User talk:Burkem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Burkem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

Anonymous anonymous 13:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isabel Plantagenet

Your article on Isabel Plantagenet is clearly nonsense; Richard I had no legitimate children, and he wasn't married until 1191. It looks like you're just dumping stubs from some poorly checked "family tree" into Wikipedia. Please slow down and check your material so you don't make obvious mistakes like that; otherwise you're just going to leave a big mess for other people to clean up. I'm sorry to take such a harsh tone, but it really seems like you're a bit over your head here. Choess 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. Pilot|guy 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard I did have a duaghter

Ok well you might say that he didn't have a daughter but he did i've been doing my research for 16 months and this is what i have gotten out of it that Richard I did have a daughter he also had a son but his son doesn't live long. samething about Henry VIII people say he doesn't have any other children from the mistress he foold around with but he had two kids a son and a daughter and one of their decendents is Princess Diana of Wales.

Let me try to deal with this, starting with general points and moving to the specific. The contributions you've made include several chronological impossibilities, such as people who died before their supposed spouse or children were born. That's absurd, and should be a big warning sign that something is wrong. Secondly, you need to be careful about the sources you use in your research. Aside from material on the Internet that's simply been corrupted, there are a lot of books out there containing genealogies that are simply wrong or forged, due to people's desire to "prove" a descent from some sort of nobility. If you're interested in this, I strongly suggest you look through the archives of soc.genealogy.medieval (at http://groups.google.com/), where a lot of the popular mistakes have been discussed and debunked, and there are many knowledgeable contributors bringing primary sources to bear on genealogical problems.

Now, to the specifics. I'm guessing your Burke pedigree originally comes from O'Hart's "Irish Pedigrees," and I'm sorry to say that it's a rotten piece of work. This is a detailed explanation of what parts of it are wrong. The information on Isabel is a bit more dispersed through the archives of the group, but the facts are essentially this:

1) The "Annals of the Four Masters" says that Richard "the old" de Burgh was the son of "a daughter of the Saxon king," without identifying which king.

2) Rev. Hugh Rose's "New Biographical Dictionary" (a modern work, 1857), identifies here as Isabel, daughter of Richard I, without any source. Unfortunately, Rose also repeats the nonsense debunked above about Burgh being descended from Charlemagne by way of Baldwin II, so his credibility is rather in doubt.

There's a discussion of the matter here; the upshot of it is that William may or may not have married an illegitimate daughter of an English king, and if so, she is more likely to have been the daughter of Henry II than Richard. We don't know her name, and can't really say anything more certain about her.

On a personal note, I realize it's not much fun to have one's royal genealogies go to smash. I was similarly misled by an old book about the (American) Greene family, which connected them to the Greenes of Boketon, and those to the la Zouche and various illustrious families. In fact, the la Zouche connection was completely invented, and the American Greenes are Greenes of Bowridge Hill, a family which assumed the arms of Green of Boketon after the latter's extinction.

Well, that's my piece. I'm sorry if I've spoken harshly to you, and I hope that, with some careful fact-checking, you'll have more to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. Choess 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I just cited a very detailed explanation above of why parts of your genealogy are wrong. That means you should not put them back into the encyclopedia at Charles of Neustria or elsewhere. Thanks. Choess 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, could you please read this and tell me what about it, specifically, you contest? It's (IMO) a pretty good refutation of the parts of the traditional Burke pedigree that are, unfortunately, not true, including the supposed descent from Charles the Young. Choess 22:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've (hopefully) cleaned out all of your latest batch of genealogical nonsense, and continue to await substantive comment on the link I posted above. Choess 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of Burke

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive).

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Emperors/Empresses

Thank you for experimenting with the page British Emperors/Empresses on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Agent 86 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• I see you have recreated this page soon after it had been deleted by an admin. Please read Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Agent 86 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Same goes for Flemish Emperors/Empress and Emperors/Empress of Flanders decendents of Charlemange. -- RHaworth 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • ...and your page on the True Emperors of France throught the second born son of Charlemange. Please read Wikipedia:No Original Research. DS 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] descent

Please stop trying to tell us about your descent from Charlemagne or the High Lords of Ireland. Ignoring the question of your notability, Wikipedia is not for genealogical information. -- RHaworth 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. Creating non-notable, unverified or hoax articles is considered vandalism, and could get you blocked from editing wikipedia. Thanks -- Vary | Talk 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Emperor of the French" [Sic]

Who the heck are these people?? They certainly wouldn't have been known as "emperors of the French" at the time!!! AnonMoos 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlevin, Emperor of the French

Thank you for your contributions to Harlevin, Emperor of the French. Some edits have been made to the article in order to bring it in harmony with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines shown there. All edits that don't comply with these guidelines are changed to match what our MoS recommends. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block warning

You have been asked many times not to add nonsense and original research to legitimate Wikipedia articles. Also, you have created a stream of "French Emperor" articles that are clearly hoaxes and which I have speedely deleted.

