User talk:Ghughesarch

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Ghughesarch, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing!-- Alf ^melmac 13:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revisions of "The Prisoner", specifically Rover history

Concerning the article on the TV series The Prisoner, I just read your rewrite of my expansion of the history of Rover and the doubts cast upon the standard account. I certainly should have mentioned that the footage said to be of the first version was included as a bonus on at least one DVD release, thanks for fixing that. Otherwise, no real complaints, other than the fact that this--and I freely admit that all of the original Rover visuals I've seen is the stills on the Six Of One website--shows a device too small to have an operator on the inside (not even a "midget"), as the script excerpt from "Arrival" in the White & Ali book indicates The Prisoner himself was to think. However, given my limited exposure to this material, I won't revise that phrase back. As it seems you are more familiar with the footage, I'll leave it up to you. Interesting to learn that the Lotus-traveling-through-London's-streets footage was shot before the big trip to Wales, BTW. Ted Watson 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Hi

Pleased someone's reading it at least! I wouldn't take the White and Ali book as absolute gospel though it's amazing the footage remained hidden for so long. The home movie shows a full-sized props man seated in the Rover machine. It may have been abandoned because the exhaust from the engine discharged inside the shell and would have gassed the driver, in additin to it working fine on a flat surface but not on the cobbled roads, steps and steep hills of Portmeirion (this is from a video on the production of the series produced by Steve Ricks in the 90s and including interviews with surviving cast and crew - ditto for the information on the opening sequence shooting). Ghughesarch 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WOWSERS!

I did indeed feel that the footage of the original Rover was home movie stuff rather than production outtakes or tests, but wasn't certain, so made my phrasing there as neutral as I could. Thanks for the clarification. On the other hand, I am not so certain that the place for exterior filming in "Chimes," "Schizoid," "Harmony" and "Girl" is the Borehamwood studio's back lot. First, it just doesn't look like a collection of false fronts. Indeed, there are a number of overhead shots (at least in "Girl") proving that it isn't. Secondly, Alain Carraze and Helene Oswald's book, THE PRISONER: A Televisionary Masterpiece expressly states that it is an outside location (Admittedly, this is a book that was written in French about an English [language and nationality, of course] TV programme [were the authors dealing with French-translated videos, documents, etc.? This is not clear at all], then translated into English itself; I suspect you've heard the same sort of stories that I have about putting material through multiple language translations). Thirdly, look at "Schizoid": We see The Prisoner and The Double outside the Recreation Hall, with the building clearly labelled as such. Later, during the helicopter-escape climax, the same sign can be seen in the background. That sign should have been taken down, and if they were working on the lot, it would have been easy to do; but if this was an outside location, the time available to them to get the scenes shot could easily have been quite limited, and consequently the sign left up until after filming, to be removed when all the other Village trappings were. Sorry, but I have to continue to lean toward the claim that this is not on the lot.

The statement about Guy Doleman is particularly informative, as it is obvious that the most of The Prisoner's first tour of The Village was done without the other actor, even though his #2 is blatantly supposed to be right there, but there was one shot, the two men walking from the overlook of the Stone Boat to the Old People's Home, that is clearly at Portmeirion and with Doleman. Thanks again.

Interestingly, White & Ali explicitly stated that it had been determined that there was never any place that could have launched weather balloons to be seen from Portmeirion, not just "no longer," but you already indicated that they shouldn't be taken as gospel (didn't mean to suggest that I hadn't caught that). Still, this--nearly twenty years on--is the first I've encountered any such comment about their book. Ted Watson 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

http://avengerland.theavengers.tv/studios/mgmblot.htm shows other shows filmed on the exterior sets at MGM Borehamwood (the first pictures are their generic "continental street" set, as used in "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling") Note that the building with the dormer windows in the background of the third picture (from "Girl") is the same as the one in the eighth picture (from a production I don't recognise), with the trees and wall removed.

The bottom set of pictures show the opposite side of the "square" from the Recreation Hall in "Schizoid Man", which also appears as the exhibition hall in "Chimes of Big Ben", and in "A, B and C" as the entrance to the Paris street where Six encounters "C" (which is the location for the middle set of photos on the Avengerland page, and appears in "The Girl Who Was Death" band "Forsake", filmed from different angles).

The "Square" area (which was an entirely separate set about 100 yards from the "continental street" one) was re-dressed as the western town in "Living in Harmony". The building on top of two arches in those bottom photos is visible in "A, B & C" as Madame Engadine's car drives through it, and is the sherrif's office in "Harmony".

Part of "A, B and C" (the fight with "A") was also filmed on the remains of the French chateau set from "The Dirty Dozen", which stood about 250 yards away from this location. Steve Ricks produced a replica "Map of Your Village" in the 1980s with, on the reverse, an aerial photo from 1966 showing all these sets standing on the MGM backlot - despite film or TV appearances they were all false fronts held up by scaffolding. I'm not sure what production they were originally constructed for. I suspect Carraze and Oswald may have had "exterior" translated to "outside", which mean slightly different things.

