ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!

The Red Ensign is still my favourite flag!

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!

Note:

This is the "new home" for my old-name of ArmchairVexilloloigistDon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArmchairVexillologistDon

The Red Ensign, is still my favourite flag.

The Red Ensign, as currently used by the United Kingdom's Merchant Navy (Flag Ratio (1:2), Union Jack Canton 1/4 th of Flag).

The Red Ensign of the Dominion of Canada.

Indeed,

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yaa ...

The Dominion of Canada is the long-form name of the country known by its short-form name of Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hello, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!! Hello and welcome back to Wikipedia! I glad to see that you're still interested in contributing. Though you already know your way around, I enjoy and you may benefit from having these handy links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. Happy editing! DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks Guys!

Howdy DoubleBlue, and GoodDay.

Thanks alot for the "Welcome Back".

It was very kind of you both.

Take care eh, Don

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Classification of Wikieditors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_The_Simpsons

I believe all human beings in the world can be classified according to the characters in The Simpsons. Contributors to Wikipedia are no exception. If you understand that, your Wiki experience will be the more rewarding. If I might explain:

1. Homer Homer is the editor who really has no idea what he is talking about but feels his contribution needs to be heard. And he can become quite pig-headed about his ignorance. Offer him a reference for what you are saying. If he persists, ignore him.
2. Marge Marge is the one who is conscientious, but would prefer not to commit herself and take a side. She is the one who will offer to be a peacebroker and reminds us to be polite. She might be worth listening to, but if she is becoming sanctimonious, tell her, or ignore her.
3. Bart Bart is the vandal, the troublemaker. He loves seeing sparks fly. Tell him he's being a jerk, and wait for Marge to remind you, 'no personal attacks!' Or you might want to join the fun!
4. Lisa Lisa will gush lyrical and produce all the references you could possibly need. She knows all the editing rules and can quote you verse, line and chapter. Boringly correct. If only she would let her hair down and have a little fun.
5. Grandpa Kinda self-explanatory.
6. Burns Burns is the editor with the 'slash and burn' philosophy of editing. Discussion on the talk page is a hindrance to his mission of purging all articles of lower class buffoonery. He still thinks 'gay' means happy and uses a dial telephone. Thinks Mugabe is a hippie.
7. Lenny and Karl Only one brain between them. Never seen apart.
8. Barney Gumble Thankfully rare. Never seen except when pissed. Strangely eloquent sometimes.
9. Apu Apu will sell you his knowledge as the very best. But if you look at the label closely, you will see it has been marked up, and the expiry date has passed.
10. Ralph Again, self-explanatory.
11. Gil Clueless and spineless
12. Jimbo Yes, that doesn't need much explanation either.
13. Cookie Kwan 'Stay off the West side!' Woe be to you if you dare to step in her territory. Serious ownership issues.
14. Disco Stu Lives in his own world, seen through a pair of retro shades he has never taken off. Leave him be. He's happy.

And doubtless you could think of more. Add them on, for a bit of fun!

Excellent!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_The_Simpsons

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My buddy Gazzster has that Simpsons list on his home-page. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

I love the "Simpsons Wikipedian-Editor List"!!

I nearly pissed-my-pants laughing when I saw it, eh.

I am ...

Barney Gumble Thankfully rare. Never seen except when pissed. Strangely eloquent sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Gumble

225px

Hehehehehehehe.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That list is funny and very, very accurate. I found myself at the nether end of the list in the female form of Disco Stu. I'm sure my fellow editors will agree with my honest self-assessment. A pity that more of the editors cannot see this list!--jeanne (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada

Hiya AVD. It don't look like your Province of... proposal is gonna be adopted (much like your Dominon of Canada proposal wasn't). It might be best to let'er go, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. Thank you for your kind advice ... I will take it. Time to "fold up the Soap-Box" eh, and go home.

Take care, and best wishes

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't stay away too long. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries

Very sorry sir/madam, this tag was a mistake and has been removed. Happy editing to you. - FlyingToaster 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries

I have nominated Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ckatz^chat_spy 17:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it easy for you folkes. Just delete the article today.

Bye-the-way, don't expect me to try to contribute any article, ever again.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

G'day

Apology accepted!I can understand the frustration. That's Wikipedia for you. It's not about truth. It's about democracy. No, not even democracy: truth is judged by consensus. I get frustrated too, especially with the monarchy and Commonwealth pages. That's why I won't donate a penny to Wikipedia. Why am I here then? It's a hobby, keeps me off the streets lol. In fact, I reckon Mr Wales owes me money for contributing. Anyways, I don't know much about the Name of Canada stuff. I suggest that if you want to prove your point, edit according, providing sound references. So if someone reverts, they will have to argue with the source, not with your opinion.Glad you enjoy the Simpsons analogy btw! Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster.

Thanks alot for your kind words, I appreciate them very much indeed. You have always treated me with respect and kindness. I appreciate duscussing things with you alot, as you always have an open mind.

BTW, I am like the Simpsons Barney Gumble eh,

"... D'ooh, my heart stopped, oh there it goes! ..."

Take care ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dominion and Province

Hiya AVD. No offense, but are you gonna be ending these Dominion & Province grudges, anytime soon? GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Posting at talk-pages

Hiya AVDL. Ya should make your posts more compact, in future. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

It is nice to hear from yaa' ... indeed.

I'll try to "compact it" ... but you know Me eh!

Take care, my friend,

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Try it this way: [Howdy GoodDay. It's nice to hear from ya, indeed. I'll try to "compact it", but you know Me eh!. Take care, my friend.]. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:British Isles are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You were warned, and yet you persisted in editing Talk:British Isles so that other contributors' comments were removed. There is no excuse for this, and, given the abuse of that talk page (violatioons of WP:TALK, I am moving to prevent further disruption to it after restoring it again.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish) Inflammatory, How?

Hello  DDStretch  (talk),

I posted this on the British Isles TalkPage,

"Ahem...

British = (English + Welsh + Scottish + Irish)

hence the term British Isles eh."

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So  DDStretch  (talk) ...

If your goal was to silence me, well you have suceeded.

You can call the British Isles whatever "political-correct" re-visionist history euphemism , you wish.

Euphemism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism

I shan't attempt to stop it.

With regards to blocking a Registered User (i.e, Me) from editing ALL WIKIPEDIA PAGES, and letting an Un-registered User run a amok, perhaps you might consult this link,

IP Address Locator

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

as that "person" comes from the City of Dublin, just in case you might be interested.

