Archived discussion pages:
Do you know how to make an article part of the WIki Football Project? It's been drawn to my attention that Solitude (football ground) is not part of the project. Perhaps other articles on grounds are the same. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB ( talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
If you spot this user in any guise, please give me a shout. I am prepared to block them. Kind regards, :) -- Jza84 | Talk 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Mal, just saw your reversion of my edit on the Irish people article (tricolour v st patrick's cross) from a few weeks ago. Still laughing at that one, complete with a "no personal attacks" warning. Anyways, we haven't locked horns for a while, I hope you've been well. Windyjarhead ( talk) 10:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,I've started a new project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and i was wondering if you'd be interested in joining . If not can you tell me what changes if any could be made to change your mind? Gnevin ( talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:Arbitration_enforcement#Setanta747-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Setanta747, I have blocked you for 7 days, as this is a second violation of the ArbCom ruling. Black Kite 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Setanta. It's best to remove England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland (along with other dependencies) from that article. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Have you been offering your compromises on the talk-page (only)? GoodDay ( talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Setanta, can I ask you what you think of the proposal first put forward by Matt Lewis in July at Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland. I confess I am no expert on N.Ireland, but I believe this could solve the problem of N.Ireland having no flag to represent it on wiki. I have made a comment at that article. Cheers. Titch Tucker ( talk) 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You are once again being discussed on AE, I invite you to comment, lest sanctions be leveled without your input.-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a report here because of you reverts and the tone on the talk page. Please read the talk page guidlines, and please be a bit more civil with editors, there is no need for your comments. -- Domer48 'fenian' 09:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
From what I'm reading, the meaning of Sinn Féin is fairly obvious to those who are familiar with the Troubles. However, remember, we're not writing articles for experts, we're writing it for someone who has no idea about the Troubles, like I was, before I got roped into all of this by volunteering to mentor someone. Providing refs, especially simple ones like this [2] is useful to someone who doesn't know the whole situation, and helps us neutrals out.. That's why providing it is useful for us clueless Yanks who don't know jack about things.
Also, Domer is right that the behaviour could use a bit of a spruce up. It's the easiest way to get in trouble and reignite all the sniping and name calling, and quite frankly, I think you, me, Domer, everyone, have had more then enough of THAT for some time to come.
Now, Domer is right that you violated the parole on the Troubles... but this time, I'm going to let it go, because well, unlike others involved here, I haven't seen any problematic behaviour from you in a while up till now. But try to take my advice to heart about making articles useful for people like me (well, not like ME, but I think you have a clue what I mean ;) ).
Have a happy and safe Christmas season. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
That you don't see any difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" is really not our concern. That it is not the correct translations, and you added it known this dose concern us. Now when you try to add incorrect information it will be challanged and removed. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours all the best for Christmas and New Year. BigDunc Talk 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Hope you're well and that you had a nice Xmas. You nominated Category:Loyalists imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict, Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict to be speedily renamed last month. You may have missed it, but they were knocked back. If you'd still like to have them renamed - and why not? the article is The Troubles - you'd need to do a full CfD nomination. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
While checking to see that the illiterate's vandalism to your userpage was cleaned up, I discovered said page. You're the first left-of-center Unionist (U.K. sense) I've ever encountered. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (unionist only in the U.S. sense; republican only in the Irish sense)
You are blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on User:Keithgreer/User Devolution, as explained at WP:ANI#User:Setanta747. Sandstein 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
After further discussion on the above ANI thread, I've extended your block to reinstate Black Kite's previous 1-week block. This was reduced on the understanding that you would stay out of conflict on 'Troubles'-related subjects, which unfortunately you have not been able to do. You can ask for independent review by using the {{ unblock}} template. EyeSerene talk 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As usual, troublemakers being the first to complain, get someone blocked. Please see my comments and the text copied from the complaint below for rationale as to my unblocking.
Decline reason:
The first line of your "comments" is "Firstly, may I state what a waste of time this bullshit is." And that's really as far as I had to read. Abusive unblock requests are never granted. — Smashville talk 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unfortunately someone took exception my opinion, or to my use of a swear word perhaps. Wikipedia is not censored and I am not censoring myself. I have an opinion and I am expressing my opinion. I am an honest person and I will not be dictated to by thought police. I would appreciate a more mature admin actually taking a look at what I have taken the time to present in my defence (see below) and not simply dismissing me off-hand. Thank you.
