User talk:Bardrick

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edge of Darkness (1943 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Brandon (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) 10:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Henry Brandon (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Native American

Pasadena Playhouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Brandon

=

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rowena Cooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish (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) 11:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry V (1989 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Simmons (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) 11:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Claud Allister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Square Mile (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) 08:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post on talk. DrKiernan (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Eagle in a Cage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anglo-American

Francis Tumblety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mountebank

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyril Joe Barton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posthumously (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) 08:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that removing block notices is ok and I've explained that to the editor who removed it. See WP:REMOVED. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear to this user and any other user who happens to be reading this, not all administrators agree with Doug's interpretation of WP:BLANKING - I for one. However, I defer to the blocking administrator's position.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gommecourt. 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) 13:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Christopher Reginald Buckle, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enoch Powell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eighth Army. 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) 11:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward James Montagu-Stuart-Wortley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serre. 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) 10:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Bean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Front. 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) 09:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bardrick, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

38 (City of Sheffield) Signal Regiment

added a link pointing to Territorial Army

Edward Parnell (sport shooter)

added a link pointing to Western Front

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eric Kennington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethune. 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) 09:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Christopher Reginald Buckle, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Britain First. 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. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, you are engaged in a slow edit ware against four other editors. That is more than enough to get you blocked if reported. Use the talk page to get agreement before making changes ----Snowded ^TALK 06:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Emotionalllama (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Britain First. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

I wish to appeal what is an unjust block by an Administrator. I have made a reasonable and sound edit to this article, the reasoning of which is given in its edit log, and have been met by several other users who have continually reverted it automatically whilst not been able to give encyclopedic reasoning for their actions. They have either not given any reason at all, or have come back with personal opinions, or citing material which is not encyclopedic in the form of media opinion columns (not news articles). I have asked a simple question each time to justify their desire to retain the article as is, and they have not answered it, if they had been able to I would have withdrawn my edit voluntarily. They have edit warred with me, not the other way around. A reading of the article's edit log where I detailed and reasoned the edit change, and what the replies and responses have been shows what has gone on here. There is no fair justification for this block in my direction (perhaps it was in theirs, but I did not seek it). Is Wiki an encyclopedia, or an internet political blog to be controlled by groups of users wielding personal opinions collectively in a capricious manner, with Administrators arbitrarily issuing unjust blocks to appease them vs individual?Bardrick (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. "I am right" is no excuse for edit warring. You should use the time to familiarize yourself with dispute resolution. Huon (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wish to appeal this block for a 2nd time, the first block was unjust and poor encyclopedic management, and the 1st appeal's response addressed barely any of the points made. I did not say solely "I'm right", nor did I make "excuses" (excuses for what & to whom exactly?), and why am I being accused of edit warring & not the other users who have automatically reverted the latest edit without good encyclopedic reasoning each time, and failed to provide one for their actions each time I requested it. This is poor encyclopedic management & merely encourages more of this behaviour by editors whose opinions are bigger than their encyclopedic logic & discipline. Admin. should have stayed out of this exchange when it was summoned by a user threatening another with it (which is in itself against Wiki's guidance for Admin. I vaguely recall?) on this article and allowed the edits to argue the issue through to a conclusionBardrick (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request is no better than your first. Apparently, you have no insight into collaboration, consensus-building, or edit-warring policy. The content issue should be worked out on the Talk page or some other dispute resolution forum, not persistently disrupting the article. Don't blame administrators. Don't blame other editors. Look to your ownconduct. If you can't figure this out, the possibility of another longer block in the future is unfortunately likely. Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Bardrick, regarding your edit here, I reverted per what I stated in that edit summary: "The lead is meant to summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. One paragraph does not do the article justice." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the sandbox or the preview button if you want to make a large number of changes to an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bardrick, I apologise for the harsh words before, I didn't mean that as a slur on you personally and I'm sorry to have offended you. Anyway: as you may be able to see I'm trying to edit from my phone and it's hard to do references - please see the articles I wrote on Ian Smith, Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence, William Harper (Rhodesian politician), Hugh Beadle, Southern Rhodesian military involvement in the Malayan Emergency and more for lots of source material with reliable sources relevant to changes made to the Peter Walls article. Rhodesia wasn't a republic until 1970, country was Zimbabwe Rhodesia from June 1979 after Internal Settlement, that kind of thing. Hope this helps. Cheers and have a nice weekend —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bardrick. 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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eamon Collins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV. 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) 09:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kiss Me Deadly (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Jones. 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) 11:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks on me or anything else, they are not constructive whatsoever. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Steen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Theatre. 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) 09:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Michael Faraday, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ChamithN (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World in Action, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musician's Union. 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) 10:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Uamaol. I noticed that you made a comment on the page James Hewitt that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A friendly warning to you. Can you please be civil to other editors and not resort to personal attacks such as: "Undid a pathetic reversion by a sad little character who should be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia". This kind of attitude may get you banned. Cheers. UaMaol (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be like Bob and read WP:DERRY. Reverting could lead to another block for you. Have a nice day 😀