I recommend Max Hora's three booklets, The Prisoner of Portmeirion; Portmeirion Prisoner Production; and Village World (all now out of print but often on ebay) as good sources of Prisoner trivia of this type. Also http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/ which has excellent Prisoner location spotting pages of its own ( such as http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/locationsguide.htm and http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/mgmbore.htm , and it's worth checking the link from the latter to the page about the precise location of the "Harmony" lynching tree - http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/harmonytree.htm - to see just how seriously some people take this sort of thing), and good links. But then, I have a feeling all this should be on the Wikipedia Prisoner page, not just here.

Ghughesarch 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tbrittreid"

Just found your new note, and while I haven't checked those links yet, I would be shocked if they don't show what you've described. Thanks for the info. Always want to have as many of the facts about this fascinating series as straight as possible. Ted Watson 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Bold Street, Liverpool

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ghughesarch! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Newport Tower (Rhode Island):

Your recent edit to Newport Tower (Rhode Island) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits (like "TEST" or example.jpg), vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mills

Gareth, as you've seen, I'm giving the post mill article a rework. The date of 1612 for Gransden comes from an inspection of the deeds of the property by Phillip Unwin as quoted by Arthur C Smith. Do you have a reliable reference for Drinkstone's date that could be quoted. I believe Rolvenden mill is of a similar date (1570s), although the earliest date in that mill is 1773 on one of the crosstrees.

You might want to check out the River Medway article and all the pages for the tributaries that have separate pages too! BTW, would you be interested in a Mills Portal on Wikipedia? Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lancashire windmills

List of windmills in Lancashire has been created. Unfortunately I don't have any of Allen Clarke's books, and there are several windmills in Liverpool which need reliable references as far as Wikipedia is concerned before they can be entered. See article talk page. Your input would be welcome in expanding the list. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have better images that are out of copyright, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used by all language Wikiprojects. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put the wheels in motion to get that image deleted, feel free to explain further at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 June 27. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Prisoner

This would seem to be a valid title for at least one MPI video release in the US: [1]. Be seeing you! Rodhullandemu 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Father Christmas

Here's the citation, now will you stop reverting it, please? http://www.funfacts.com.au/santa-claus-father-christmas-st-nicholas-a-man-of-many-names/ Believe it or not, Australians don't do EVERY single thing Britain does 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No it is NOT a 50/50 split. Like I said, you do NOT live here. The only possible people who call it Father Christmas are some people who were children in the 50's. I have been to school here and never NEVER heard any child refer to it as Santa Claus. Like the citation said SANTA CLAUS is the usual term (Which does NOT mean its 50/50). Yes it was once called Father Christmas, but the tradition has faded away. I live here and I know what it is or is not called. You don't, so knowing a few Australians is not knowing what the majority calls him. Now please stop your vandalising. Here is another, look at the comment by the guest below teachertipstraining.suite101.com/article.cfm/christmas_santa_claus Those aren't reliabele. Mostly site from international who think we still follow British traditions or made by people who grew up in the former time of calling it Father Christmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/christmas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You live in a country where everyone mostly uses the word Father Christmas. That is probably why your Australian friends use it there. It would be like them using the word football over there to describe Aussie rules football. They would use football for what we call soccer over there, but over here it's mainly called soccer. You arguements is saying because you know a few Australians in a forien country, the majority calls it what they do. This is arguing against a person who has lived here all his life and has never heard or even saw another child call Santa Claus Father Christmas. It doesn't exist here anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't edit on the basis of "I live here, therefore I'm the only person who can be right". What you see is not everything that happens. And your claim goes beyond what any source can support - "It doesn't exist here anymore" - well it does. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Father Christmas. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Unfortunately you clearly went over the limit on the number of reverts you made today in comparison to the three revert rule (six, in fact). These reverts: [2] and [3] don't look like vandalism to me. Minimac (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Minimac - I would ask you to look at the edits I reverted - unsourced, or not reliably sourced, assertions by the same editor.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling help.