One last request  DDStretch  (talk),

could you kindly respond here and let me know when you have removed my total block from ALL WIKIPEDIA pages. I'd appreciate knowing for sure, when it comes off.

Thank you,

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.78.16.102.82 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.78.16.102.82 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. 78.16.102.82 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Recommend ya remove your posting, Armchair. It's only gonna stir problems. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you slow?

Despite of the continuous warnings and reversions have you still not learned how a wikipedia talk page works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.129.181 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think the fact that someone lives in Dublin justifies your actions or interests me. Please learn to use WP talk pages correctly, and do not engage in edit wars for any reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Un-registered User(s) get a free-pass?

Is that your position?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered users don't get a free pass, but mud generally sticks longer on those who are registered. Both you and the IP reverted 11 times each! I filed a report against the IP, who has consequently been blocked. I'd assume you got off without a block, due to the fact that you were inserting a comment the IP had no right to remove. I'd urge you to read the above cited policies to make sure this doesn't happen again, though. Best, --Cameron* 11:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada

AVD, we've been through this before. Please, drop this & move on. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Looking back I was much more snippy than I should have been so I need to apologise as well. No hard feelings all around I hope. Curious about your talk page. When I clicked on "edit this page" all I got was the very top section "The Red Ensign is still my favourite flag!" and had to click on new section to get this. How did you do that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Republic of Ireland. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ww2censor.

Please back off. I know what I am doing.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite obviously you do not know what you are doing as proven by you already breaking the WP:3RR rule. Besides which your questions have no bearing on the development or improvement of the article. Ask the Irish Government your questions. They are unconstructive here. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello ww2censor.

You are "Wiki-Lawyering". Your "word-smithing" does not hold any water, my friend.

By the way ....

Irish = (Northern Irish + Southern Irish).

So the term Irish Government is ambigious ... since December 6, 1921.

Take care eh,

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you know what you are doing then you are being deliberately disruptive, something that appears to be a habit. There is a task force to determine the name the state and the island, its flagged at the top of the page and you are saying nothing that has not been said better, and more temperately in the propositions on those pages. --Snowded (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

Just so we are clear you are, in my opinion, a very rude and arrogant person. Me-self, I'm just a Colonial (English-Canadian) of ancestry from ole Merionethshire ... Dolgelley way. You remind me of the "rude Welshman" stereotypes that I was taught not to make fun of. So I'll just say in ole North American plain English ... Snowded you are a dick.

One more thing ... it is the Principality of Wales (1284, Statute of Rhuddlan) you git.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a breech of WP:CIVIL to a 3RR I see. Its Dolgellau by the way. --Snowded (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing Snowded, correcting Dolgelley to Dolgellau was un-neccessary, and frankly quite rude on your part. My Great-Grandparents (on my Mother's side) left the UK in 1903, when the spelling was Dolgelley, Merionethshire, Wales. To have you "correct it" feels like you are spitting on their origins.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. in respect of your comments on Talk:British Isles. Two editors have reverted your comments as inappropriate for a talk page. Please read WP:TALK --Snowded (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

Could you at least sign your posts?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for pointing out the mistake. Now please go read WP:TALK and delete your comment. --Snowded (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ... you are not "the Headmaster" and I am not "the student". My comment is my own, and I stand by it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you stand by it, that is not the point. Please read WP:TALK, the purpose of a talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. You have had several editors revert your comments on this basis across two articles now. None of them are seeking to be a "Headmaster" they are simply pointing out (and enforcing) the rules of this community. --Snowded (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What?

Snowded ... "get bent".

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Add WP:CIVIL to your reading list. You are a member of a community, please take the time to understand how it works. --Snowded (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Advise

Given your history above, the fact that you have been banned and your recent set of nonsense on British Isles I strongly suggest that you spend some time learning how to edit. If this continues you are going to end up being reported to ANI by myself or another editor for disruptive behaviour. --Snowded (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ... you are not "Judge, Jury, and Executioner".

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

AVD, Snowded has advised you, as have I and many others in the past, that your behaviour contravenes Wikipedia community rules and standards. As in any community, breaking the rules leads to sanctions. Although the Wikipedia community is far more forgiving than most, sanctions include temporary suspensions of varying lengths and permanent bans. You know this because these sanctions have been applied to you several times. Snowded does not propose to convict and execute you as you suggest, only to report you to those in a position to apply sanctions.

I strongly suggest that you ask yourself whether you want to be a part of a community that has rules with which you obviously strongly disagree. It seems that you are setting yourself up for endless aggravation, and setting yourself up to cause endless aggravation to other members of the community.

This sort of conflict benefits neither you nor Wikipedia. I urge you to either accept Wikipedia rules, or leave the community. When someone insists on participating in the community and constantly violating its rules to create conflict, there is evidence, in my opinion, of a personality disorder. I ask you to reconsider your position. Ground Zero | t 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Take GZ & Snowy's advice AVD. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

British

I just thought I'd educate you.

The dictionary definition of 'British'

If you're too lazy to click on the link it says:

the people of Great Britain or the Commonwealth of Nations

No mention of Irish people. (The definition of that can be read here if you like.

So now you know. You now no longer can troll Irish related pages calling them British. Thank you.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello MusicInTheHouse.

I am not trolling the Irish-related pages.

The definition that you have turned up is not the one that I would of used. So you and I have a difference-of-opinion. By-the-way, some of my ancestors come from the County of Antrim in the Province of Northern Ireland. So I have some Irish blood in veins as well.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, British goes for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some may argue over the Northern Ireland discriptive, but here's a way to fix it. Politically, Northern Ireland is British, Geographically, it's is Irish. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I know if no definition of British which in any was includes the whole of Ireland. If ACV has a reference (rather then just an I disagree with you) then it should be declared. --Snowded (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ireland

Hi, hopefully you can point me in the right direction. You stated that "The Province of Northern Ireland is the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland." Could you point me to somewhere I can read a little about this? From previous discussions on other Talk pages, people can't appear to find any references to "What Happened to the Kingdom of Ireland". Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacking editors

Your attack on Sarah777 on the British Isles talk page is nothing short of disgraceful. I'm not going to say anymore.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

March 2009 (warning re: behaviour)

Don, consider this advice please... you have been given numerous warnings regarding your actions. You have a long history of disruptive behaviour, and you have an extensive block history (including your original account). Despite this, there has been no significant change in your behaviour. Please, *please* consider what others have told you. Otherwise, you are leaving precious little in the way of options. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked you for a period of 72 hours for WP:Disruptive editing on Talk:British Isles.[1][2][3][4][5] If you feel this block is unfair, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't stop your bad talk page behaviour I will be forced to report you to the above admin to have you blocked again. If you are confused to why I am reverting you, read the talk page guidelines. You have had many warnings so you don't really have an excuse. So please stop.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello MusicInTheHouse.