I'm sure some Admin have this page on their watch list. He keeps reverting a edit that conforms with MOS and we the majority of people who actually live in Doire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.69 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary made me laugh https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_Medal_1939%E2%80%931945&diff=prev&oldid=786769189 😀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.69 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at your edit history. I think you might be worse than Bob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.0.157 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for edit warring, 3RR violation (which you know about) and continual violation of WP:DERRY despite being informed of the naming convention. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked by an administrator unjustly. The edit log on the article shows what's taken place here. You have multiple revert edits by 1 or 2 anonymous parties, one who appears to have several anonymous accounts all from the same location, there's no reason being given by them for it other than gibberish comments on the article's log, mixed with threats of "going to admin" for canceling their reversions (which is not meant to be done on Wikipedia either), & another reference to a ridiculous "naming convention", where a town's legal governmental name has been re-titled, in what's meant to be encyclopedia, other than what it officially is actually named. This "naming convention" is based on political views not governmental legal facts, & I'm amazed that any authority in Wikipedia ever allowed it, & now it's been allowed there are obviously politically motivated people edit warring with sensible editors on the site over multiple pages using it as a weapon when any1 types that town actual legal name into an article, which they are watching & auto-reverting obsessively to control. This is an idiotic administrative practice for what's meant to be an encyclopedia sourced on evidence based material & reasoned logic, as is this stupid block - which criticizes someone for edit warring (no warning given first, no discussion of it, just an extended block slapped on at the first opportunity), making no such sanction to the other parties who have done exactly the same thing & started it, most of their reverts having been made from anonymous accounts without comment & little editing history, evidence, justification or with just gibberish comments in its log indicating who they are & their mentality & motivation, where as my edits in the log were reasoned & based on encyclopedic logic. I don't expect this block to be lifted, but I'm putting this on the record as to the mess Wikipedia is in currently on this issue of the name of the town of Londonderry in its article, where it has clearly been hi-jacked by politically motivated people, which should not have been allowed by the editorial authority of what's meant to be an encyclopedia, & the spill-over effects this bad decision is now having.

Decline reason:

Whatever you think about the consensus that has been reached regarding Derry/Londonderry, this is not the place to argue about it. Unless the consensus is changed, you must follow it - and you certainly must not edit war to impose your own preferred naming in defiance of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Hi

While I realise u might never read this, here goes anyway

Stop putting <br> everywhere to create a new line for a paragraph or some other weird indentation you have thought looks good.

You have messed up several articles using it, and made them look rubbish.
This is how one uses them, to make an indented line in chat or talk pages.
NOT in articles please!

I have spent fifteen minutes trying to restore some sense to one article, and am now going to have to spend more time looking at the rest of your edits to make sure you haven't cocked them up as well...

Once again, the <br> tag is for making a line break - try not to use them in articles unless there is no other way

Normally we simply hit enter twice, and start a new paragraph.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, after a few hours trawling through your edits, I can see that it appears to be a more recent form of your editing (in the last year or so) that is leaving these <br>s in blocks of text.

I did only do random samples of pages you have edited, so there may be ones left to be removed.

It would be great if you could do that.

Also, it seems that there were quite a few spaces removed between the closing > and the first letter of the next word at the end of references:

</ref>Blah blah blah - should be:

</ref> Blah blah blah

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bardrick. 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)[reply]

You got block for you edits regarding Derry in the past but you seem to have not learnt the rules of WP, e.g. Nigel Dodds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.89.159 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Generation X (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyceum Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fritzi Massary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karlsbad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to William Joyce. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Jam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bardrick. 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)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stuart Adamson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Jobson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jonh Ingham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page O2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roland Gift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Wally Nightingale while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. This is obviously you [1] ♟♙ (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --♟♙ (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sometimes I sign in, sometimes I forget to - particularly if it's an edit made quickly. I wasn't aware you weren't allowed to do this & there's some rule against it? You appear to be itching for an argument for some reason with other editors and reverting good edits without giving any justification - why are you behaving like this, have you no better way on Wikipedia of spending your time, like contributing positively to articles, rather than eagerly seeking confrontations with other editors who are?