Decline reason:
You're welcome. Crudeness is not a useful tool when you're asking admins to act on your behalf. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
-- Setanta 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As I cannot pass comment on the actual complaint, having been blocked before I was notified of any such complaint, I was not able to counter-argue or state my case. Thus, I have copied and pasted the text from the discussion below.
I was directed this way by an admin who refused to act due to a "conflict of interest." This user is engaging in Tendentious editing over at User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and has broken the 3RR rule, ignoring an attempts on my part to start a discussion on his talk page. (He is simply reverting those too.) The user has performed over 12 reverts on this page over the same matter and refuses to engage in discussion. He has been blocked before for this type of behaviour and has not learned to either stop edit warring or stop tendentious editing. He has also started edit warring at The Twelfth and regularly edit wars in order to push his own pov. Can he please be blocked, so that the disruptive editing can stop? 78.16.30.201 ( talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
EyeSerene: I would like to know if there was a time limit specified regarding Black Kite's former action against me that specifically suggested to you that you can feel free to extend this block. Because of this charade, I have wasted considerable time in compiling yet another appeal which will presumably be ignored by admins who couldn't be arsed to use common sense, as per usual.. I also have several web tabs open and I can't find the original Black Kite action against me.
Sandstein seems to suggest that he was not convinced that the block needed extending, yet you extended the block anyway. Why was this?
I don't take kindly to your accusation of "obsessive behaviour", particularly in light of the fact that there is so much in Wikipedia I have simply given up on due to the obsessive nature of others and the sheer weight of numbers and solidarity shown. Given the evidence I have presented and the time periods involved, I'm pretty sure I would come out on top with regard to having a more 'normal' and relaxed attitude. I would remind you of a need to not provoke others by calling them names, as is policy in Wikipedia. As an admin, particularly one who has clearly not been able to see the full picture and apply common sense, you should surely adopt a more moderate tone and attitude.
Besides all that, the original arbcom thing against me was a shambles, and I've as yet to come across an admin who is willing to spend the time to investigate that case and get the action revoked.
Sandstein: Your decision not to inform me prior to your action ignores good faith and fair play. This is just not on. How many times have we ignored disruptive unregistered users who continually repeat their actions and cause edit wars? I'm not the only one to have suspected that this unregistered editor, whose sole purpose seems to have been to edit a specific user page of KeithGreer, is a sock puppet of a banned and highly disruptive editor. I certainly have reason to ignore the disruptions, but I don't think that gives you good cause to make a judgement to not pre-inform me about this action, based on your assumption that I "do not want to be contacted". That is simply shocking behaviour and surely not one that any self-respecting, unbiased admin should hold.
What is your rationale behind blocking the unregistered user's dynamic IP for a mere 24 hours, as compared with my own 48 hours?
O Fenian: May I remind you of Wikipedia's policy of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I have no "Loyalist agenda" and I find your accusation both "incorrect" and offensive. Do not judge others by the mote in your own eye.
Tznkai: Yes - I can't believe it either. So obsessed are they by it, that they will continually monitor and create edit wars even on user pages in order to have this particular flag removed from Wikipedia.
Response from EyeSerene
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
"You're welcome. Crudeness is not a useful tool when you're asking admins to act on your behalf" is not a reason for decline. My asking for an admin to act on my behalf is a separate request from this unblock request. I welcome an admin who doesn't particularly mind a bit of "crudeness" to take up the challenge and actually do some work, instead of time-wasting and sarcastic knock-backs from childish admins. Thank you.
Decline reason:
After reading through the circumstances that surrounded this block as well as the admin noticeboard records, the article in question as well as the Arbcom ruling that governed the blocks, I'm going to decline your unblock request at this time. It seems almost ridiculous to even entertain the possibility that your actions took place with any less than full knowledge of their consequences. You seem very quick to point out the faults of other editors and very slow (if at all) to admit to your own mistakes and improper behavior. The edit warring as well as the blatant lack of accountability are enough for me to be comfortable with this block remaining in place. — Trusilver 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
With respect, I disagree with the rationale behind the decline, as I have explained below. Please consider these points below. It is not necessary to react or decide immediately - I would rather the evidence be considered carefully (as Trusilver has done) before a decision is made either way. I would appreciate some dialogue on this. There is good reason, I believe, to lift this block at least temporarily, and treat this as an incident. If some kind of investigation or examination could take place, I'd be only too happy to accept any advice and/or punishment, as such, as can be agreed by some non-involved admins, should it be decided that advice and/or punishment be necessary. I would also like to use this opportunity, as it is the only page I can currently access, to ask again for admin assistance. Thanks for indulging me.