I do not respond well to threats. You can report me to an Admin at your earliest convenience.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:IslandOfIreland Counties.gif

Thanks for uploading File:IslandOfIreland Counties.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be reported

You may be reported to ANI for trolling and WP:NPA offences. This behaviour is not helping to move the project forward. purple (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

I do not respond well to threats.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't make them. Please do some editing, even something trivial is helpful. purple (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you just did make a threat.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Ckatz^chat_spy 02:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To GroundZero,

Please stay off my UserTalk page. I do not wish to interact you.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To Ckatz,

I believe that you have overstepped your bounds. However, I will not challenge the block. To set the record straight, the long-form name of your home province is the Province of British Columbia.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Brytish Iles and Brytish Impire

Note to self:

British Isles: Brytish Iles (by John Dee (1527-1609))

British Empire: Brytish Impire (by John Dee (1527-1609))

Cool!

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Crux-of-Arguement

The basic (and unavoidable) problem is the concept of the Name. "What is your Name?"

There is an ambiguous nature to the question "What is your Name?"

"What is your Name?"

Long-form Name: Island of Ireland, Short-form Name: Ireland

Long-form Name: Lordship of Ireland, Short-form Name: Ireland

Long-form Name: Kingdom of Ireland, Short-form Name: Ireland

Long-form Name: Irish Republic, Short-form Name: Ireland

Long-form Name: Irish Free State, Short-form Name: Ireland

Long-form Name: Province of Northern Ireland, Short-form Name: Northern Ireland

Long-form Name: Republic of Ireland, Short-form Name: Ireland

The short-form Name of just Ireland screws everything up. Eamon de Valera choose the Name of Éire (in English Ireland) to defy the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 and claim the entire Island of Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I did you a favour today and deleted the abusive comment on the talk page of British Isles. Given your past history on this I suggest you stop, especially as in this case you were listed a quotation that supported my position. Despite many requests (and help) you persist in ignoring Wikipedia guidelines on how to edit as well as your habit of breaking WP:CIVIL. --Snowded (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated disruptive behaviour following blocks and multiple warnings about such actions. This includes insults directed against other editors. The user does not show any indication of listening to the community's concerns; future issues may warrant a permanent block from editing.. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Ckatz^chat_spy 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz.

So I typed out "Sodd-Off" directed at Snowded (talk).

That is precisely what I felt after interacting with Snowded (talk). I find him to be pompus, rude, and dismissive. In my opinion, he frequently takes the position of being the "presumed-superior". I find him very aggraviating.

So ... "a month-in-exile" eh ... fine.

By-the-way, your threat of

"future issues may warrant a permanent block from editing"

reads to me as a heavy-handed intimidiation move, on your part, Ckatz.

Intimidation

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimidation

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Call it what you like; keep in mind that you've managed to incur five blocks on this account in the past three months, along with at least eighteen blocks on your old account. I'd say you've had a lot of rope given to you; have you made the best use of it? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Call it" what I like?

You appear to be making another threat, in my opinion, Ckatz.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself, AVD. PS: See ya next month. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

Yep, I definitely am not helping myself. I find Ckatz heavy-handed and authoritarian. She "bugs" me.

See you next month, my friend ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dual-Monarchy of England and France

Howdy GoodDay.

Holy-Crap!!!

The Dual-Monarchy of England and France is a fascinating article indeed. I love ole history stuff like this. I've never heard of the Dual-Monarchy of England and France before ... and I love it!

Take care, my friend ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I ever get my hands on the Troyes Treaty? I'll burn it. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dominion, Province, District, County, City, Borough, Township...

The Order of Precedence in the Dominion of Canada appears to be so far as illustrated below,

Dominion (Highest Rank)

Province

District

County

City

Borough

Township (Lowest, listed for now, Rank)

The appellation of North York bares this pattern out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_York,_Ontario

You know, all the grief and bannings that I have gotten at the Dominion of Canada page, the Republic of Ireland page, and the British Isles page have not been in vain. I am figuring this stuff out ... after all.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Well it is June 9, 2009, and my month long ban should be lifted on June 11, 2009 (so my Jailer's say....)

nomenclature

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nomenclature

1610, "a name," from Fr. nomenclature, from L. nomenclatura "calling of names," from nomenclator "namer," from nomen "name" + calator "caller, crier," from calare "call out" (see calendar). Nomenclator in Rome was the title of a steward whose job was to announce visitors, and also of a prompter who helped a stumping politician recall names and pet causes of his constituents. Meaning "list or catalogue of names" first attested 1635; that of "system of naming" is from 1664; sense of "terminology of a science" is from 1789.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

To my Jailer's,

"Nomenclator in Rome was the title of a steward whose job was to announce visitors, and also of a prompter who helped a stumping politician recall names and pet causes of his constituents."

this is who I am ... I NAME THINGS ...

I've always been very good at it, and I will keep on doing it. That being said, I effectively have very little to share with Wikipedia, as per this place is run by the "Ignorant Mob". So don't worry ... when you let me out of the ole "Tower-of-London" in 2 days ... you won't be hearing from me much.

A "Public-Service-Annoucement" that AVD won't be running amok (sigh of relief from the "Ignorant Mob").

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For your benefit then, I'll name this edit to be titled "inappropriate as it's both ethnically insulting, and contrary to WP:BLP" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

If you both to check the talk page you will see that other editors contested your translation. It is not settled. You are now edit warring to assert your view. Given your history I suggest you self-revert and open the discussion on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ...

Insulae in English means Islands or Isles

Britanniae Insulae in English means British Islands or British Isles.

The meaning (i.e., the geographic context) of British Islands or British Isles is the same.

I am willing to risk a permanent ban over this.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See talk page discussion, other editors do not agree with you. Seek consensus do not edit war. --Snowded ^TALK 07:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also please do not remove tags, they are there to prevent edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 07:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT, all communities have rules, this one helps people follow the conversation. Use of colons also (per guidelines) means that white space is not needed between points. --Snowded ^TALK 08:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ... don't screw with my spacing.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the style guides ArmChair --Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ... get off my User-TalkPage.

I will delete ANY further posts by you, on this page.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiya AVDL, see my comment at Talk: British Isles. I hope you'll consider them & follow my advice. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. Thank you very much for you kind advise. I appreciate it very much and I will follow it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You have my support on this one mate! --De Unionist (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello De Unionist.