Your recent revert

Hello. I would like to inquire about your recent revert to my edit here, as the previous version (before my edit) was much more inaccurate than the new version, due to strong evidence against these alleged phenomena, let alone the fact that the previous version was not backed by reliable sources. May I kindly ask for you to reconsider your revert? Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Disputed" is far more accurate and succinct than the lengthy variation you have added, which goes out of its way to push a particular (skeptical) view. If you can come up with "strong evidence" against these phenomena (i.e., stronger than "science says it can't happen, therefore it doesn't"), then I suggest you provide it. A link to one loosely US government science site which expresses scientists' concerns about belief in the paranormal (however justified they may be, but without referring to Time Slips in particular), is not enough to justify the edit you made. I suggest (and I'm not deliberately being offensive here, merely trying to point out the extent to which one world view may collide with another in matters such as this) making the same edit to ghosts or god first, as both are, after all, alleged paranormal phenomena with a rather larger following than time slips. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Take no offense, but what you appear not to be acknowledging though, is the material which was already written on the paranormal article (in fact, that particular reference is cited there). That article explains that science essentially disproves this concept, primarily due to the fact that it is probably physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur. Regarding God, you also apparently misunderstood the concept. We did not say that science disproves God. For the most part, that is a separate discipline (some scientists may argue for or against his existence, however, there is no significant [dis]proof), as that is indeed debated. However, paranormal phenomena "in this world", if you will, is categorized as pseudoscience. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC), modified 01:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article you cited relating to time slips in particular. So it may be relevant to the paranormal article, but not to this one, "alleged", "disputed", plus the link to paranormal is quite sufficient. But I note you say "We did not say that science disproves God" - who are "We" in this context - who do you claim to represent? And note that I also asked for some consistency here (and also used god, not God, there is a difference) - what have you to say about the ghosts article, or, for that matter, reincarnation, or the Loch Ness Monster? And why are you not editing those articles too? Ghughesarch (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - '"probably" physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur' is not remotely the same as 'science essentially disproves this concept'.Ghughesarch (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article references back to the other article, paranormal, by stating "As with all paranormal phenomena"... This means that the same idea applies to all paranormal subjects. In regards to your other comment, "we" includes myself, and anybody else whom researches the respective subject. I was emphasizing that none of us have said that science disproves God. Back to what I was saying. Serious study refutes these beliefs. The only actual "debate" is occurring in the lower levels of research (pseudoscience). Again, serious, properly-done study indicates these beliefs to be essentially impossible. There is no good reason to "debate", as the conclusion has virtually been reached. No intention for derogatory language, however, the individuals debating this are arguing out of ignorance – simply making arguments out of a lack of information. Skeptics will simply remain in the non-belief state until these claims are proven at least beyond reasonable doubt. This is for good reason, as the evidence is at best weak, and highly prone to error.

Regarding your second comment, yes, they are very close if not the same. Essentially, meaning, for the most part and probably, meaning most likely. Hope this is clear. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But nothing you have said justifies singling out that particular article for the edit you made. For the moment, the article (with its caveats and links) is quite clear about the extent to which credence should be attached to the anecdotal evidence (I note that paranormal, while pointing out that much evidence is anecdotal and thus irreconcilable with scientific method, does not go on to dismiss out of hand all such claims, a more balanced view of "probably" and "essentially" than the one you seem to be espousing). It is, I believe, not Wikipedia's purpose to go further than that, and require that every article on matters not accepted as possible by science should be tagged in the lead paragraph with some sort of disquisition on its scientific impossibility - that is pushing one particular view - that of the scientific community as it stands at present - at the expense of all others. The qualifiers "probably" and "essentially" make such a tag invalid, anyway Ghughesarch (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What type of evidence do you have for the existence of these phenomena? Do you have anything to tip the scale against the refutation? If not, then it is virtually completely on the negative side. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that if you research the concepts of science, you will notice that it is designed to be irrefutable, which is why it is the best way to approach these extraordinary claims. -- IRP ☎ 02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the original statement as unreferenced. I politely ask for discussion prior to any further changes. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of discussion that really belongs on the talk page of the particular article.Ghughesarch (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Please see the respective talk page where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Windmills

Hi, thanks or finding the references for other uses - the article seemed to have become a repository for every type of mill - wind powered or not, so I removed most of them until someone came up with some references. I was just looking for some in google books but you got there first. I did find one for snuff grinding though :) Richerman (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

pretty much every industrial use that was water-powered has, at some time, been wind-powered too (even metal working). I could add a whole host (rope-making?) from Roy Gregory's book but so many are one-offs and might lead to excessive list-making that it might be better not to. Snuff-grinding was fairly common in Holland though. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's probably best to say that its been used for many industrial processes and just mention the main ones. Richerman (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pantigo Mill

Hello, noticed you reverted my re-addition of the Pantigo Mill gearing. I'm no expert in windmills, but that mill is among the best-known in America.[4][5][6], which is probably why it was deemed worthy of inclusion in the Historic American Buildings Survey photographs. I think it worthy of inclusion, simply for the quality of that photograph. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The photo would be worthy of inclusion, but it's upside down. If it can be edited to put it the right way up, then include it. I don't dispute its notability, but left as it is, the picture is just confusing.Ghughesarch (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Point well-taken. Appreciate your getting back to me. I'll fix the photo and restore. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo reverted edit

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit of the lead section of Sutton Hoo. As my edit only involved contracting the information in the original lead to remove details given in the main article, and rearranging the text so that the section read better, I do not agree entirely with you decision to revert the edit. You commented on a lack of sources, but the article contains citations - I don't really see the need to include citations in the lead section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) helps to explain what I mean.

