Sprigot

Tracking

Current hot topic

Second city of the United Kingdom

Re: Second city of the United Kingdom

The following is purely my POV - remember - please dont WP:BITE:

• My personal and subjective view is that historically (or at least for the last hundred years or so) the recognised 'Second city of the United Kingdom' has been Birmingham, however since around the mid-1980's it has increasingly been challanged by Manchester in this regard (driven in my opinion by the progressive culture of Manchester, initially with the post punk / new wave bands, and then popular 'rave' culture - and on into the thriving metropolis that is Manchester today). To the point that it is now almost impossible to distinguise the two apart in the minds of many of the people - except that there is significant question on the subject in the comparable data.

• I also believe in a personal and subjective sense that although Birmingham was the first industrial city (first factories and what not), that Manchester was the first industrialised city - the first city to be significantly transformed by industrialisation - for instance the architecture of downtown Manchester has more in kind with that of downtown Chicago than the architecture of the centres of Birmingham, London, Glasgow and Edinburgh - all of which have a large amount of architecture (in there centres) which predated the use of industrial materials (such as steel frames, etc.) which is common in downtown Manchester and Chicago (I initially worked in Chicago, and when I eventually got to work in Manchester I was astounded at how similar the architecture was - it became obvious to me it was to do with the history of the cities and their use of industrial materials in their growth).

• Frankly I also believe that Edinburgh should really be recognised as the 'Second city of the United Kingdom' - as the Capital of the next largest component of the United Kingdom after England - it's a very beautiful city - and I think it's a shame that the discussion isn't focused more between Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast - as Capitols of constituant members of the Union (whether you agree with that Union or not).

• Finally for the record although I was born and live in Birmingham and, as in the title of the Enemy album "We'll Live and Die in these Towns", suspect I'll probably end up passing away here, my ancestory over the last centuary or so has been from Mayo in Ireland, Lancaster in Lancashire (now moved to Barrow-in-Furness and Leeds), and central Birmingham (now mostly moved outside of the centre of the city). I spend the majority of my time working in London, Manchester and Surrey - occasionally in Edinburgh and Leeds too - I'm passionate about Manchester (and it's people, of whom I'm proud to count many as friends) - it's a great city and I genuinly hope that the Manchester article achieves WP:GA soon - I for one would be proud and pleased that it does.

Why have I written this ? Well just to get my POV and standpoint out in the open - I don't believe in all the 'cloak and dagger' that a lot of editors appear to be driven to here - and I'd rather be open and up-front. All the best. Sprigot 11:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia transgressions reported

3RR - XAndreWx

Result

48 hours Block - "Those diffs are not necessarily all reverts, but there are four clear reverts in a 24-hour span in there. To make matters worse, he was blocked recently for another 3RR-violation, and was released on a promise of good behavior. MastCell ^Talk 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"

References

User:XAndreWx reported by User:Sprigot result: 48 hour block

Suspected sock puppeteering - XAndreWx

Result

"Conclusions - Not entirely clear whether the IP is related or not. However, XAndreWx has been blocked for violating 3RR in his own right. The article should be semi-protected in any case if IP edit-warring becomes an issue; you can go to WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"

References

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets - Open Case: XAndreWx

Talk page comments

Hi- thanks for your comments on my Talk page. I just wanted to clarify that, yes, I did not direct User:TharkunColl's attention to his violation of WP:3RR (1. because I know he's already well aware of the policy, and 2. because I have no concern for his actions beyond diminishing the results of his disruptiveness); however, I'm sure you can also see that I did notify User:XAndreWx that he was indeed up to five reverts at the time - more than Thark, at that point. I was almost going to report them both for violation of 3RR, but thought better about getting that involved in the dispute.

I'll venture to say I don't think my post on XAndreWx's Talk was either helpful or unhelpful to Second city of the United Kingdom; I merely wanted to warn another user that getting involved with TharkunColl can lead to repercussions if one is not careful - something I learned myself. Further, connecting disparate disputes in which one person is the common link could, I hope, draw much needed attention to the poor behaviour of a particular editor. Thanks. --G2bambino 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User_talk:G2bambino#Re:_User_talk:XAndreWx_-_Second_city_of_UK. Sprigot 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only way he could make my tally of edits add up to four was to accuse me of making one of them with an anonymous IP address, which, needless to say, is not only completely untrue, but is also a very good pointer to his attitude in all this. TharkunColl 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the edit history of the anon IP greatly resembled your own, thus is strongly appeared that you and the anon could be one and the same person. I shouldn't have jumped so quickly to the conclusion, however, as this edit would make it appear you were talking to yourself, which I doubt you do. I apologise for the misidentification. --G2bambino 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:XAndreWx