Thank you for your kind words of support. I appreciate them very much indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunlavin Green

Just so you know, Dunlavin Green has been blocked for a week for that personal attack on Talk:British Isles. If people go around making personal attacks, you need to let admins know. We can't patrol everything and read everything, and sometimes things need bringing to our attention. Canterbury Tail talk 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cantenbury Tail.

Thank you for the kind note and words of comfort. As well thank you for letting me know that if I really get dumped on then I should report it.

By the here is the link that I get my Latin Translation study-from

Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies

http://www.acmrs.org/publications/mrts/home.html

I purchased this one

Hermann Conring (1601-1681), [Discursus novus de Imperatore Romano-Germano. English] Hermann Conring's New Discourse on the Roman-German Emperor, Edited and translated by Constantin Fasolt (1951- ), Publisher: Medieval Renaissance texts and studies, Volume 282. Neo-Latin texts and translations, Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS), pp.122, (2005).

PS ... I have been pushing "too-hard" at the British Isles page. I got pissed off and went "on-a-bit". I'll cool it down for a while.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop posting comments which are apprently unrelated to the process of improving the article, as you did at Talk:British Isles. In addition, I asked you nicely to please stop using bold text unnecessarily. Now I'm asking you slightly less nicely. I need everyone to make an effort to make their contributions less disruptive and more constructive. If you disrupt the wiki process at Talk:British Isles any further, I will block you from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel. Ok ... heard loud-and-clear. I'll stop right now with the Celtish Isles terminology. I am sorry.

In the original vein-of-thought ... how do I get the British Isles referenced Island of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) and Island of Mikra Britannia (LittleGreat Britain) back into the Wikipedia British Isles article. I am frustrated with the whose process. Snowded, Ghmylte and, MITH seem to be stone-walling it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow SheffieldSteel's advice, AVDL. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, AVDL, please heed what SheffieldSteel is saying.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Arcmchair, heed his advice, because he needs everyone to make an effort - and he's an Admin. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Celtish Isles terminology compared to British Isles terminology

Well I put alot of work into this ... I thought it was funny.

Oh well eh.

The Celtic Language is sub-divided into Brythonic and Goidelic branches.

The Brythonic branch further sub-divides into Cumbian, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. The Island of Brython (Island of Great Britain) is where these people live.

The Goidelic branch further-subdivides into Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic. The Island of Goidel (Island of Ireland, aka Island of Little Britain) is where these people live.

A Scots Gael got together with his friends and they decided to call themselves collectively the Scots Gaels. Now, the Scots Gaels like land so they crossed from their original homeland Northern Goidel (i.e., Northern Ireland, aka Northern Little Great Britain) and to the northern part of the Island of Brython (a place called Pictland). They then proceeded to exterminate the Picts (something to do with the Queen-of-the-Picts sleeping with the King of the Scots Gaels , it figures ... a "very old story" boy-and-girls).

( ... )

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A.D. 1750 British Isles Map

The Britannica Insulae are

Britannia Major (i.e, Albion)

Britannia Minor (i.e., Ivernia)

This link is here ...

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3908~480110:Britannicae-Insulae-in-quibus-Albio

Short Title

Britannicae Insulae (A.D. 1750).

Long Title

Britannicae Insulae in quibus Albion seu Britannia Major, et Ivernia seu Britannia Minor, juxta Ptolemoei mentem divisae, tum in suas majores partes, tum in populos exhibentur, a Nicolao Sanson, Christ. Regis Geographo, Revisae, et ad Observationes astronomicas redactae, accurante Robert de Vaugondy filio, Cum Privilegio Regis, 1750. Guill? Delahaye sculpsit.

If people care about the truth...

Addenda: Insula versus Peninsula

Island of Great Britain: Insula Britannia Major (i.e, Great Britain)

Island of Little Britain: Insula Britannia Minor (i.e., Ireland)

Peninsula of Brittany: Paeninsula Britannia Minor (i.e., Brittany)

It is important NOT to quote just the words Britannia Minor. It can refer to two different items,

(i). Insula Britannia Minor (i.e., Ireland)

(ii). Paeninsula Britannia Minor (i.e., Brittany)

One has to very careful about this, lest you confuse the two with each-other (this illustrates the dangerous nature of using short-form names instead of using long-form names).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OR at British Isles naming dispute

Armchair, following your suggestion of OR at the naming dispute article I've tagged the article. It does indeed seem that the so-called dispute is largely, and maybe wholly, in the minds of some Wikipedia editors. As I've said at Talk:British Isles naming dispute the words are avoided by some and disliked by others, but there is no dispute as to usage in the commonly accepted meaning of the word 'dispute'. What do you think? MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello MidnightBlue (Talk).

Thank you very much for the "heads-up". I appreciate alot. That page seems to me to be NOTHING BUT Original Research.

As the "wanna-bee" Nomenclator of Rome, I fully support the Name (i.e., Nomem) of the British Isles naming dispute on Wikipedia. The only reason we are talking about is the the Good Friday Agreement (1998) terminology. We as the public are NOT bound by it. We do not have to respect the terminology.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing in general and "I didn't hear that" conduct in particular. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You've shown that you are either incapable of listening, or unwilling to listen, to what other editors are saying, at Talk:British Isles and elsewhere.

• You have been asked repeatedly to stop using excessive whitespace, bold text and other such attention-grabbing formatting, but you are now using blue text in addition to bold text in your talk page posts.
• You have not joined in the constructive discussion that other editors are contributing to, but have started multiple threads to make your own points, and when answered you have failed to take into account the views of other editors, even going so far as to start an edit war [6][7], despite having been blocked for this before.

The duration of this block takes into account your previous block history. I suspect that unless you can address these issues your next block may be indefinite. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel.

First off, I respect your decision to block me. You gave me a chance the first time and didn't block, and this time you gave me a block of 1-month (equal to my last block by Ckatz). I also appreciate that you didn't indefinitely block me (I don't want that).

Posting-Style (i). "You have been asked repeatedly to stop using excessive whitespace, bold text and other such attention-grabbing formatting, but you are now using blue text in addition to bold text in your talk page posts."

With regard to Bold, Blue-Text, and White-Space (i.e., Style guide issues) the operative word here is asked. When you ask someone the complaince is voluntary (i.e., not mandatory). As well the Style guide is just that a GUIDE ... it is voluntary (i.e., not mandatory). Additionally what I do on my User TakePage (within reason) is MY BUSINESS ... i.e., not yours. My User TalkPage is my own "little-patch", my English-Garden ... Ok.