I will check again to ensure that the information within my edit reflects the main article - and if necessary change the text to make it so. That should be enough to enable my version of the lead section to be replaced. --Hel-hama (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentmore Towers

Hi Ghughesarch and GiacomoReturned, Can I suggest you both take your spat to the talk page rather than slug it out in the edit summary. You are both guilty of edit warring and have also gone too far as regards WP:3RR, (Posted on both you Talk Pages)Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How odd, that you only edit to stalk me - I edited this evening to see how quickly you would come out of the woodwork, and you fell for it hook, lone and sinker. What a pity! Giacomo Returned 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Axis of windmills

I've commented at talk:History of wind power. BTW, it takes an admin to block an editor, which Harryzilber is not. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Ghughesarch, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for improving the encyclopedia and protecting it from vandalism. Keep up the good work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Your recent editing history at Mentmore Towers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Please see the talk page for the article, where I have set out the case that the golf courses do impinge on areas that were parkland, I don't see how there is room to build a consensus between that fact and the opinion of some editors Ghughesarch (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that an IP has identified that the land in question was severed from the estate long before becoming the golf course, which would definitely impact on the information involved. I'm not in a position to adequately research that, what with being on the wrong side of the ocean and also having to log off for a few hours. However, this is the sort of thing that I was fairly certain would be an issue. Risker (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they've done so without citing any sources, and I have a reliable source (the National Heritage List for England) which states otherwise. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Macfadyen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

St Paul's

Gee whiz! It was so poetically contrived that it was a pity to have to revert it! Amandajm (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

British and Irish Isles

I notice that you removed my edit at the start of the Pevsner Architectural Guides article. I had changed the term 'British Isles' to the much more acceptable 'British and Irish Isles'. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the term 'British Isles' is not recognised internationally. It certainly is not officially recognised by the United Nations, the O.E.C.D., the E.U. or the U.S. Government. This is because the Irish Government does not officially recognise the term.

In addition to this, the vast, vast majority of people here in Ireland (North and South combined) do not recognise the term. Indeed, the vast majority of Irish people find the term downright offensive. Within the Republic of Ireland, almost no one uses the term, while within Northern Ireland almost half the population (the Irish Catholic community there) would not use the term.

The term 'British Isles' is not only inaccurate (as Ireland, especially the Republic of Ireland, is not British), it is also, as already stated, downright offensive to the vast, vast majority of the Irish people (North and South combined). Over here in Ireland, only the Unionist minority (who make up around 50% of Northern Ireland's population) use the term 'British Isles'.

Surely it would be much better, more accurate, and much less divisive to use the term 'British and Irish Isles' rather than the inaccurate, and very 'imperialist', term 'British Isles'? After all, the Pevsner Guides cover the entire British and Irish Isles and not just the United Kingdom. The term 'British Isles' only serves to needlessly drive us Irish and British apart. At least the term 'British and Irish Isles' is more accurate, more tolerant and much more inclusive. Laggan Boy (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, British and Irish Isles redirects to the British Isles page, so it seems pointless to get in a strop about it until you can build some sort of consensus that the two terms have different meanings and that the one that doesn't offend some Irish people is the one that should be used in preference to the one everyone else is familiar with. British Isles is a purely geographical term, not a political one, British and Irish Isles seems to me to drag politics in - is it recognised by the UN, OECD, EU, etc etc? probably not, because those organisations are concerned with political entities (hence also their non-use of British Isles in the same context - the recognised terms for the political entities would be United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland) Ghughesarch (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the point: the term 'British Isles' needlessly politicises what should be a geographical term! The term does this by claiming that all of Ireland is British!! This is completely inaccurate, as what is now the Republic of Ireland has not been under British rule since Dec. 1922, when it left the United Kingdom. In addition, the term 'British Isles' does'nt just upset 'some' Irish people: it is offensive to the vast majority of the six million or so people who live over here in this country, North and South combined! And, as I say, the term is not recognised by the U.N., E.U., etc., because it is such an inaccurate term, and it is not recognised by the Government of Ireland.