At this point, you have the choice to start contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way adding information which is verifiable or you can carry on as you have and get yourself eventually banned from editing. Given your current record, the next time you commit one of the infractions mentioned above I'll block you for 24 hours. The duration of the block will increase each time you offend afterwards.

Wikipedia is not the place for your non-existent family tree. You can go to wikia and get a personal wiki started there. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite sources

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as William FitzAldelm de Burgh, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation warning

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Theodemir Magnus article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles needing sources

• Baldwin I, Count of Flanders
• Baldwin III, Count of Flanders
• Charles of Neustria
• Edmond de Burgh
• Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster
• John de Burgh
• Lords of Connaught
• Richard Mor de Burgh
• Richard Og de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster
• Walter de Burgh, 1st Earl of Ulster
• William, Count of Mortain
• William de Burgh
• William Donn de Burgh, 3rd Earl of Ulster
• William FitzAldelm de Burgh

Please help cite complete sources, including ISBN and page numbers where applicable, for all of the above articles. Wikipedia has a strong policy against original research, and I am deeply concerned about most of these based upon the many comments made by others here on this page. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please make constructive contributions

You have been warned against creating nonsense articles and adding false information to articles. Please stop. If you continue, a temporary block may become an indefinite block. — ERcheck (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 48 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. — ERcheck (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

i find this out ragis i'm trying to show you and other people connections beteween the de Burgos, and Charlemange's son Charles the Younger now why won't you let me do that, i cant understand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkem (talk • contribs) .

Michael, the reason you're being blocked is that the connection you're trying to show are not believed by genealogists to be true. I told you as much in my first message on your talk page. Please, read this message, which explains clearly and in detail why the supposed de Burgh descent from Charlemagne is not true. If you wish to continue participating in Wikipedia, I suggest you consider writing articles on some of the later Burkes, such as Edmond Albanach Burke and so forth, being careful to cite sources. However, if you continue insisting that the Burkes really have a provable descent from Charlemagne, modern scholarship notwithstanding, and declaring yourself to be the rightful King of France, I think people will take it as a sign of fundamental unseriousness and disengagement from the project, and your work will be rolled back, you will be blocked for increasing periods of time, and so forth. If you'd like to argue, in the face of the information I linked for you above, that the pedigree is still fundamentally accurate, I'd be happy to discuss it with you here, and you're welcome to contribute verifiable information on other notable members of the Burke family. But if you blow off attempts at discussion and keep adding the same disputed content over and over again, you will continue to face sanctions. Please choose wisely. Yours, Choess 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well can i say this for Charlemange and his children when Charles became Holy Roman Emperor in 800, he was thier getting his first born son Charles the Younger King of the Franks. That is one thing i would like to be known. Also i will continue doing research on the burkes and thier connection to charlemange but i will not put the information in with out your thought of the info. I can say this that i am trying to say i'm the right ful King of France but untill i have enough proof the only thrown i can really declare to be right fully mine is King of England. Why the thrown of England because the Burkes and this is a fact that they decend from Robert Count of Mortain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkem (talk • contribs) .

The Holy Roman Empire did not exist at the time of Charlemagne, so he could not be crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" but only "Emperor of the Romans". The root of this problem is your failure to recognize subtle (but important) differences like that, which likely leads to you misunderstanding the information you read and then try to incorporate into articles. I'd listen to Choess' advice if I were you. Regards, -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I know he wasn't called the Holy Roman Emperor everyone else use that the title that he used because he didn't want to offend the Byzantine Emperor, and that title that he used was Emperor Govering the Roman Empire, but in 812 Michael I of the Byzantine Empire made him Emperor of the Franks. Otto I is the first true Holy Roman Emperor but they say that Charlemagne was the first so i just go with what everone else says sometimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkem (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your October 5/6 edits

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Charlemagne. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Charles the Younger, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You have just come off of a block for vandalism — in particular, adding incorrect information to articles and creating "original research" articles. Your return shows the same pattern of edits. If you continue on this same vein, you will be blocked. Please take some time to read Wikipedia policies on verifiable sources. ERcheck (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please provide verifiable source(s) for William de Burgh