Posting-Behaviour (ii). "You have not joined in the constructive discussion that other editors are contributing to, but have started multiple threads to make your own points, and when answered you have failed to take into account the views of other editors, even going so far as to start an edit war [8][9], despite having been blocked for this before."

Ahh ... here we go. This stuff (i.e., Posting-Behaviour (ii)., and not Posting-Style (i). ) ... this is nitty-gritty. You have given me 1-month off Wikipedia to "serious re-examine" my Posting-Behaviour (ii). ... this may sound odd, but I appreciate the-service. Your block (and you are just the Messenger, so I personally hold no ill-will against you) has given me serious pause-for-thought. I think and I feel now that I probably do not belong here at Wikipedia (you have finally gotten through to me ... where others have not). I Thank you for that, SheffieldSteel, you have done me a-service. Anyways , take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Balearic Islands terminology compared to British Isles terminology

The Balearic Islands are an archipelago just like the British Isles. Now quoted below, for the Balearic Islands we have the following text,

"The Balearic Islands (Catalan and official: Illes Balears; Spanish: Islas Baleares) are an archipelago in the western Mediterranean Sea, near the eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula."

"The four largest islands are Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza, and Formentera."

Now, upon inspection one will note the Name(s) of the first two of the four islands, in other words the Island of Majorca (i.e., the "Great Island") and the Island of Minorca (i.e, the "Little Island"). The terminology of the Balearic Islands (i.e., not disputed) is entirely consistent with the terminology of the British Isles (i.e., vitriolously disputed by some Wikipedians who live in the Republic of Ireland, and two Wikipedians who live in the Principality of Wales).

The British Isles and the Peninsula of Brittany form a "zone-of-Celtish-people" who could live in the following areas,

Island of Great Britain (i.e., Britannia Major Insula, Megale Britannia Insula, Alvion ) ... Great Britain

Island of Little Britain (i.e., Britannia Minor Insula, Mikra Britannia Insula, Hivernia ) ... Ireland

Peninsula of Brittany (i.e., Britannia Minor Paeninsula, Armorica ) ... Brittany

Thus, "Great Britain" consists of one part, i.e., Britannia Major Insula, whereas as "Little Britain" consists two parts i.e., Britannia Minor Insula and Britannia Minor Paeninsula. To re-emphasize ... '"Little Britain" has two parts an INSULA and a PAENINSULA (and be careful to remember that!).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to qualify my comments at BI but it keeps getting reverted. There reference to Prettanic Isles in the aricle is correct. The bullshit in the article is The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia. Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I do not participate in Wikipedia anymore ...

It is stupid edits like this one...

Middle Francia being merged into Lotharingia

are the reason I do not bother "adding my 2-Cents" anymore.

The idiotic re-casting of historical articles, and the blurring of the exact-Naming (i.e, the Nomenclature) of historical entities is rife here at Wikipedia.

The Empire of Francia was partitioned via the Treaty of Verdun (843) into three sister allied Kingdoms,

Kingdom of West Francia (i.e., most of France)

Kingdom of Middle Francia (i.e., Netherlands, Eastern Belgium, thin-strip along the Rhine, Northern Italy)

Kingdom of East Francia (i.e., most of Germany)

Now Lotharingia consisted only of a portion of Kingdom of Middle Francia namely,

Netherlands,

Eastern Belgium,

thin-strip along the Rhine

Hence, the merging of the larger-whole Kingdom of Middle Francia into the smaller-subdivision of Lotharingia is asinine, and frankly stupid.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As several editors have attempting to explain to you over the years WIkipedia is not a place for random thoughts, speculations and original research. The article on Middle Francia has no citations at all, there is no way to verify the material. Your statements above may or may not be true. Similar statements by you on BI related topics have been nonsense so you don't have a good track record. However if you are correct then you should be arguing for the Lotharingia article to be expanded and renamed. At least that one has some references in it. --Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're always welcomed

I don't like to see an editor leave Wikipedia, wish you'd reconsider. Remember, as far as I'm concerned, you're always welcomed to participate in the land of Wiki. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved that discussion again

Armchair, I've moved that discussion again to the reference desk.

As interesting a question as it is, talk pages are for discussions related to improving articles. The question you asked was a general one and the reference desk is the best place for it. It's getting some good feedback there - Ghmyrtle answer is particularly well-informed one IMHO and the references he supplied could be used on a range articles if you are interested in addingthem.

But please, keep general discussions/questions off article talk pages.

I hope you understand. Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí.

I appreciate your civility. I appreciate your kind message here. I am howevere dissappointed in your decision to remove my section. I believe you are willfully being blind to the subject of Mikra Britannia Insula (Little Britain Island). Anyways, I will let it go.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting and I wasn't aware of the reference Ghmyrtle pointed to (although it it used on other pages) but let's keep talk page discussion focused. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Armchair. I highly recommend that you don't put your 'question' back on the talkpage-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Talk:British Isles. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Behaviour

You have been previously blocked by SheffieldSteel for failure to follow Wikipedia conventions. When other editors attempt to assist you all we see is your insistence on your right to do things your way regardless of the conventions of this community. Your last block was a month, the next is likely to be longer. I suggest you try and learn, and at least self revert on Middle Francia. The same comment applies to your failure to use citations. --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowded,

I was blocked by SheffieldSteel for the reasons clearly stated above. If you have forgotten them, please feel free to read them again.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did and just removed the "excessive white space" in your comment above to try and illustrate the point. You really need to try and learn you know, your life not to mention that of those who have to interact with you here would be so much easier if you did. I suggest you start by reading th eparagraph headed "indentation" at Help:Talk page --Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Armchair, your Wiki fate is in your hands. 'Tis true, you're likely heading towards a longer block. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your most recent disruptive posts at Talk:Middle Francia and elsewhere. The comment regarding mental illness is unacceptable, especially given your user history, block log, and the countless warnings. Any future transgressions will result in an extended loss of editing privileges. You have had ample opportunity to adjust your behaviour. Ckatz^chat_spy 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Im writing this from a closing library - but I thought it was worth it.. you basically are on the verge of a block (rightly or wrongly), and your behavious is being analysed y various people right now for a number of reasons. I agree your formatting is up to you, but if you can't change you must say why. Also re talk page content - I havant had a chance to look at it properly, but I'd lay off that for a while too (I asume you are putting in something people aren't interested in). It might not be the best time to fight your ground. I've got some new BI refs today but won't be able to get them up till maybe on weekend - will be interesting to see what you think of them. I'm still hoping to turn you round on your views on how WP should advise RE the BI's! Matt Lewis (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Snowded TALK 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Actually, you don't indent, the way you please. Please, take note of my corrections to your latest post at talk:British Isles. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what I'm talking about. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be plain ... what are you talking about? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You told Mister Flash that you can "..indent, the way I please..". Well, no you can't. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What rule or regulation mandates exact indenting at Wikipedia?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Indentation. It would greatly help, if you'd be more considerate and indent the way we do. PS: Even I'm becoming annoyed. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay.