As I said to Maxim, I haven't spoken to Andrew in several weeks now, and am not fully responsible for his behaviour. I have attempted to contact him, but to no avail...I will try again. In regards to 3RR, I fully agree with you that this behaviour should be stopped, so I would ask that you don't draw me into your 3RR and sockpuppet reports and make it seem as if I'm on his side. I'm not. I'm an external party who is currently removing the adoptee template from his userpage since that's clearly over. I'll try to talk to him again, but you can't expect me to control his behaviour fully, as it isn't possible. Giggy _U^CP 22:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise profusly - I am unsure of the responsibilities of an adoptor to an adotee, and the responsibilities of an adoptee to an adoptor. You appear to be a sensible and mature person, and affiliation, and to an extent, association, with someone exhibiting such puerile behaviour, appears out of character. I wanted to point out that your support - so kindly given - did not appear to be reciprocated with XAndreWx's actions. Sprigot 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted :D The responsibility is not set in stone (see WP:AAU for more info about the whole thing), but the essence is that I have to introduce them to the ways of the wiki and answer any questions they may have. Whilst introducing Andrew, I certainly didn't see anything like this 3RR issue, and he didn't ask me anything about any of these areas. I'm sorry I couldn't have done more about it...but I really didn't see any of it coming. By the way, if you're interested, I left a note on his talk page. Giggy _U^CP 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - yes I did see it (very sensible on your part) - I hope that he has a 'change of heart' and becomes more proactive in communicating with other editors (which I think would help resolve some of the issues he has become involved in). Sprigot 22:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No he's deleted it - and has even edited your adoption programme entry to show that he left of his own violation, rather than being excluded by you directly. Sprigot 10:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

English people article

You probably re-added Birmingham as an Irish enclave and TharkunColl probably deleted it before. He is very touchy on the Midlands and has been revert warring on the second city of the United Kingdom article, to include Birmingham. He is one of those Norman hating Anglo-Saxonists who believes the Danes were native English but the Normans not. He also pretends the invasion of 1066 was the worst crime in history and his version of articles to do with the English reflect this. Nevermind the depredation of the vikings, or the Anglo-Saxons taking over Britain from the Britons, nor does he apparently believe the English people are a composite which includes Britons. He forgets the sufferings of others long ago in the past, in favor of pretending he is suffering today at the hands of the Normans. He has reverted my rewording of the Norman conquest to reflect his fringe beliefs, that the English people were "subjected" for a few hundred years by foreigners. That's not what true foreigners thought when war was made upon them by the English people. Who cares about the personal ancestry of the royals or nobles at the helm of a battle? None of England's enemies would, so TharkunColl is a conspiracy theorist without holding water. Just check the talk page of that article; it is filled with descriptions of how faulty the presentation of the English is.[1] 68.110.8.21 15:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

79.73.183.95

Are you familiar with 79.73.183.95 (talk · contribs) ? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett

No - why any particular reason ? Sprigot 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit pattern, and the times. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Another potential puppet ? Of our young friend mentioned above perhaps ? Sprigot 11:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the theme tune of 'Tots TV' - I just feel like "I'm a sock, you're a sock, we are socks together, we are socks on socks TV - 1 - 2 - 3". Sprigot 12:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Tot, je suis une Tot, Tilly, Tom and Tiny. Off we go together now, one, two, three boo! XAndreWx 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Second City - Ministerial Opinion

Its nonsense it shouldn't be there and it doesn't need discussion. why do you think it should be discussed. when has trivia ever been considered a large part of wikipedia? if the section cannot be merged into the main text it has no need. it is just trivial and does not help to explain the gestalt of the article. Mike33 - t@lk 11:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Response at: Talk: Second city of the United Kingdom - Ministerial Opinion. Sprigot 16:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't discuss my concerns about trivia. You don't discuss my concerns at all - you are merely refering back to another editor who raised seperate concerns than mine. Mike33 - t@lk 12:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Response here: Talk: Second city of the United Kingdom - Ministerial Opinion. Sprigot 16:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. Quotations should never be a seperate list in Wikipedia. If the quotations from the queen to Joe bloggs are important they should form part of the article. Apart from 2jags none held cabinet status and if they did who cares unless the department was actually clarifying status. Mike33 - t@lk 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Digby Jones quote is relevent - because his job is to fly around the world and persuade people to invest in UK industry - and knowing Digby (only met him a couple of times at CBI conferences and such) - it won't be Manchester he's calling the second city (as the quote supplied proves). Sprigot 06:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TharkunColl, and leave any comments you may have on this matter there. Thank you, Giggy _U^CP 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My response to the accusation of being a Sock Puppet is here at the page above.

Here's my response in full though...

A Sprigot responds...