Anyhow, there you have it: I've made my point. I have a feeling we are not going to agree on this issue!! Laggan Boy (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And, by the way, the United Nations does regularly use geographic terms, not just 'political terms'. For example, one regularly hears U.N. officials talking about 'the Middle East' or 'the Balkans' or 'Scandinavia' or 'West Africa', etc., etc.. If all these regions can have fairly neutral, uncontentious geographical names, why not the British and Irish Isles? Laggan Boy (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the general Assembly of the United Nations welcoming the Queen to the UN in 2010. http://www.un.org/ga/president/64/statements/queen60710.shtml Note the use of "British Isles". So clearly the UN does use the term. While a search for the two terms on the UN's website is hardly an absolute indicator, "British Isles" returns 204 hits for the term, while "British and Irish Isles" returns none. And (to take the closest parallel case) if Scotland votes for independence in the next couple of years, it will still be the British Isles, and Scotland will still be part of the island of Great Britain. Ghughesarch (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, a search of the United States Government's website http://www.usa.gov/ shows "British Isles" in common use, "British and Irish Isles" not at all.Ghughesarch (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And the Irish Government's website http://www.gov.ie/ gives six uses of British Isles (one of which is "British Isles and Ireland", interestingly), and none of "British and Irish Isles" Ghughesarch (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And regarding EU recognition - http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370100.htm "The purely geographical term ‘British Isles’ includes Ireland" Ghughesarch (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that may be the case. However, none of those bodies are supposed to use the term 'British Isles' officially. 'Britain and Ireland' is the usual alternative, although that term leaves out the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. As regards Scotland, even as an independent country, it will remain part of the island of Great Britain. Thus, the Scottish are as entitled to the term 'British' as the English and Welsh are. Anyhow, as I said earlier, I don't think we are going to agree on this point. Laggan Boy (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

those organisations and governments may not be supposed to use the term "British Isles" (for the record, I can find no official statement of policy on the matter, one way or the other, from any of them except the one from the EU (linked above) that the term is purely geographical and a statement made in the Dail in about 2004 by the then foreign minister that the term was not officially encouraged by the Irish government). But the fact is that all of them do use the term, whether they are supposed to or not, in contexts that appear to be official. And none of them use your personal preference of "British and Irish Isles". And here on Wikipedia, Britain and Ireland also redirects to British Isles. So British Isles it remains until, as I said before, you can build a consensus that some alternative should be used. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, wondering around wiki as I do I came across this discussion, Laggan Boy has seen enough guidelines to know not to push his POV on here, whatever about overlinking and honorifics, editing to suit a point of view shouldnt happen. If it is used in the article for sometime WP:RETAIN, dont change it, as it falls under restrictions which removing across articles with-out (and even with on occassion) references has lead to blocks and bans. Its not the first time Laggan Boy has removed the phrase, but I sincerely hope its the last. Murry1975 (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering when my 'stalker' on Wikipedia, Murry1975, would show up!! Just to point out to Murry1975: I am not forcing my point of view on anyone here. I am simply highlighting this issue. An amicable discussion is going on here. Perhaps Murry1975 will note that the term 'British Isles' has not been changed by me in this article since this 'debate' here began. Laggan Boy (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I do note that Laggan Boy, but maybe you will understand, wondering around wikipedia changing it, as you have done, can have adverse conditions on your ability to edit. Murry1975 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I presume you mean 'wandering' instead of 'wondering'? Your grammar and punctuation are truely horrendous, Murry1975, especially for a 'self-appointed' editor of other editors. Laggan Boy (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Less of the personal comments. Laggan boy I have tried repeatedly to give you advice, please take it on board. Murry1975 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold Street

Have you checked those sources recently? Have you ever though, that putting everything you find online into the article might not be the best idea? That writing about time travel in XXI century disrespects any reader, that has more than 5 brain cells? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I see those two references, which are still checkable in the print versions, are no longer online. But the fact remains that the claims have been made, there are other references, and whether it's objectively true or not, those claims, however ludicrous you (or I) may think they are, are verifiable in Wikipedia terms, so it stays in. The tone of your comment, however, suggests that you would like to remove all reference to any paranormal claim from Wikipedia. That, I think, you will find an impossible task. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you take any further comments you may have to the talk page for the article, please?Ghughesarch (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist

WP:BLPN note was been posted on talk:Enfield Poltergeist Please discuss in BLPN before restoring. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What is going on with this wiki page? do you know why all of a sudden its gone all American? why all the stuff about the Warrens in this NEW version? --Judgejoker (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea. I've wound it back to the 3 November edit. But it would help if everyone involved in the latest spat would A - sign their posts, and B - sit down and calm down, and C - not reorder the content of the talk page in a random fashion Ghughesarch (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

i have been complained about because i reverted it back to the version you did?!?! why would they do that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Chesterton Windmill

Hi there, thanks for assuming good faith on my change to the above article. Just wondering, what is your source as to the windmill on the Leamington F.C. badge being the Tachbrook Road one, and not Chesterton? Cls14 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it clearly isn't a picture of Chesterton mill, and is obviously based on the Tachbrook Road windmill which stood opposite Leamington FC's old ground. For a start, the windmill on the club badge doesn't have arches round the base, and has clockwose rather than anticlockwise sails. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist

The BBC is entirely reliable in saying that the photographer said this. However, the photographer is not a RS in stating that. This gives credence where there should not be. So, the quote does not support the article. Surly there is some real evidence here? Jim1138 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking what Wikipedia is about, in terms of reliable sources. The claim made in the article is that the photographer who was present at the time said this, and the source backs that up. There's nothing more to say, in Wikipedia terms. It's your POV as to whether credence should, or should not, be attached to what an eyewitness is reported to have said, and that has no place here. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Ghughesarch. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

that's not a warning, jps so I'm interested to see you describing it as such in the edit summary. Do you do a lot of bullying? Ghughesarch (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

and you should really post those "here's a discussion" labels to the pages that are concerned - crop circles and the Enfield Poltergeist. So that you can engage with everyone, not just me... Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on crop circle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MastCell ^Talk 00:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

why have I been blocked and not the others involved in the same page edits? Ghughesarch (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for edit warring. While you were not the only participant in the edit war, you clearly violated the three revert rule, which usually results in a 24 hour block. This was a perfectly legitimate and routine block. To answer your question, jps was reported at WP:AN3 and I thoroughly reviewed the situation and gave an extensive rationale for why I declined to apply a standard 3RR block to him (that reasoning does not apply to your case). Apart from that, you were the only one who violated 3RR. I hope that clears things up. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No it does not, several editors breached the WP:3RR rule on that particular page, including jps, and others. I have been singled out for some reason, while jps is somehow untouchable because his version is "acceptable". In addition, at no point was I informed that my account was being considered for a block. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Ghughesarch (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Actually, you've already been warned about edit warring prohibition and that you can be blocked for violating it. Warnings are not magical rituals that have to precede every block, they are merely intended to inform good faith editors about our policies so that a block could be avoided. However, you are not new here amd should know better. Max Semenik (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

• While I can't decline multiple unblock requests, that is not a good reason for requesting an unblock. You're not acknowledging the problem or even disputing the validity of the block. Regardless, you're mistaken. No other participant violated 3RR except for jps, and I declined to block him due to the numerous mitigating circumstances which I explained in detail on the noticeboard. I did not say he's "untouchable because his version is 'acceptable'" or anything like that. I still made it clear that he was not exempt from 3RR and warned him not to continue edit warring. You were not singled out, you were handled as any other editor who breached 3RR normally. If anything, jps was the one singled out by being warned rather than blocked, and that was only because of extraordinary mitigating circumstances. You may agree or disagree with that decision, but it does not make your block any less valid. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Swarm is right. Please read WP:NOTTHEM. You were blocked for your behavior, and your very clear violation of the three-revert-rule, complaining that others didn't get blocked is not going to get you unblocked. You'll only be unblocked if you make an unblock request with a promise not to edit war anymore. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

good heavens! Spaghetti07205 has come along too! this starts to look like stalking. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

the "the numerous mitigating circumstances which I explained in detail on the noticeboard" are that you, Swarm prefer jps's version of the article, not anything to do with whether he did or did not break the WP:3RR rule (in respect of edits made by other people, not just me). Ghughesarch (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no, but way to ignore everything I did write regarding that situation. I simply pointed out the facts that jps's edits were both verifiable and compliant with the manual of style, whereas his opponents were relying on unsubstantiated and fringe claims, and that the body of the article itself supported the content that they were trying to remove from the lead as incorrect, and that he had made a good faith effort to seek dispute resolution at the appropriate noticeboard, and that his block log was being incorrectly used against him as he's stayed out of trouble for a long time. Based on that, I decided to warn him rather than block him. Your disagreement with that decision is duly noted, but I am not the one who blocked you in the first place, and you still have yet to provide any reason why your block was improper. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 02:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

he did not post a link to "the appropriate noticeboard" on the talk page for the article, despite my request that he should do so, nor did he really attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page. Neither of those is really "good faith". in addition, jps's claims were not "verifiable". Please look at the article's talk page for the resolution that was arrived at without his involvement and which has not yet been added to the article. My block is improper because it is disproportionate, when compared with the action taken in respect of others who were involved. Ghughesarch (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The "resolution" you're directing me to appears to be a compromise wording, which is exactly what I suggested at AN3 when I said "the wording could be changed", and had you attempted to reach such a compromise you would not be blocked. Your block is far from disproportionate, it's a run of the mill 3RR block, the minimum block length issued on a regular basis. And your suggestion that the block was unfair doesn't check out because I didn't choose to warn him for 3RR and block you for it. It was two independent administrative decisions made by two different administrators who were not in any sort of communication with each other. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

if someone chooses to take an issue to a noticeboard, such as the "Fringe Theories" noticeboard (which I had no idea even existed until I checked up on the other recent activities of the editor in question), aren't they expected to post on the article's talk page to say that they have done so? wouldn't that at least be good practice? and given that when I suggested he should post a link on the talk page his response was "People who believe that crop circles are not human caused and want to see that POV reflected at Wikipedia are not fit to be editors. jps " don't you think there is an issue of WP:CIVIL to be addressed here too? blocking is supposed to take into account previous behaviour, etc. Ghughesarch (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