Alright. I'll abide by "this rule". I am sorry that I annoyed you eh. Thank for letting me know your opinion. I appreciate that alot.

Take care eh, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you're free to mis-indent on your own talkpage. We'll allow that much room for your rebellious spirit. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehehe .... thank my friend. I'll follow the Wikipedia guidelines on indenting prolonged discussions. I am sorry that I annoyed you eh. Take care, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mental math

Vexillologist, regarding doing the "mental math", I think you underestimate your predecessors. About 2/3 of Jews in German-occupied lands were exterminated 1939-45. Between 1841 and 1921 the population of Ireland fell from 8.2 million to 4.4 million: a 46% reduction. Over the same period, the natural increase was to triple. Thus, the net arithmetic requires approximately 4/5 mortality or resettlement rate.

It is very difficult for us today to imagine Ireland as a densely populated country. At the formation of the 1801 union, Ireland was one of the most populous countries in Europe: comparable to England, though slightly less densely populated and smaller in area. By the time self-government was restored six-score years later, Ireland had become one of the least populated countries in Europe and the internal demography had been virtually reversed. (Ulster, which had been relatively sparsely populated became relatively densely populated. Connacht and Munster, which had been densely populated, became sparsely populated. Leinster, which had been in balance with the rest of the country, became lop-sided.)

Of course there is a significant different between the German and British (viz. English) authorities over the periods in questions: the German authorities had murderous intent. Theirs was a pre-designed plan to exterminate a people they disdained. The English authorities, however much they disdained the Irish, did not want kill them in the 19th century. That was merely an accident of ignorance and an ill-formed union. The ultimate reason for Irish nationalism is not that the English are evil, it's just that they are unfit to govern anywhere except England.

Let's leave discussion of Cromwell for another day, except to ask how a neighbour can talk of collegialism while having outside his parliament a statue to a man that oversaw the death 1/3 to 2/3 (50% was the estimate at the day) of the people of Ireland through war? Again, you underestimate you predecessors. -- RA (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Heironymous Rowe.

(1918-1944)

long-form Name: Konungsríkið Ísland (i. e.,Kingdom of Iceland); short-from Name: Ísland (i.e., Iceland)

(post-1944)

long-form Name: Lýðveldið Ísland (i.e., Republic of Iceland); short-form Name: Ísland (i.e., Iceland)

Why list its Name only as Ísland (i.e.,Iceland)? This makes no sense to me.

Take care, and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, just dropped by the notification which I noticed hadn't been done. Although, I did this before I noticed the other party had made you aware of the thread on the article in questions talk page. Regards. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Okkie dokkie, Heironymous Rowe.

Take care, and best wishes, eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Iceland

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iceland. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In this ANI discussion I have proposed that you should be blocked if you revert again at Iceland before consensus is reached on the Talk page. You may join that discussion if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulfur

According to WP:LEAD - "Most commonly, the article's subject is stated as early as possible in the first sentence". There seems no reason to depart from that in the Sulfur article. William Avery (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello William Avery.

I appreciate your kind and respectful note, indeed, thank you.

With regards to the Sulfur (i.e., Sulphur) article, I wrote the following,

"The chemical element sulfur or sulphur (pronounced /ˈsʌlfər/ SUL-fər, see spelling below) has the atomic number 16 and is denoted with the symbol S."

for several reasons. Firstly, American English and German language speaking persons tend to prefer the -f- spelling of Sulfur. In contrast the British English and the British Commonwealth of Nations countries tend to prefer the -ph- spelling of Sulphur. There are both acceptable usages and neither should be given offical precedence. Secondly, the chemical symbol of Sulphur is the capital S. Chemical symbols and chemical nomenclature are very specific.

Either both Sulfur and Sulphur should be capitalised in a sentence containing the statement that the chemical symbol is capital S, or they both should be lower-case sulfur and sulphur, so neither looks more offical than the other . This is a clear case of American English and German language speakers pushing their POV on the British English and British Commonwealth of Nations English-speaking community.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sulphur versus Sulfur Non-sense Debate

I agree with this gentlemen below (i.e., I spell it Sulphur).

I'm an English-Canadian. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Two nations divided by a common language

http://home.clara.net/rod.beavon/sulphur.htm

Note:I've removed some text here that was an unambiguous copyright violation. For more info, please see WP:COPYRIGHT. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You have just broken (using an IP address) the "do not revert a revert" rule on British Isles. As such you could be subject to a block (and you have a history). Please self-revert and discuss on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Isles. 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. Controversial was there for a long time ArmChair - use the talk page please --Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

The "consensus wording" is the British Isles _are_ a group of islands,..."

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure when it changed but to be fair it appears to have been out for at least a month so you are correct. That aside, you have now reverted four times in 24 hours and regardless of whether you are right or wrong that would earn a ban if reported --Snowded ^TALK 16:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowded ... please refer to the timeline...

(i). British Isles article locked until June 4, 2010

(ii). June 6, 2010, unknown IP (from Granada Spain) starts this "non-sense",

(iii). June 6, 2010, CyrilThePig4 continues this "non-sense"

(iv). I try to stop this non-sense.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning: one more set of personal attacks on British Isles and you get reported with a request for a block. WIkipedia rules are very clear, deal with content issues do not attack other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 18:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI report made here --Snowded ^TALK 21:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not speculate or comment on other editors' beliefs or motivations. These invariably turn out to be counterproductive, regardless of their accuracy, and whether or not they are violations of our no personal attacks policy. The simple rule is to comment on the edit, not on the editor. This helps make life easier for everyone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen to the warning ArmChair - be grateful another editor reverted this personal attack. --Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you are the one playing linguistic games. That is your stock-and-trade. I put it back in. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Indentation ..

Hi, I see indentation was pointed out previously. Can you at least make a small effort to use colons to indent to the correct depth when you reply? --HighKing (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

HighKing,

Look ... for most part I have adhered to the indentation convention. Sometimes I will not. I will keep those times to a minimum. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If AVDL wishes to be continue to be utterly counter-productive, by irritating other members of the community to the extent that they are minded to ignore any substantive content of his postings, and to treat them as the barely relevant ramblings of a highly eccentric and disruptive individual, that, in my opinion, is entirely a matter for him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Where've you been hiding...