What is your source for your recent add to William de Burgh? If you cannot provide verifiable sources, please do not add this material. — ERcheck (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The :Genealogy of the de Burgo’s and the House of York" section has been removed. See the talk page for reasons. Please do not recreate this material. If you continue to add unsourced, unrelated information, you will be blocked from editing. — ERcheck (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You know thier use to be a genealogy of the de Burgos and the House of York thier but i destroyed last year, but i decied you need it so thats why i put it back the source for the genealogy is this wikipidia website, see if you went to Richard Og de Burgh and went to his son John, and this John's son William Donn de Burgh and then you went to his daughter Elizabeth, and then his granddauther, and then his great grandauther, and so on you reach Anne Mortimir who married Richard and then thier two children where Edward IV and Richard III —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkem (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please sign your messages

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You don't seem to listen to guidance much. - Kittybrewster 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove legitimate tags on articles

Please do not remove legitimate tags on articles as you did with the {{unreferenced}} tag in the Edmond de Burgh article. The article does not have any references and thus the tag is appropriate. The tag automatically puts the article into Category:Articles lacking sources and thus helps identify articles that need references. — ERcheck (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mortimer Dynasty

What is the Mortimer Dynasty? What is your source? - Kittybrewster 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove legitimate tags on articles (2)

Please do not remove legitimate tags on articles as you did with the {{unreferenced}} tag in the Herluin de Conteville article. The article does not have valid references and thus the tag is appropriate. The tag automatically puts the article into Category:Articles lacking sources and thus helps identify articles that need references. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle

I have tagged Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle with {{prod}}, proposing that it be deleted as a hoax. You may remove the tag. If you do, the article will be sent to AfD. This supposed descent has been known to be fake since at least 1935, see EHR, Vol. 50, No. 199 (Jul., 1935), pp. 418-432, et cetera. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using template

Please would you use template Template:Cite_book, i.e. :{:Cite_book}. - Kittybrewster 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valid references

You have previously been asked to provide valid references for your contributions. Many of your recent contributions cite "The Line of The Burkes written by the Earls of Mayo". When was this book published? Who published it? Is it available online? I have not been able to find any references to this book. See WP:Verify — in Wikipedia, it is required that editor provides references that can be verified by others. If you cannot provide additional information about this reference, you may be blocked for disruption. — ERcheck (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Response reposted from User:ERcheck (see diff): This Book The Line of The Burke's hasn't not come out Publiclly yet, but since i'm a Burke and Burkes are very close to each other they let me see the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkem (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 November 2006.

Sorry, but sources who noone can check are bad sources. If I say I'm the lawful ruler of the Holy Roman Empire and I have a book under my pillow, that this proves, would you believe me? Perhaps this example is exaggerated, but it should show that one can claim much. Therefore you should search quotations or references in the web, other user are able to find and look, too. ~~ Phoe _talk 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

See WP:Verify#Burden of evidence. Since the reference you have provided cannot be validated by other editors, it is not a valid reference for Wikipedia purpose. Do NOT continue to add information to article and do NOT continue to create articles using this as the reference. If you do so, the material is subject to being deleted and you are subject to being blocked for not following Wikipedia policies. — ERcheck (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, please stop

Burkem, I am a wikipedia administrator and have been asked by another editor to take a look at your edits, which have been causing concern. Your latest edits cite a book which you now explain has not yet been published. I'm sorry, but that breaches Wikipedia:Verifiability, which a very important core policy here: information must be capable of being verified. A book which has not been published cannot be verified, and is unacceptable as a source.

The fact that your source is unacceptable means that all the edits which you have made as a result of information from that source should be reverted unless you can source the information elsewhere. It's not a matter of hoping that you will find another source in the future: either you have a source now, or they should be reverted immediately. If you find accaeptable sources at a later date, then the information can be reinstated … but I would strongly advise you to discuss any sources before using them, because so many of your edits are clearly very controversial.

It is also worrying that your reply to User:ERcheck was posted to the user page rather than to the talk page at User talk:ERcheck (where it should have been), because it suggests that after months of participation in wikipedia you have not understood some important things about how wikipedia works. I also see that you have, for example, 0% edit summary usage (I have posted a warning on that below).

Looking back through the history of your contributions, I am sorry to see a long series of inappropriate edits about which you have previously been warned, and which have led in the past to a block being placed on your account. There have been plenty of offers of help from other editors, and it's disappointing to see that those offers have not been taken up sufficiently to stop the same problems recurring.

