User talk:HighKing/Archives/2012/November

Monarchs

I am assuming good faith in that you don't actually understand what the issue is. It has nothing to do with the political union, it is to do with the wording that it "replaced" the personal union of crowns - which I don't believe it has. For example if Scotland votes for independence, the Queen will still be Scotland's monarch unless they vote to get rid of her too. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, perhaps I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the "personal union" still exists? Or that a "Personal Union" and a "Political Union" can co-exist? --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

[www.almanachdegotha.org/id308.html This] ref clearly states George III of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1820). By the Act of Union of 1800, the previous personal union with the Irish crown was replaced by a political union. The united entity was known as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Questionable accusations of vandalism

I see that you have repeatedly posted warnings about "vandalism" at User talk:76.166.151.218, have repeatedly reverted the editor's work, and have reported the editor to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Can you explain why you think the edits are vandalism? I see no evidence for it. For example, this added what appears to be a perfectly valid species to an article, as can be seen here and here. I found these pages within seconds by a Google search. What checking did you do before concluding that the edits were vandalism? You need to be careful, and make sure you know that an edit really is vandalism, not just click on a Twinkle link as soon as you see something that looks as though it may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't google it. This editor caught my eye because of two vandalism edits to Greg Bahnsen followed within minutes by the edit to Eretmodus which had already been reverted the previous day. I reported based on Greg Bahnsen (but after the revert to Eretmodus so it was reported to AIV as such) but reverted the recent edits by this anon IP, on the (obviously mistaken) assumption that all their edits were likely vandalism, especially as their edits had previously been reverted. I also requested protection on the Greg Bahnsen article which has now been done. --HighKing (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. Mooretwin (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nae bother. Sometimes editors forget about national/cultural context in terms of notability. --HighKing (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)