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Please cite any edit I've made that's 'destructive', 'illegitimate', causing vandalism - or 'disruptive' (whatever that vague term means)? I haven't 'abused' anything, all I've done is to not sign in when editing sometimes, which - as you yourself state - is allowed, as I assumed it was. I presume you've read my edits & therefore will know full well that I've contributed positively to Wikipedia & have stayed well within its rules & spirit. This case is a heavy-handed abuse of authority by some people, who are strangely going around the site seemingly wanting to start arguments with contributors for no good reason. "En Passant"'s reverted edits on those 2 articles were petty & bad editing practise, they degraded the articles & reverted without giving any reason, and his/her complaining about me to Admin on a trumped up charge of "not signing in" was more of the same. I don't know why some Wiki editors behave like this, but Moderators should know better & not encourage it by aiding it with unjust accusations & punishments.

Please see this section, #4, first bullet point. For me to discuss your block, you will need to give me permission to disclose your IP addresses. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. ~~~~
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for the reply with the directions. You have my permission to disclose the IP addresses in order to explain why I've been stopped by Administration from contributing to Wikipedia. Bardrick (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are blocked for avoiding scrutiny by IP socking. Two different ranges are blocked to prevent you from doing this:

• Special:Contributions/84.13.176.0/21
• Special:Contributions/89.243.96.0/21 (hardblocked, you are the only editor on that range)

You were previously blocked by Canterbury Tail in the above section which included violations of WP:DERRY. The block was upheld by Boing! said Zebedee. Subsequently, you continued violating that and have done this more recently using IP addresses (also this and this). Replacing Northern Ireland with Ulster is also problematic since three counties of Ulster are in the Republic and not in Northern Ireland, right?. Replacing The Troubles with Ulster as you have done here, here and here. And you have removed The Troubles by name before and obfuscated a military operation name with Ulster (also this and this and this).

Here you add a student which was removed as uncited. You used an IP to add it back still uncited. That is edit-warring.

This IP edit was reverted but you used your account to add it back.

Long term edit warring at Wally Nightingale as described at ANI.

You used an IP to revert at Gerry Adams but this is an article that you have edited with your account. You did not engage on the talk page.

These are some examples but not an exhaustive list. You need to stick to editing with your account and you need to uphold community policies, guidelines and norms such as WP:DERRY. If you cannot abide by that then perhaps you shouldn't be editing anything to do with The Troubles. I'm perceiving this as nationalistic edit warring and NPOV issues but as I have pinged a couple of other admins, I'll let them investigate and help determine whether a topic ban or discretionary sanctions should also apply.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. With respect - & I am presuming with this reply that you are an experienced Administrator on Wikipedia and not new to it - you've clearly gone looking carefully through my edit lists in detail to assemble this obscure material, & given the scale of editing which it must be obvious to you that I have engaged in on Wikipedia, this is a very thin list of minor issues out of a mass of work from me that has benefited the site, blowing out of proportion & concentrating in time individual obscure minor disagreements that have occurred over some time period. The terminology used in Ulster/Northern Ireland can be contentious, but you have no case here that I have been overly active upon it, because I haven't been. The student at the college issue I didn't even know was a problem in any way, and it was linked by me to another Wiki article with the sources. If there was a problem with that someone should have requested a citation via ^{[citation needed]} request, not merely reverted the edit, which is ill-mannered & bad editing practise on Wiki. The Nightingale article is not 'long term edit warring' on my part, I occasionally revisit articles I've worked upon on the past & re-edit them sometimes, usually prompted by me seeing the subject of the article in another media & wondering how the Wiki article on it is getting on in its development, & I'll take the opportunity to do an improvement edit occasionally when reading it. You are accusing me there of doing something that I didn't do, I don't watch & try to control articles. The other editor is more liable to the charge of doing this, reverting edits blindly, not requesting citations, & being vexatious & complaining to Administration seemingly about very little. With regard to the article of Gerry Adams, looking back at that edit to remind myself of it, I see that I didn't revert the edit as you suggest, I restored a small part of a substantial block of deleted text, giving a reason for it in the edit sheet which was quite logical, & then I moved on letting others decide the matter. The suggestion of political motivation on my part is quite wrong & unfounded.

