS. However, continual fighting over extremely controvertial topics would be true WP:SPA behaviour in the spirit of WP:BATTLE, which can quite readily lead to blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean, but there's really no point in altering the above, since it accurately reflects what I do. I use a shared computer, so I don't enable the Remember Me logon. My actions typically involve reading articles and if I spot a typo or punctuation problem I'll fix it on the spot (I've done loads). I'm not engaging in voting or edit warring of any kind so I suppose that while theoretically this is in breach of SOCK in actual fact I'm not operating a sockpuppet, and I haven't edited anything other than this page in the last couple of days. On the point of BATTLE, I could see a protracted adversarial dialogue resulting in a block but I only made a handful of remarks and they weren't especially arguing with anyone. Hopefully this a sufficient explanation. Thank-you. Lancashire Druid (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High John,

I won't be requesting an unblock again because it's pretty clear to me now that whatever I say will not lead to an unblock. I've stated my case already, and please don't take offence at this, but the points your mention are just not relevant.

1) the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Please see what I've already written. Quite what damage you think I can, or want to, inflict is beyond me.

2) understand what you have been blocked for. No, I don't actually. To be honest I'm dumbfounded. Maybe you could explain what I've been blocked for. The accusation agasint me was "disruption", but I see no disrpution in my remarks. Again, maybe you could explain.

3) will not continue to cause damage or disruption. Same as above; please show me what damage or dsruption I've caused.

4) will make useful contributions instead. Again, please read what I've said. I've been making useful, albeit small, contributions for some time now (I would like to continue to do so but unfortunately others don't think I should).