and I was blocked before your comments were made at AN3 about the wording being changed, but after I had seen (and accepted) the proposal to change the wording in the talk page for the article. and you didn't warn jps on his own page, but on a discussion page he might well choose never to see. Disproportionate Ghughesarch (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You're just off a block for edit-warring, you're at three reverts right now, and you're essentially a single-purpose account. You are very close to a topic ban or site ban at this point. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all a single purpose account, I don't edit as often or as much as I would like to, but I have a wide range of interests. It happens that the two topics I've recently been editing in have seen a lot of recent activity, one way or another, and not just from me, and not all from editors supporting one POV. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins and suggest you should too. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of your recent contribs have been to crop circle and Enfield poltergeist - both fringe topics. Feel free to point out where I have taken any admin action. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most of my recent contributions (in the last five days) have been to Crop Circles and Enfield Poltergeist. So what? Both pages have been busy of late, particularly around issues of edits to the ledes which strongly pushed statements not actually supported by the sources. Incidentally, disapproving of hard-line skeptics making unsupported claims on Wikipedia is not the same as accepting woo-woo paranormal explanations. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of your edits by volume this year, to my reading. But whatever. The error of your statement about "hard line skeptics" is easily demonstrated, since skepticism is the default in the scientific method - you might as well talk about fundamentalist agnostics. The reality-based community have policy on their side (see Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans). Guy (Help!) 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A skeptic would say, for example, "all the evidence to date suggests that most crop circles are man made. There are a few earlier reports from reliable witnesses which attribute some simple circles and similar shapes to freak weather conditions". A hard-line skeptic would say "All crop circles are man made." The comparison is not with agnostics, but with fundamentalist atheists of the Richard Dawkins variety - though even he has admitted that actual, rather than everyday, 100% certainty as to the non-existence of god is not possible. If you look at my edits to other fringe subjects, like the Newport tower or the Moberly-Jourdain Incident, you'll see that I am not a credulous believer in fringe stuff. But I'm also not a credulous believer in "my science says this can't happen, therefore it doesn't" - that's Lavoisier and the meteorites all over again Ghughesarch (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

re: Lunatic Charlatans, "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines."Ghughesarch (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

see also WP:SPATG: "The following is a list of common misuses of the single-purpose account tag. You should under no circumstance consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag.

"Editing time line: the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include

"Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA.

"An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA." Ghughesarch (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you are continuing to be quite so aggressive towards me - I've already said your most recent edits to Crop Circles, and the current version, adequately address the concerns I had about the hard-line skeptical issue. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not being aggressive, I'm just rather tired. A lot of work on right now. And I did appreciate your edits to Clough Williams-Ellis. Be seeing you, Guy (Help!) 21:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit

The summary you gave for this edit prompted me to check it. Incredible! It was copyvio, which I have reverted. Moriori (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all copvio, just a direct quote. Pull your head out of your arse. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic banned for six months from all pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing and unacceptable rudeness. You're seemingly unaware of the non-free content criteria policy ("Articles may… use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed … and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks… or a similar method"), even though you're a long-time editor. When informed by an administrator, you responded with the sentiment "Pull your head out of your arse" (in text and edit summary both) and reverted back to your copyright violation. I see it's not long since you were blocked for edit warring on the same article.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 02:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Struck out; I've rescinded the ban, see next section. Bishonen | talk 07:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

Get the fucking fuck over yourself, and read what was written on the talk pages for the articles in question, not here on my talk page Ghughesarch (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read the talkpages for the articles. Don't I get to read your talk page too? It's not exempt from normal behavioral expectations, you know. But you can appeal my sanction at WP:AE, per above. Or to me on my talkpage, provided you keep a civil tongue in your head. Bishonen | talk 03:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

Well, it's not clear which edit *of mine* you think either infringes WP:Copyvio or any other potential sanction - all I did was reinstate material that had been removed by one disruptive editor.Ghughesarch (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the edit you were warned about just above by Moriori. This edit. Plus your revert when that edit was reverted. Sorry, your two reverts — edit warring again. (If I'd seen that, I would have mentioned it in my topic ban notice.) How can that be not clear, when I mentioned your response to Moriori in my notice? Are you telling me you've responded "Pull your head out of your arse" to more than one warning regarding copyvio recently? Posting comments in the DS log won't profit you, btw. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

What's the "DS Log"? and actually that alleged copyvio was not added by me, please do look through the edit history of the page before ganging up on one editor. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions log, to which you added this [7], since reverted by me. I strongly advise you to walk away from the computer for a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the edit that seems to be objected to (though it wasn't objected to on either the talk page for the article, or at the "Fringe Theories" noticeboard, except by the one disruptive editor) was not actually made by me. In reinstating it, I merely did what the consensus had already approved. Ghughesarch (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Bishonen and topic ban rescinded

The discussion below has been moved from User talk:Bishonen, with its original timestamps and followed by my response.