Decline reason:
I should just say "Tl;DR", since it's your fault that this is unconscionably long, but I did give it a read-through anyways. I see nothing in your protestations that admits fault. I endorse EyeSerene's commentary on the process and the correctness of this block. And I agree with you: this was a waste of my time. — Jclemens ( talk) 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Further response from EyeSerene
EyeSerene this is not just about KeithGreer's userbox. There was also the breech of AE sanctions on the Sinn Féin article limiting editors to 1RR, in addition to Setanta personal sanctions of 1RR. We also had a breech of both AE Sanctions on The Twelfth, on the issue of the flag, they know full well its a no no. As pointed out by Black Kite "all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing." Tznkai nailed it when they commented above "Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?" Now on the catch cry of Tag Teams provide DIFFS that show that editors are tag teaming, not just that disagree with you. As one edtor has been warned about this accusation, Setanta you need to be told also. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ Helpme}} -- Setanta 07:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.
Regards 89.217.188.221 ( talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Military history of the peoples of Britain, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MITH 16:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move -- PBS ( talk) 08:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Holy smokers & jumpin' junipers, where've ya been all these weeks? I remember meeting ya before, but can't quite remember where. GoodDay ( talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Shea Campbell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shea Campbell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve-Ho ( talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
When I first dabbled in Wikipedia some weird transient user puzzled me by claiming I was 'Mal' talk. Meant nothing to me then, but now maybe it had something to do with the troubles you had. Anyway, it's still a weird place here at times. Regards.-- Flexdream ( talk) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you and hope you don't mind that I used some parts of your Marillion discography for the article Assassing. -- Jimmy Fleischer ( talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Archived discussion pages:
Do you know how to make an article part of the WIki Football Project? It's been drawn to my attention that Solitude (football ground) is not part of the project. Perhaps other articles on grounds are the same. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB ( talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
If you spot this user in any guise, please give me a shout. I am prepared to block them. Kind regards, :) -- Jza84 | Talk 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Mal, just saw your reversion of my edit on the Irish people article (tricolour v st patrick's cross) from a few weeks ago. Still laughing at that one, complete with a "no personal attacks" warning. Anyways, we haven't locked horns for a while, I hope you've been well. Windyjarhead ( talk) 10:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,I've started a new project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and i was wondering if you'd be interested in joining . If not can you tell me what changes if any could be made to change your mind? Gnevin ( talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:Arbitration_enforcement#Setanta747-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Setanta747, I have blocked you for 7 days, as this is a second violation of the ArbCom ruling. Black Kite 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Setanta. It's best to remove England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland (along with other dependencies) from that article. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Have you been offering your compromises on the talk-page (only)? GoodDay ( talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Setanta, can I ask you what you think of the proposal first put forward by Matt Lewis in July at Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland. I confess I am no expert on N.Ireland, but I believe this could solve the problem of N.Ireland having no flag to represent it on wiki. I have made a comment at that article. Cheers. Titch Tucker ( talk) 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You are once again being discussed on AE, I invite you to comment, lest sanctions be leveled without your input.-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a report here because of you reverts and the tone on the talk page. Please read the talk page guidlines, and please be a bit more civil with editors, there is no need for your comments. -- Domer48 'fenian' 09:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
From what I'm reading, the meaning of Sinn Féin is fairly obvious to those who are familiar with the Troubles. However, remember, we're not writing articles for experts, we're writing it for someone who has no idea about the Troubles, like I was, before I got roped into all of this by volunteering to mentor someone. Providing refs, especially simple ones like this [2] is useful to someone who doesn't know the whole situation, and helps us neutrals out.. That's why providing it is useful for us clueless Yanks who don't know jack about things.