As a result of that, I have issued a final warning to you (see below). I don't like doing that, because I think that you are probably quite sincere in what you are trying to do, but unfortunately the effect of your contributions is quite destructive: so far as wikipedia is concerned, unsourced information is incorrect information, and repeatedly inserting incorrect information into the enclyclopedia is a form of vandalism.

Nobody wants to see you once again being blocked from editing, so please take this opportunity to work with other editors to get things right. In particular, I strongly advise you to discuss any further edits before you make them, rather than find yourself being criticised afterwards, or blocked from editing. You have already been warned that you may be permamently blocked, so please take this warning very seriously.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle (again)

This is your last warning.
The next time you deliberately introduce incorrect information into a page, as you did to Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note that I do not know whether the information you supplied was correct. However, I do know that your edits contain information which is disputed by other editors. Despite previous warnings and previous blocks, you have not cited acceptable sources for your edits (see above), and verifiable sources are a core requirement of wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid/false references

In the article Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle, you added "The History of the de Burgh, de Burca, and Burke family History written by Jim Burke", but pointed it to http://www.dodingtonfamily.org/allerton.htm, which is "Dodington Family History" by Thomas Marriott Dodington. Not only did you falsely describe the reference, the reference you pointed to is considered to be original research, so is not a valid reference.

You have been given multiple opportunities to correctly contribute to Wikipedia. You have been given many references to help you. You have blatantly ignored all of of it. I am blocking you for a period of one month, which may be extended to a longer period, possibly indefinitely.

— ERcheck (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 1 month. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. — ERcheck (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block

It has become apparent that your account is only being used for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely.

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Burkem, I have reviewed the edits which you made last night, and also reviewed the 1-month block imposed by User:ERcheck. In view of your long history of disruptive editing, and your refusal of the many offers of help, I took some time yesterday to make one last plea to you to stop (see please, please stop). Wikipedia's rules would have allowed me to impose an immediate block yesterday, but I thought that it was worth trying once again to persuade you to partucipate constructively in wikipedia.

Unfortunately, you did not have the courteousy to even acknowledge the warnings. You returned to a further series of disruptive edits which contained all the flaws previoysly discussed, and even involved reinstating an unacceptable edit to an article about which you had been specifically warned.

At this point, it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia's admins to allow you to continue to disrupt the encyclopedia, because there are no reasonable grounds to expect that your editing would improve. I have therefore extended the block on your account: it is now an indefinite block. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing the damage

We have been very generous to this user in offering help, and holding back from imposing blocks in the hope that another offer of help might lead to an improvement.

Now that an indefinite block has been imposed, I would support a permanent ban on Burkem … but that leaves us with the problem of undoing all the damage that has been caused. Given the length of time involved, there may be rather a lot of it to be fixed :(

I suggest that it could be done as follows:

1. identify all articles created by Burkem, and make a list here. Unless they are properly referenced with valid sources supplied by an other editor, they should all be simultaneously tagged with {{prod}}.
   I suggest this rather harsh test, because burkem's latest edits make it clear that even when he cites a source which actually exists, it may not be relevant, and cannot be relied on.
2. identify all other articles edited by Burkem, and undo all his edits unless they are referenced by other editors.

Any thoughts? Does this sound like a good way to proceed? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this section on the talk pages of all the editors who have commented here in th past. I hope that this was appropriate: if not, I'm sorry! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty severe but why not. He has mostly been writing about people dead for hundreds of years so if a few genuine people get deleted and have to wait a few years before they get put back into Wikipedia does it matter? Don't even bother to list them on this page - just prod them. Possibly create a category. -- RHaworth 09:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This user doesn't appear to take Wikipedia seriously enough to be allowed to remain, but I'm not sure I support an indefinite block. I understand that indefinite != permanent, but I do believe that there's at least some home for improvement, six months or so down the track.

As for cleaning up contributions... honestly, I have no idea. I have no experience dealing with enormous numbers of edits like this - is rollback a viable option? I have no idea of how useful it would be here - but I guess your suggestion is as good as any. The task is going to be a pretty enormous one, especially if other editors have changed his original edits, although I think for the vast majority of his article creations {{db-nonsense}} might be more appropriate, accompanied by a link to this talk page in the edit summary. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Davey, I'm sure you are right that {{db-nonsense}} with a link to here sounds like a better idea than {{prod}}. I don't think that rollback is a workable option in most cases, because many of the edits have been tagged by others, so rollback would only revert to the last edit by someone else. But I think that if we identify the articles concerned, it shouldn't be too hard in most cases to revert the damage: the only diffivulty will be if other editors have added something substantive since Burkem's edits.