With respect I consider that this is unjust & very heavy-handed Administration, and the further suggestion that has been made to seek out others join in with it is bordering on the censoriousness and even bullying. You should not be addressing other Wikipedia editors like this other than in the most extreme situations, which this in no way meets. You've seen my edit sheet and will therefore know full well that I am not a problem editor of Wikipedia, any responsible, reasonable & proportionate reading of it could not construe it as such. Is it any wonder that Wikipedia is losing editors & public engagement when its Administrators execute their authority like this. Beyond the issue of the unjust ban on editing that you've imposed, I'd be grateful for notification as to whether a procedure exists in Wikipedia that I can appeal to an authority within it - beyond the Administration level - to have the handling of this matter reviewed, and if there is one how that procedure is accessed by the public. Bardrick (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edits at the Nightingale article have been reverted a multitude of times going back years since you originally made them and it was explained to you then why they weren't appropriate. Your edits degraded the article considerably by adding original research and unsourced POV. You've persisted in reintroducing them in the meantime, while attempting to conceal your identity by editing logged out. This seems to be an ongoing problem for you. Pretending you didn't understand this is a problem and playing victim is preposterous. ♟♙ (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "EnPassant": I seem to recall (I'm not sure because I have edited Wikipedia fairly heavily and can't remember in detail many of the edits that I've made) that I was the contributor who wrote most of the current Nightingale article as it currently stands, along with providing most of its source material. There have not been 'a multitude of revert edits by me going back years whilst attempting to conceal my identity'. Your reversion was against Wikipedia editing practise guidelines as detailed above, and that edit you reverted the other day without a given reason did not degrade the article it mostly corrected poor grammar & syntax in the text, and your hyped-up offensive personalized commentary here indicates where the problem lies, & isn't with me. Bardrick (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may appeal to the Arbitration Committee since this is a Checkuser block. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals. Your previous block was for two weeks for these issues which factored into my decision to block you for one month. If you do not recognize that you have been avoiding scrutiny and IP socking then you will likely be blocked for longer in the future. I've given you the links for you to see the expectations of the community.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for the information regarding the length of the ban and for the information requested beyond that with regard to the Committee, I shall consider whether I will pursue the relevant issue with it. Possibly you are administering the site with good intentions but something has gone quite badly wrong with this incident and I am uneasy as to the way it has been handled, where I have been accused of doing illicit things and "investigated" in an accusatory hostile manner initially for what I feel was no justified reason. If there were concerns about my editing record, it would have been better for Administration to have contacted me beforehand in a non-accusatory manner, requesting clarification before engaging in presumptive accusations and prohibitive actions like this. Regarding the repeated accusation that I have been trying to avoid scrutiny by not always signing in when making edits on Wikipedia, and "IP socking" (whatever that is - I presume a technical term for the same thing?), I recognize the accusation as being made but do refute it, and feel that the evidence provided to justify it being made - contested by the content of my reply above - fails to support it to any reasonable consideration, and does not justify the actions taken by Administration in this case. Bardrick (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were many other edits to Troubles related articles not mentioned in the problems above, such as your repeated, and incorrect, attempts to add "sic" to the Airey Neave article that have been reverted by several editors. You originally added it on 14:27, 9 July 2018, then again on 06:23, 29 July 2018, 09:29, 10 March 2019, 15:02, 10 March 2019, 15:21, 10 March 2019 and 01:10, 28 April 2019. This is despite there being a talk page discussion at Talk:Airey Neave#Use of "sic" on this and related articles since 13:56, 30 July 2018. The IP range you were previously using shows 0 zero article talk page posts during the time you were using it. Using your account you have made a total of 16 article talk page edits in the 7.5 years you have been editing. Ignoring you removing a Wikiproject banner last year, you have not edited a talk page since April 2016. Similarly your posts to user talk pages (last IP range shows one user talk page post in the relevant time period) are virtually non-existent, there is never any attempt to discuss your disputed edits. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to FDW777: So you have gone off eagerly to investigate the issue to join in with an attempted witch-hunt against another Wikipedia contributor, and what you come back with with, from years of edits, is an obscure minor editing clash that I'd forgotten about on the use/miss-use of the word 'sic' in an article, & not me referring it to a debate on a talk page? Good grief. Bardrick (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have the option of filing a standard appeal or two via the guide and getting feedback from other admins about your behavior and whether this is acceptable. Even if the appeals are declined, you still have the option of appealing to Arbcom. I had linked WP:IPSOCK for you above so you should be able to familiarize yourself with it.

There is a third option of appeal. You may write an appeal to the community requesting an unblock here and either I or another admin will copy it over to the Admin noticeboard for their consideration. Both admins and non-admins will review your case and they may decide to unblock, endorse the block and/or issue a topic ban or make the block longer including a possible indefinite block. Although I only blocked for a month, once it goes to the community, you take your chances on everything including being banned. Please read CBAN and weigh your options carefully. Note that if you choose the community appeal option then your only avenue of appealing their decision would be to them at the Admin noticeboard again. Appealing per the guide or Arbcom would no longer be options in the future as neither admins nor Arbcom would contravene against the community's consensus.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bardrick. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]