Also, Domer is right that the behaviour could use a bit of a spruce up. It's the easiest way to get in trouble and reignite all the sniping and name calling, and quite frankly, I think you, me, Domer, everyone, have had more then enough of THAT for some time to come.
Now, Domer is right that you violated the parole on the Troubles... but this time, I'm going to let it go, because well, unlike others involved here, I haven't seen any problematic behaviour from you in a while up till now. But try to take my advice to heart about making articles useful for people like me (well, not like ME, but I think you have a clue what I mean ;) ).
Have a happy and safe Christmas season. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
That you don't see any difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" is really not our concern. That it is not the correct translations, and you added it known this dose concern us. Now when you try to add incorrect information it will be challanged and removed. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours all the best for Christmas and New Year. BigDunc Talk 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Hope you're well and that you had a nice Xmas. You nominated Category:Loyalists imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict, Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict to be speedily renamed last month. You may have missed it, but they were knocked back. If you'd still like to have them renamed - and why not? the article is The Troubles - you'd need to do a full CfD nomination. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
While checking to see that the illiterate's vandalism to your userpage was cleaned up, I discovered said page. You're the first left-of-center Unionist (U.K. sense) I've ever encountered. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (unionist only in the U.S. sense; republican only in the Irish sense)
You are blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on User:Keithgreer/User Devolution, as explained at WP:ANI#User:Setanta747. Sandstein 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
After further discussion on the above ANI thread, I've extended your block to reinstate Black Kite's previous 1-week block. This was reduced on the understanding that you would stay out of conflict on 'Troubles'-related subjects, which unfortunately you have not been able to do. You can ask for independent review by using the {{ unblock}} template. EyeSerene talk 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As usual, troublemakers being the first to complain, get someone blocked. Please see my comments and the text copied from the complaint below for rationale as to my unblocking.
Decline reason:
The first line of your "comments" is "Firstly, may I state what a waste of time this bullshit is." And that's really as far as I had to read. Abusive unblock requests are never granted. — Smashville talk 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unfortunately someone took exception my opinion, or to my use of a swear word perhaps. Wikipedia is not censored and I am not censoring myself. I have an opinion and I am expressing my opinion. I am an honest person and I will not be dictated to by thought police. I would appreciate a more mature admin actually taking a look at what I have taken the time to present in my defence (see below) and not simply dismissing me off-hand. Thank you.
Decline reason:
You're welcome. Crudeness is not a useful tool when you're asking admins to act on your behalf. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
-- Setanta 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As I cannot pass comment on the actual complaint, having been blocked before I was notified of any such complaint, I was not able to counter-argue or state my case. Thus, I have copied and pasted the text from the discussion below.
I was directed this way by an admin who refused to act due to a "conflict of interest." This user is engaging in Tendentious editing over at User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and has broken the 3RR rule, ignoring an attempts on my part to start a discussion on his talk page. (He is simply reverting those too.) The user has performed over 12 reverts on this page over the same matter and refuses to engage in discussion. He has been blocked before for this type of behaviour and has not learned to either stop edit warring or stop tendentious editing. He has also started edit warring at The Twelfth and regularly edit wars in order to push his own pov. Can he please be blocked, so that the disruptive editing can stop? 78.16.30.201 ( talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
EyeSerene: I would like to know if there was a time limit specified regarding Black Kite's former action against me that specifically suggested to you that you can feel free to extend this block. Because of this charade, I have wasted considerable time in compiling yet another appeal which will presumably be ignored by admins who couldn't be arsed to use common sense, as per usual.. I also have several web tabs open and I can't find the original Black Kite action against me.
Sandstein seems to suggest that he was not convinced that the block needed extending, yet you extended the block anyway. Why was this?
I don't take kindly to your accusation of "obsessive behaviour", particularly in light of the fact that there is so much in Wikipedia I have simply given up on due to the obsessive nature of others and the sheer weight of numbers and solidarity shown. Given the evidence I have presented and the time periods involved, I'm pretty sure I would come out on top with regard to having a more 'normal' and relaxed attitude. I would remind you of a need to not provoke others by calling them names, as is policy in Wikipedia. As an admin, particularly one who has clearly not been able to see the full picture and apply common sense, you should surely adopt a more moderate tone and attitude.
Besides all that, the original arbcom thing against me was a shambles, and I've as yet to come across an admin who is willing to spend the time to investigate that case and get the action revoked.