I'm Sprigot and I find it insulting that you think I'm TharkunColl - is it inconcievable that a long term Wikipeida 'user' as in reader would pick up a fair amount ? I've been reading the Second city of the United Kingdom article for the last few weeks - and frankly Giggy the behaviour of your adoptee XAndreWx has been not just rude - but down right disgusting - he constantly lies - especially about "not being aware" of Wikipedia rules he's already been told of (and broken - proof here) - frankly it makes my blood boil the way he was behaving - and that's why when I found the multiple transgressions (3RR and Sock Puppeteering) I very easily figured out that everything on here has a 'WP:' - basically 'cause all of you talk in acronyms and you have to look it up to figure out what you're talking about (and remember the 3P's - Process, Process, Process).

As to refruting the claim then here goes:

• Can someone check mine and Tharkuncoll's IP addresses please ? I assume that they are different.
• Would anyone like to read my work - of which there is plenty on my Talk Page, I find it is substantially different in content, tone, and metre - metre is the hardest to fake because people 'slip' back into the 'way they talk / write' very easily.
• My spelling is awful - and I couldn't give either - I suspect Tharkuncoll's spelling is better than mine, and that he could (give that is)
• Repeated words and phrases - most people use repeated words or phrases in there languages - look at this reponse and compare it to my other texts and then to Tharkuncolls - you'll see there is a lot of repeated use of words and phrases in my text which are not in Tharkuncoll's
• I suspect I've made edits which Tharkuncoll disagrees with - someone mentioned my addition of Birmingham to the list of large Irish immigrant population would be against Tharkuncoll's judgement on the English people article. My ancestory is Irish (as well as Lancastrian and also from Birmingham - see more on my Talk Page). Birmingham has a large Irish population - although as most have been here for 40 / 50 years so they have married into the indigenous population (like my family) - so it's all a bit blurred - but Birmingham has a very inclusive and vibrant St. Patrick's Day parade, a large Irish quarter (Digbeth), and even an Irish Mayor.
• Happy to talk to you or an administrator via Telephonic Communication.
• Happy to meet XAndreWx in his home town of Manchester - I'm there about once a week for work (not a threat - please don't mis-construe it as one).
• GoodDay's point above is valid, don't you think ? "If TharkunColl and Sprigot can make edits at the same time. That may end the sockpuppet speculation. GoodDay 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)"
• Any other means of proving that I'm real I'd be happy to discuss (although blood samples are out - I'm not keen on needles, lol). I've never been accused of being purely 'virtual' before - and find the experience quite strange - but amusing too.

Finally I'd like to add - isn't this a case of sour grapes ? I mean your very anxious to defend XAndreWx aren't you ? It's not my fault that your adoptee is a foolish liar (apart from the evidence above how about here too- at the bottom of the page). Ammusingly he blames his multiple transgression of the 3RR rule (XAndreWx specific) on you over here on the page investigating his suspected Sock Puppeteering (the evidence I raised against him is substantially better than than the evidence you've raised against Tharkuncoll too).

In our conversation over here you say that "As I said to Maxim, I haven't spoken to Andrew in several weeks now, and am not fully responsible for his behaviour. I have attempted to contact him, but to no avail...I will try again. In regards to 3RR, I fully agree with you that this behaviour should be stopped, so I would ask that you don't draw me into your 3RR and sockpuppet reports and make it seem as if I'm on his side. I'm not. I'm an external party who is currently removing the adoptee template from his userpage since that's clearly over. I'll try to talk to him again, but you can't expect me to control his behaviour fully, as it isn't possible. Giggy UCP 22:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)". Yet when Maxim unblocks XAndreWx's initial 3RR over here (bottom of the page) Maxim says "Giggy has asked me to remove it, and I trust you've cooled off by now." - if you hadn't spoken to XAndreWx then why did you talk to Maxim about 'letting him off' his initial 3RR ?

I see that according to your sentance above "XAndreWx (user in question, who has asked me to step in and help here)" shows that XAndreWx has been in touch with you since you removed him as a adoptee (I hope in the words of Maxim he has "cooled off" by now too), and this accusation of Sock Puppeteering against Tharkuncoll very much goes against your previous statement of "In regards to 3RR, I fully agree with you that this behaviour should be stopped, so I would ask that you don't draw me into your 3RR and sockpuppet reports and make it seem as if I'm on his side. I'm not." and your asseration that you are not on XAndreWx's 'side' (I think you'll find that 'it's hard to defend the indefensible').

What has been heartening about this has been all the messages of support to Tharkuncoll on this page and his Talk Page - support that was not in evidence in XAndreWx's Sock Puppeetering case I may add - thanks to everyone for there support!