I'm afraid that I don't see why you hold out hope for improvement, but I guess we don't need to deal with that for now. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I support an indefinite/permanent ban. I think we need an interim period before removing pages, during which pages are listed or given a category. His pages often link to each other and I think this approach will highlight further pages that need looking at. Dang, but I wish popups were working for me. - Kittybrewster 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please notify me of any proposed deletions, and if the articles are unsourced I will certainly endorse those proposals. I am not aware of any articles by Burkem that qualify under our speedy deletion criteria, but if necessary we can list these on AFD and be rid of this mess. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have {{prod2}}'d a few pages, gutted Herluin de Conteville and Ælflæd, and {{prod}}'d Duke of Le Mans, Robert the Pretender and John the Younger. I'm not sure what to do with John, Lord of Burgh Castle and Walter, Lord of Burgh Castle; Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle has already been prod'd and the tag removed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have {{prod}}ed John, Lord of Burgh Castle and Walter, Lord of Burgh Castle; I have AFDed Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The AFD is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reyner,_Lord_of_Burgh_Castle --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would delete all his new created articles, unless the one about Herluin de Conteville, which exists also on the French Wikipedia (see fr:Herluin de Conteville). In this case I would prefer a revert to the version User:Choess has cleaned up. On the other articles User:Burkem has contributed I would remove all traces he left - if he has added some true and verifiable facts, they will be added again by another User one day.

Concerning his block, I would give him a last chance - naturally only after the block has gone off. He had before only a block for 48 hours and a month is long: if his age is true, he is 16 - perhaps he will learn something in his punishing time. ~~ Phoe _talk 14:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

An indefinite block is unwarranted yet, and would have to be reviewed at WP:AN anyway. Support a 1 or 2-month block that would allow us to undo the damage and then put Burkem on probation. If probation fails then an indefinite block would be good for exhausting the community's patience. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party. I've been busy off-wiki and haven't been able to muster the energy required for the litigation that will now take place. I do think Burkem is more naive than malicious: in particular, the book by Jim Burke is apparently not fictitious, and is advertised at http://www.burkehistory.com/. The supposed misdirected link looks to me as if Burkem was trying to include *two* sources, and forgot to add a double line break between them. Unfortunately, it appears that Jim Burke's book may repeat some of the old nonsense about Burke origins, which we need to firmly debunk to keep it out of Wikipedia.

The essence of the false pedigree, invented in the 19th century is this: Charlemagne->Charles the Younger->Roland->Godfrey, King of Jerusalem->Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem->Baldwin II, Count of Flanders and King of Jerusalem->John de Bourg, baron of Toursbourg->Harlowen de Burgo, lord of Conteville->Robert de Burgo, Earl of Cornwall->William de Burgo, Earl of Cornwall->Adelelm and John de Burgh, ancestors of later de Burghs and Burkes.

This is, of course, a farrago of nonsense, but it does contain some real people: Charlemagne did have a son, Charles the Younger (who, however, died without known issue), and Herluin de Conteville was the father of Robert, Count of Mortain, who was the father of William, Count of Mortain, who died without known issue. Unfortunately, the pedigree is so obviously false that amateur genealogists keep on tweaking it, so that the names stay more or less the same but the titles vary, so that someone seeking to "prove" the de Burghs are descended from Charlemagne can supply any number of variant genealogies. This is our situation.

The problem now is to place our objections to this fake genealogy on a solid footing. If someone now involved with this debacle has easy access to The Complete Peerage, could you please take note of the genealogical discussions for "Earl of Cornwall" (covers the Counts of Mortain) and "Earl of Ulster" (early de Burghs)? I understand that TCP explicitly debunks portions of the genealogy constructed above, and we should have that citation ready to produce against whatever book Burkem is working from. (In fact, given the widespread currency of the false genealogy, a sentence in, say, William de Burgh explicitly disavowing it, cited to TCP, might not be amiss.) Aside from this, there are two other small problems: the status of the Lordship of Connaught and the wife of William de Burgh. While the early de Burghs seem to have been styled "dominus Conactie" as late as 1271, it does not appear that this ever became a recognized part of the Peerage of Ireland, nor did it pass through the female line with the Earldom of Ulster. Supposedly Edmond de Burgh assumed the title in 1333 on the death of his nephew, but I'd like to see a primary source or good secondary before I believe that. The problem of William de Burgh's wife is, I trust, now adequately explained in her article. However, I think it's the supposed ancestry of William de Burgh that is the principal problem.