Sandstein: Your decision not to inform me prior to your action ignores good faith and fair play. This is just not on. How many times have we ignored disruptive unregistered users who continually repeat their actions and cause edit wars? I'm not the only one to have suspected that this unregistered editor, whose sole purpose seems to have been to edit a specific user page of KeithGreer, is a sock puppet of a banned and highly disruptive editor. I certainly have reason to ignore the disruptions, but I don't think that gives you good cause to make a judgement to not pre-inform me about this action, based on your assumption that I "do not want to be contacted". That is simply shocking behaviour and surely not one that any self-respecting, unbiased admin should hold.
What is your rationale behind blocking the unregistered user's dynamic IP for a mere 24 hours, as compared with my own 48 hours?
O Fenian: May I remind you of Wikipedia's policy of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I have no "Loyalist agenda" and I find your accusation both "incorrect" and offensive. Do not judge others by the mote in your own eye.
Tznkai: Yes - I can't believe it either. So obsessed are they by it, that they will continually monitor and create edit wars even on user pages in order to have this particular flag removed from Wikipedia.
Response from EyeSerene
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
"You're welcome. Crudeness is not a useful tool when you're asking admins to act on your behalf" is not a reason for decline. My asking for an admin to act on my behalf is a separate request from this unblock request. I welcome an admin who doesn't particularly mind a bit of "crudeness" to take up the challenge and actually do some work, instead of time-wasting and sarcastic knock-backs from childish admins. Thank you.
Decline reason:
After reading through the circumstances that surrounded this block as well as the admin noticeboard records, the article in question as well as the Arbcom ruling that governed the blocks, I'm going to decline your unblock request at this time. It seems almost ridiculous to even entertain the possibility that your actions took place with any less than full knowledge of their consequences. You seem very quick to point out the faults of other editors and very slow (if at all) to admit to your own mistakes and improper behavior. The edit warring as well as the blatant lack of accountability are enough for me to be comfortable with this block remaining in place. — Trusilver 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
With respect, I disagree with the rationale behind the decline, as I have explained below. Please consider these points below. It is not necessary to react or decide immediately - I would rather the evidence be considered carefully (as Trusilver has done) before a decision is made either way. I would appreciate some dialogue on this. There is good reason, I believe, to lift this block at least temporarily, and treat this as an incident. If some kind of investigation or examination could take place, I'd be only too happy to accept any advice and/or punishment, as such, as can be agreed by some non-involved admins, should it be decided that advice and/or punishment be necessary. I would also like to use this opportunity, as it is the only page I can currently access, to ask again for admin assistance. Thanks for indulging me.
Decline reason:
I should just say "Tl;DR", since it's your fault that this is unconscionably long, but I did give it a read-through anyways. I see nothing in your protestations that admits fault. I endorse EyeSerene's commentary on the process and the correctness of this block. And I agree with you: this was a waste of my time. — Jclemens ( talk) 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Further response from EyeSerene
EyeSerene this is not just about KeithGreer's userbox. There was also the breech of AE sanctions on the Sinn Féin article limiting editors to 1RR, in addition to Setanta personal sanctions of 1RR. We also had a breech of both AE Sanctions on The Twelfth, on the issue of the flag, they know full well its a no no. As pointed out by Black Kite "all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing." Tznkai nailed it when they commented above "Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?" Now on the catch cry of Tag Teams provide DIFFS that show that editors are tag teaming, not just that disagree with you. As one edtor has been warned about this accusation, Setanta you need to be told also. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ Helpme}} -- Setanta 07:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.
Regards 89.217.188.221 ( talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Military history of the peoples of Britain, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MITH 16:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move -- PBS ( talk) 08:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Holy smokers & jumpin' junipers, where've ya been all these weeks? I remember meeting ya before, but can't quite remember where. GoodDay ( talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Shea Campbell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shea Campbell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve-Ho ( talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
When I first dabbled in Wikipedia some weird transient user puzzled me by claiming I was 'Mal' talk. Meant nothing to me then, but now maybe it had something to do with the troubles you had. Anyway, it's still a weird place here at times. Regards.-- Flexdream ( talk) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you and hope you don't mind that I used some parts of your Marillion discography for the article Assassing. -- Jimmy Fleischer ( talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)