Giggy - when this has been fully refruted - I'm expecting a full apology from you - otherwise your going to look very silly over all of this...

All the best to all - especially Giggy. Sprigot 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the idea of Tharkuncoll wearing me like a 'sock' what so ever - I've never even met the man... Sprigot 09:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fast learner

I must say Sprigot, for a new registered user, you sure figured out Wikipedia fast. Anyway, welcome aboard. GoodDay 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was complimenting you, nothing further. I've also contacted Mike33. If I'm guilty of anything, it's rolling out the 'welcome' mat. From now on, I'll let Wikipedia (which does the official welcoming) handle such things. GoodDay 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very, very sorry GoodDay - with all the nastiness I've found here - I mistook your welcome - I initially thought it was friendly until I saw the strange post from Mike33 on your Talk Page - your not guilty of anything and again - I am sorry - I hope we can we 'chalk' this one down to experience and put it behind us. Sprigot 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - a fundamental issue I have with being 'bright' is that I actually feel like everything is really hard - but I suppose this is one of the mechinisms that allows me to 'learn' quick - I always think of that Thomas Pynchon book Slow Learner - because if Pynchon is a Slow Learner - then I'm ****ed. Sprigot 06:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and don't forget - don't WP:BITE although given the quality of the 'foils' here I suspect "Don't Bite the Gimmers" would be more appropriate. Sprigot 06:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock Allegations

As I wrote to GoodDay it's probably bad faith to suggest a new editor doesn't know stuff. WP is the endless and tiring use of policy, guidelines and essays. I do conceive that you are a fast learner. having experience with all of the editors concerned I am willing to raise a checkuser on you. I think that a checkuser would be very unhelpful, it would certainly create more problems than it is worth and to what ends? you are a useful, helpful and considerate editor who seems as much as I do to create a consensus. My opinions differ from yours. But I would certain defend all your recent edits. Although I would be unwilling to so for your "puppeteer". Mike33 - t@lk 11:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More than happy for you to raise a 'Checkuser' on me - as I've said before I look forward to it vindicating me - and to an extent look forward to learning more by going through the process - this is more valuable than any 'adoption' programme - I get to experience it all first hand. Thanks for the supportive tone of this post - it's good of you. Sprigot 12:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

please just give it a day or two. a checkuser result is going to spell unhappiness all round. If a checkuser proves something it will probably clear you and make another editor(s) look foolish. If other editors are pushing and quoting every contribution you have made, I will certainly raise one. This might well be forgotten about in a few hours. lets keep an eye on developements. Mike33 - t@lk 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really rather not wait - as I say above I relish being vindicated - all that's happening is that I'm learning more and more how this 'community' operates, and how to 'work' in that framework - but most of all I relish the oppotunity for Giggy to apologise to me (and TharkunColl too) - foolish editors looking foolish is not my concern (even if it ammuses me a great deal). Sprigot 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not accused you of anything. Gee, a fella tries to be complimentry and 'pow', he get's a 'black eye'. Anyway, sorry if I've made you uncomfortable, I'll shall leave Wikipedia do the welcoming itself. GoodDay 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, after having reviewed the 'sockpuppet' situation further, I can 'now' see, how my compliment would have been seen as 'suspicious'. PS- I'm going to restore my posting there, supporting you and T'Coll. GoodDay 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. See response above and on your Talk Page. Sprigot 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Invitation

Thanks for inviting me on to the highly controversial subject of the "SCoUK, what is your personal opinion on the article? Do you think it should be deleted or merged, or just left alone? Thanks for your time! :) R_O (Talk) 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I know it's bad at the moment - my opinion is here "Towards a Consensus". Sprigot 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism of my Talk Page

I think you will find I did not vandalise your talk page. You are obsessed with me or else your talk page would not be dominated with comments about me and my edits. I never thought I was that interesting but obviously you do think so or else you would not create a shrine to me. I would recommend you found a new hobby as the one you have is not very healthy. XAndreWx 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't like bullies and liars - both of which you've turned out to be - the above documents your multiple 3RR transgressions - where you were caught lying about not being warned about the 3RR - as the admin IrishGuy said "you simply blanked it". You'll find in life it's not so easy to just 'blank out' what you've done - someone always ends up remembering. I won't be archiving this page - instead as you say it can stand as a testament to your foolishness. Sprigot 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Message

Hi Sprigot. Thanks for your messages. I would have replied earlier, but I've been off-wiki since the latest Harry Potter came out. A quick look at Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom makes me think that peace has not broken out - would that be accurate? Some of the arguments on bith sides look a bit weak to me, but I'll have a good read when I've time. NGB's suggestion looks close to what I originally had in mind, but I'll read on. Regards, Mr Stephen 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom

You may like to comment on some developments in the above talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)