...these last few months? GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

I decided to stay silent for a while. My perpetual brickering with Snowded and the anti-British Isles crew was bothering me too much. So I did something uncharacteristic of me ... I shut-up :)

Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles debate is worse than the Dominion of Canada debate. I did not think that any such thing could be possible ... but nevertheless Wikipedia "makes strange bed-fellows". Also, I have gotten thoroughly fed-up with Snowded's pompous bragging of his mastery of Logic. So I've decided to beat him at his own game ... I've been studying Logic on my own. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain

The reason I reverted you is because the article is called Kingdom of Great Britain, not "united Kingdom of Great Britain". I recommended - and, indeed, do recommend - that you seek consensus to change the article's name before making changes like this. TFOWR 17:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? ... 1 reference in The Times webpage, and some vague babbling by a handful of Wikipedians does not over-rule the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" being used in "the Colonies" for ages-on-end. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Then move the page, or request a page move. My point is that the text of the article should match the name of the article. TFOWR 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No. This first ... let people get used to it. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that requesting a page move would give people a chance to get used to the idea, rather than confusing the reader by using one term for the title, and another in the prose? TFOWR 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Look ... small changes first. Let us see what happens. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DISCUSS it Armchair --Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To Snowded:

Not everything is written down. Not everything is on the Internet.

Case-in-Point: Middle Francia Article

Per the Treaty of Verdun (A.D. 843), the Empire of Francia was subdivided into the Kingdom of West Francia, the Kingdom of Middle Francia, and the Kingdom of East Francia. There was still an Emporer (A.D. 843-855), that was the Sovereign of the whole Empire. Upon the Emporer's death, the squabbles and wars began over the territory that once was controlled by the Kingdom of Middle Francia. Upon inspection of the many historical narratives available today, you will note that the Lion's- Share of every European War between then (i.e., A.D. 843) and today (i.e., A.D. 2010) has occurred in some way over the lands once known as Middle Francia. This is a significant point, in other words ... Middle Francia is worthy-of-note. What infuriates the Hell-outta-me, is your rigid attitude towards references. Not everything is written down. Not everything is on the Internet. Thus, a large body of material here is taken on faith. Whereas you selectively enforce procedure, I favour knowledge. Knowledge is not always carved into a stone tablet ... you know. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to Discussion: Middle Francia Talk Page

Upon inspection of the link below,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_Francia

you will note a certain "edge" to the discourse between you and I. This observed "edge" between us is by no means 100% my doing ... it "takes two-to-tango". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kingdom of Great Britain. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR report made here but I think ANI is next for a permanent block given your long term history of disruption --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Kingdom of Great Britain. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommend that you avoid edit-wars in future, Don. My guess is, if ya get blocked again, a community ban might follow. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

'Note" Block adjusted to six months (commencing now) for repeated disruptive posts on the talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you change title of 'Kingdom of Great Britain' article

Hi there - I'm quite new to this and haven't signed up yet. I tried to change the title of the Kingdom of Great Britain but can't seem to manage - looks like I would have to sign up for that. Why don't you do it (once you're not blocked) as I'm sure it makes sense. 86.146.173.243 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, the title wont be changed. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello ... the Title won't be changed? Why not? The Act of Union 1707 cites the long-form Name the United Kingdom of Great Britain in Articles 2, 3, and 4.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You can propose a change, but you will have to learn to discuss it --Snowded ^TALK 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Leave it to you Snowded, to use Logic, to level-a-criticism. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep posting here, GoodDay... Wikipedia needs you!

Howdy Howdy GoodDay,

Re:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#Pending_retirement

Please keep posting here, GoodDay... Wikipedia needs you! All parts of Wikipedia need you! I guess that you are moving to the ole City of Charlottetown ... the safest city for pedestrians (just looking like you are going to step off the curve, and all cars stop!!)

Take care, best wishes eh,

Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Don, at the end of this month, I won't have a computer anymore. New location requires new priorities, thus it's back to reading books more often. I might return sometime in 2011. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Been in my new apartment now for over 2-months & I got a computer in the first week of November. Just checked out the discussion at Kingdom of Great Britain & decided to say hello. Hadn't realized ('til now) you were on a involuntary holiday. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!#Things I owe to Snowded. Wikipedia has a strict policy against this sort of activity. You have had enough warnings about civility that you should well be familiar with the fact that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you persist with this behaviour. Thank you. Ckatz^chat_spy 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Ckatz^chat_spy 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been released from the Tower of London

Horrah! Huzzah!!

I've been released from the Tower of London!!! Been feeding the Seven Ravens of the Tower of London and chatting with Bran the Blessed (an interesting Welsh dude).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Something I'm proud of ....

Something I'm proud of ...

Translation of Rigsfællesskabet

The term Rigsfællesskabet has the following components,

(i). Rigs

(ii). fællesskab

(iii). (et)

Now, we have,

(i). "Realm's"

(ii). "fellowship" ... "commonship"

(iii). gender ending, and the definite article "The".

So assembling the components we have The Realm's Commonship or The Realm's Fellowship for Rigsfællesskabet. The word Commonship can translate as either Commonwealth (i.e., Commonrealm) or Community. The more appropriate translation here is Commonwealth.

So we have Rigsfællesskabet translating as The Realm's Commonwealth or The Commonwealth of the Realm.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to the land of the unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. Thanks alot for the "Hello" ... it is nice to be released from the ole Tower of London. Take care, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain

Your edit summaries in emphasizing "United Kingdom of Great Britain" are on the lines of "the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain deserve the same font ... this is the norm for Political Divisions with alternate designations" but they are not alternate names. Great Britain is the correct name, stipulated by parliament and invariably used, whereas "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is an incorrect name, not an alternate name. Putting that in bold type gives people the wrong impression that the two names are of equal correctness and equal value, which they are not. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonraker2. The status quo has been Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain, (i.e., both bolded) for a very long time. The assertion that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is incorrect has been disputed by other editors (myself included for quite some time). The issue is not resolved. Simply put a status quo of bolding both was arrived at. I am gently asking you not to upset that status quo. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this is best continued at Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain‎. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, ... and if you check the time-stamps that is where I went to discuss it. Kindly see you there. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Howdy AVDL. I'd recommend ya pull back from that article's discussion, as your proposals are kinda difficult to decypher. Your posts (rightly/wrongly) seem to create the impression that you're on a different plane of thinking. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. Thank you for your advise. I will take it, and I will pull back. If things come to Voting, ... I will back you in the Vote. Take care, my friend. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"... Aye, Aye, Captain Picard,..." Lieutenant Barclay Don, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the formation of the United Kingdom is misleading

This article is very frustrating. The wording of the formation of the United Kingdom is misleading. There appears to be a purposeful bluring (i.e., Equivocation) of the Geographic Features and the Country Units.