Well, it's not clear which edit *of mine* you think either infringes WP:Copyvio or any other potential sanction - all I did was reinstate material that had been removed by one disruptive editor. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to this on your page, before I noticed you said it here too. Note also that you reinstated the copyvio with an edit summary showing you knew it was an exact quote. Bishonen | talk 03:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

So why aren't you taking action (if it really means so much, which it doesn't) against the editor who posted it in the first place? Ghughesarch (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

just to be very clear https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crop_circle&type=revision&diff=675193200&oldid=675186649 Ghughesarch (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Right, thanks for providing that. (Oddly enough the wikiblame tool didn't and still doesn't find it.) I don't understand why I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reverted JzG as "not in the citation given",[8] when it clearly was. But when you reverted him back, properly, with the edit summary "It is in the citation given",[9] I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reverted you in turn with a different rationale: "No direct quotes in the citation".[10] That could have been clearer, but I presume he meant we don't copypaste from the source without providing quote marks. You're right, I should have studied the history more closely, but I trusted the tool, which I've always found reliable. (I must be doing something wrong, but I can't fathom what. Since I can't get it to show me the addition, merely the removal, I don't even know if JzG was also restoring something that had been in the article before.)

I've been giving this some thought. Clearly the situation was frustrating for you, beginning with I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc's inexplicable revert of JzG's version. You had some reason to feel beleaguered. What I can't understand, though, is why you didn't tell Moriori — you didn't tell him on article talk and not on your own page — that you were restoring somebody else's addition, instead of, uh, that which you did tell him. That was far from collaborative, it obscured the matter, and your attack on Moriori (in the edit summary, yet) was pretty, hrmm, bad-tempered. I considered shortening your topic ban to a couple of months, purely for the rudeness and the edit warring. But having slept on it, I've decided to rescind the ban instead. Happy editing, please don't edit war and please count to ten before hitting save. I'll strike out the topic ban message above and remove it from the discretionary sanctions log. (For talkpage stalkers: I'm not sure if it would be better to strike it out in the log as well, and add a comment. Presumably there's a standard procedure? But to me it seems better to not have Ghughesarch appear in the log at all.) Bishonen | talk 07:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crop circle. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits like this make it sound like you're intentionally disrupting articles in order to annoy other editors. Please stop. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for recurrent tendentious editing and edit-warring, without any evidence of taking feedback on board or attempting to modify your behavior to conform to this site's standards. When this block expires, if there are further problems then your account will be blocked indefinitely from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Time slip for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Time slip is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time slip until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Location (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As you will have seen above, I'm blocked for a month/ I'm sure my inability to comment on the relevant pages will lead to a worse result for WP, and you will all enjoy laughing about it. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

However, the last time I edited that page the edits looked like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_slip&type=revision&diff=676595979&oldid=572368687 . the use of "alleged" used to mean a lot when dealing with woo woo stuff, and editors used to have the sense to let things be left to the reader's intelligence. Now, it appears, we have to tell people that this, that, or the other doesn't exist, because "science" says it doesn't.Ghughesarch (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to thrash it out on the talk page of the relevant article. However, since the other party responds only with abuse and reverts this is becoming near impossible, hence my referring of the matter to ANI Ghughesarch (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for three months for editing without logging in extensively and clearly to avoid scrutiny. You've been blocked before for two months for sock puppetry, and apparently that didn't make an impression.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Where? Ghughesarch (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand where this "logging in extensively and clearly to avoid scrutiny" is supposed to have occurred. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe you. I'm not going to disclose more than I have already.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that makes a nonsense of the whole thing, doesn't it? I'm blocked on the basis of 'evidence' I'm not allowed to see, only you. And not given any right of reply. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkusers will simply never publicly connect an IP address to a named account. It's against our policy. To be clear: "without logging in" means that you've been caught editing as an IP; "extensively" means you've been caught doing it in multiple places; and "clearly to avoid scrutiny" normally means that in the places where you've done it, you've also edited with your account, thus giving a false impression of multiple independent editors. Your September 2015 block for 59 days was as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghughesarch/Archive, so I think I don't need to explain "sock-puppetry" to you. You can't ask to see the evidence in public (i.e. on wiki), because revealing 'where' would reveal the connected IP addresses, and the CU won't do that. I'm sorry you're not allowed to see the evidence publicly, but the indignation of a sock-master is a small price to pay in the interest of maintaining the principle of anonymous editing. In this case, you could email ArbCom to ask for a review. "Your right of reply" doesn't exist on a private website. Here you have two rights: the right to leave; and the right to fork. If I were you, I'd simply write a suitably contrite block appeal. Hope that clarifies the situation for you. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well. fuck you all then. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Though I am 200 miles from Liverpool. Something has gone badly wrong.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ghughesarch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ghughesarch. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Gibbons

Well spotted - I also found the source here. ww2censor (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ghughesarch. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)