In that light, I'd propose the following terms for probation: Burkem is enjoined from editing or creating articles or sections thereof dealing with the supposed ancestry, marriages, or concubines of William de Burgh. That gives him a free hand with the later de Burghs, but I think that's fine; I don't believe that any gross genealogical misconceptions on the scale of the above are attached to the later generations of the family. There does appear to be some questions about the wives of Richard Mor de Burgh and the first and second Earls of Ulster, but we'll deal with that as it comes. Choess 06:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Burkem has been given a lot of latitude and editors have AGF, however, he has shown a pattern of ignoring the gentle guidance provided by a number of editors, including simple Wikipedia basics such as signing posts. He does not seem to be able to distinguish between valid sources, original research, and debunked information — which had resulted in an number of blatantly false entries. If the indefinite block is shortened, and probation is applied, I believe he should be banned from editing or creating any genealogy-related articles at a minimum. — ERcheck (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that the problem here goes wider than Burkem's fixations on William de Burgh: that seems to be the focus of his attention, but the problem is not just his adding of nonsense, but the wider problem of his persistent refusal to take guidance or to meaningfully discuss contested edits. It seems to me that there is no reason to expect the wider problem to improve even if he is banned from the William de Burgh-related material.

I take the point that he could be brought back on probation, and since I'm not claer on this area of policy, I'll take others guidance on what is normally done. I wouldn't object that provided that he shows willingness to start learning how to edit properly, and provided I don't have to be involved in the probation. I'm not sure of how the procedure works, but maybe someone could notify me (on User Talk:BrownHairedGirl) if a review of the block is started.

In the meantime, I have created a listing page to assist in the tidyup: see User:Burkem/review_list. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me (from the contribs, the spelling mistakes and the topics) that User:Burkem was previously User:193.120.102.167. Which may not be a static IP address of course. Great job by BHG on User:Burkem/review list which will be invaluable. - Kittybrewster 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, I was posting similar info as you were (edit conflict). Also see contributions of 24.107.119.107. The Burkem's article list / these addresses will need to be monitored. Is it worth the effort to file a Checkuser? — ERcheck (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For preference, yes. Your call. - Kittybrewster 14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a checkuser would be very useful, though I have never done one. Does someone else know how to get it going? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made some formatting changes to the listings in User:Burkem/Sandbox and added a place for IP addresses that may have been used by Burkem. Looking at 193.120.102.167, see my comments in the sandbox. There may need to be more IPs added. — ERcheck (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the contributions of all the IPs to the Burkem articles listed in the Sandbox. See User:Burkem/Sandbox for the review. — ERcheck (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New categories?

What about two new categories. Page created by Burkem and Page edited by Burkem? - And review them in a few days time? - Kittybrewster 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(the mesage above was copied from my talk, so that the discussion could be centralised in one place. ) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be useful, but I suspect that such a category might set an unfortunate precedent, and would therefore likely be deleted fairly rapidly: I think that a list is more likely to be viable. Does anyone else think the categories might be viable? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about User:Burkem/Sandbox - Kittybrewster 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New categories for this type of damage would definitely be a no no. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two lists, better merged?

Oh dear. My fault, but we now have two lists of articles edited by Burkem, which seems to be a recipe for confusion.

I didn't notice this morning that Kittybrewster had gone ahead yesterday with his good idea to create a list at User:Burkem/Sandbox (I should of course have checked). So I created another list at User:Burkem/review list.

I propose merging the two; any objections? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Merge and then delete User:Burkem/Sandbox. - Kittybrewster 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UnJust Ful Block

This BLOCK was very unjust ful for me, i'm just trying to get the written records of the Burkes and for so many other family's written out. Here are two websites for you to check out one is about the surname Burke and the other is a website for a book i have called A History of De Burgh, De Burca, Burke of Ireland, the first website [Irish Surnames], the second website [A History of De Burgh, De Burca, Burke of Ireland] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkem (talk • contribs) 7:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The book can perhaps exist, but both pages don't verify your contributions. Furthermore they base on original research, a source Wikipedia doesn't use. ~~ Phoe _talk 08:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Both pages are blank. Burkem, please listen to guidance and sign your messages. - Kittybrewster 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There were errors in his links; I've fixed them. Choess 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)