(1). The Geographic Features are the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Ireland,

(2). The Country Units are the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland.

(3). Since we are discussing the Country (i.e., Independent State), of the United Kingdom we should talk of its creation out of the Country Units, and not the Geographic Features.

(4). The Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, and the Kingdom of Scotland rest upon the Island of Great Britain,

(5). The Kingdom of Ireland rests upon the Island of Ireland.

Now in 1707 the Country Units came into Union, and thus a United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed, resting upon the Island of Great Britain. To re-emphasize, in terms of a United Kingdom of Great Britain the word United already applied as a union of 3 countries ... 3 united countries.

Next, the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800) then came into Union with the Kingdom of Ireland (1541-1800), thus forming an expanded Union, whose name was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921), and then later (after December 6, 1921) the United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The uniting of the Country Units should be emphasized, and NOT the uniting of the Geographic Features.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kingdom of Great Britain. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Will you ever learn? --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Hello there. Thanks for leaving me a message. I'm quite new to all this but I'm learnng quickly. I don't like the way that some editors seem to have their own opinions, irrespective of the evidence! Best wishes. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Spiritofstgeorge. Thank you very much for your kind reply. Your politeness, and respectfulness are very appreciated by me thanks. I've learned the "hard-way" than when I feel that my arguements are being ignored, ... walk away,....". It is not worth getting banned over. Take care, and best wishes, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

WIkipedia guidelines are very clear. Talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles. You have either made an accusation of sock puppetry or you are asking other editors questions which have nothing to do with the talk page itself. This is disruptive and I am starting to keep a record of when you do this. You have a long term history of disruption over both this and your former ID and a block history to go with it. Its all low key disruptive editing, wasting other editors time, refusing to format your comments properly, making statements without reliable sources etc. etc. etc. Its time to put the evidence together and raise it for community action. The solution is as ever in your hands. Starting by reverting your recent reverts might be a gesture of good faith --Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:United Kingdom. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Might as well add that given you seem to have a death wish --Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Take it to the other users Talk page not relevant to the article. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Snowded and DeCausa. The least self-defeating course of action would be for you to self-revert your personal comments on the article talk page, and - if you wish - ask the same questions on the editor's user talk page. Of course, I think the substance of your comments is wholly wrong, but that doesn't mean that your behaviour need be equally stupid and stubborn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle. I am trying to learn the Welsh language (among) the other Indo-European Languages that I am studying. Could you recommend a good book on beginneer's Welsh? Thanks eh. Take care, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You were suggesting at Talk:United Kingdom that I was also Akerbeltz, and this is incorrect. Please do not accuse other users of sockpuppetry unless you have some evidence to make a formal complaint. Moonraker (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonraker. To address your comment, I was not accusing you (i.e., User:Moonraker) of being a sockpuppet. What I clearly asked you was are the User Accounts (Moonraker2 and Akerbeltz) one-and-the-same. I did this upon noticing the Time and Date Stamp on this entry,

Goðrmaðray (at Talkpage User:Moonraker)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonraker#Go.C3.B0rma.C3.B0ray

Any chance of a source for your edit to Hebrides? Cheers. Ben MacDui 09:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon checking the edit date one gets this,

Gometra Article Page

Gometra (Scottish Gaelic), Goðrmaðray (Old Norse) [i.e., Goðrmaðray, Goðrmaðr Island, Godman's Island]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gometra&limit=500&action=history

(cur | prev) 13:31, 4 April 2011 Akerbeltz (talk | contribs) (4,466 bytes) (tweak gaelic)

Anyways, I was only asking, I was not accusing. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reported you for edit warring to Admin Noticeboard

Report is here. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Talk:United Kingdom. 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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Best Wishes to the People I Enjoyed Interacting With.

Howdy folkes,

I have been on Wikipedia for seven years (A.D. 2005-2011), and I would like to say goodbye and best wishes to the people I enjoyed interacting with. I would like to says thanks to,

(i). Slim Virgin,

(ii). GoodDay,

(iii). Jeanne Boleyn,

(iv). Matt Lewis,

(v). Daicaregos,

(vi). HighKing,

(vii). Gazzster.

All the best, and take care,

Don.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Setting the Record Straight: ArmchairVexillologistDon and its continuation ArmchairVexilliologistDonLives! are not Sockpuppets

After three years of silence ... I see Sockpuppet stuck on my account? Oh please (eye-roll).

The Investigation Page is here,....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Archive

HighKing states this,...

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon was previously indef blocked on 11th May 2009. User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! was a reincarnation of sorts and was indef blocked on 20th July 2011, and said "Goodbye" on their Talk page on 15th November 2011. The User:Italay90 account was created on 15th March 2012 - there's a deleted edit on 20th May 2012, and the first edit proper on 19th July 2012. Italay90 demonstrates some uncanny similarities in editing patterns and style. I don't want to list them all - I'd just end up giving them a template to avoid further detection - but I'm happy to provide further detail (if needed) via email. But these accounts are the same person. For example - AVD doesn't seem to grasp indentation and formatting - for example here you can see the use of bolding within sentences, and the lack of indentation. Italay90 displays the exact same editing characteristics - see this all-bolded demand with no indentation. Also, both editors' user pages are adorned with flags - User:ArmchairVexillologistDon User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! and User:Italay90. And both editors edit in the same topic area of UK nationalistic-related topics, or naming topics, and always with the same views. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My Response:

First off,

(1). ArmchairVexillologistDon (i.e., the "First-Me") was never indefinitely banned.

(2). I forgot my password for it, and I had not set up any way to "retrieve" or "change" it. In other words ... I was stuck.

(3). I created the 'ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (i.e., the "Second-Me") account with a new password, and clearly linked to the old account so everyone would know it was me.

(4). Three years ago I get indefinitely blocked (after serving several definite blocks, 1 month, then 6 months, then 1 year).

(5). Present day ... this username User:Italay90 sturs up someone's feathers, then I get a Sockpuppet label stuck on my account.

I am not User:Italay90 .

How do I get this Sockpuppet label taken off my account?

I need some help with this ... please.

Don