Greetings,
I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Mal. I'm not quite sure on how to do the whole article rating thingy so was wondering would you be able to see about an article rating for this page Tobermore which i've done a hell of a lot of expanding from the simple stub it was. Mabuska 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Marillion has been nominated for deletion and is under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR talk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination), this userbox violates policies and guidelines, and so I have removed it (again). Please do not try to circumvent the MFD. -- Core desat 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[de-indent] Thank you. Would you mind letting me know the duration of the block as well? -- Mal 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind - I figured it out. 09:09, 14 October 2007 -- Mal 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I protest most strongly at this nannying and censorship. This issue is, yet again, getting in the way of valuable editor contribution. The campaign to censor the flag of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia is ridiculous, and bolstered by administrators who feel they are only doing their job, based on 'consensus'. Let me tell you: there is consensus, and there is censorship. This is censorship - not only am I not allowed to place the flag of Northern Ireland on relevant articles, but now I am not allowed to voice my concern either. I have userboxes on my userpage which voice my concern over other Wikipedia issues, or which have been deleted. Why is this one being treated differently?
Decline reason:
You have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. Your unblock request does not address this issue. — Sandstein 07:17, 13 October 2007 (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:
As it has been pointed out to me that my bad boy behaviour was for reverting my user page three or more times under the WP:3RR rule, I would like to point out that this was in fact, therefore, an edit war: another user also reverted my userpage three times. In the interests of fair play, I'd like to see the other user blocked for the same duration, or my block lifted immediately. Thank you.
Decline reason:
"He did it too" is not grounds for unblocking. — jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 13 October 2007 (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.
Animum we have a situation whereby Wikipedia is at odds with itself: it respects consensus, yet it also respects non-censorship. I am being censored.
I will think of a compromise with regard to this matter but I repeat: I will not be censored (unless Wikipedia changes its policy on that particular matter). -- Mal 09:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your edit comment when you censored my user page reads: "No, you will not. You will demonstrate consensus is what you're going to do." Please learn some Netiquette, and learn how not to rile up users - you do NOT order me to do anything. Respect my status as a fellow human being, and do not throw your weight around as an administrator. It is most unprofessional. -- Mal 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see a friendly name back on wiki. There aren't enough. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom#Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, -- John 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Joe Doyle Actor/Musician is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Northern Irish cities was created to avoid protection on Template:Northern Ireland cities and was subject to an Tfd where it was decided to make Template:Northern Irish cities a redirect, so don't interfere with that decision.-- Padraig 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The English, Scottish and Welsh Flags are National Flags, but none for Northern Ireland except the Union Flag.-- Padraig 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Look at this:
That's the flag of Northern Ireland. -- Mal 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I really apologise for asking this out of the blue, but if possible, do you think at some point you could add an image or two of the C3K trains used by Northern Ireland Railways? I ask because no one seems to be the least bit interested in uploading some free use pictures, and every time I try uploading one it is classed as non-fair use. I would do this myself, only I live in London, so obviously getting pictures of trains in Belfast is slightly difficult!! I'm asking you because I've noticed you've made the odd edit to the NIR page, and that you live in Belfast. It's a massive bugbear of mine that all the train operators in the UK and Ireland have pictures of their rolling stock except NIR. I'm most grateful. Thanks for your time. Hammersfan, 29/10/07, 21.54 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Setanta, Padraig, VK: I have protected the above article to prevent another edit-war. Given the ArbCom ruling, this really would not be a a good idea. Use the talk page, please. ELIMINATORJR 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Setanta. My only concern about naming wasn't about the word "synagogue" per se but to shift from a generic to the official name of the congregation. Is it called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation" or something like that? Usually, articles on synagogues use the community's official name. It's so great you live in Belfast, you can find this out for us easily. Or we can just rely on this website: JCR-UK. Listen, I'll move the article and you can revert etc if I've made a mistake, ok? I was going to do it before; seeing the website now makes me think it's correct. Be well and thanks so much for encouraging us so nicely. HG | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Previous addresses: Annesley Street, Carlisle Crescent, Belfast from 31 August 1904 (foundation stone laid 26 February 1904). Prior thereto - Great Victoria Street from 1872 (foundation stone laid 7 July 1871).
I have absolutely no reason to oppose the move. Good call. :) -- Setanta 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in this -- andreasegde 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I invite your attention to the following edit. [1]. SirFozzie 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Eliminator, to be frank I'd rather not have to trudge though a mountain of words on the subject. I suspect nothing has been said that hasn't already been said. Do what you feel you must - if that includes blocking a valuable contributor who is interested in this encyclopaedia reporting the facts, or otherwise taking action against me, then so be it I guess.
You may take note of my objection, considering I wasn't involved in the discussion.. or whatever process this 'ArbCom' went through to arrive at the decision or policy it did arrive at. -- Setanta 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked at that image again since you asked. The issue is that the photo doesn't show Watson racing, receiving a prize, or otherwise document an historic event. It merely shows what Watson looks like. Our nonfree content policy doesn't permit the ue of nonfree images for the purpose of showing the appearance of living people. If the photographer would like to grant us permission to use this image, they must release it under a license that we regard as free, for example CC-BY-SA. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Irmapping, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{ deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 06:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Per this edit, are you going to actually add anything else to NIHE (disambiguation)? It is pointless to have a disambiguation page with one blue link. In fact, I think that used to be specifically mentioned as a reason for a housecleaning speedy deletion. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I was working with some images on the NI page, adding a lot of free ones, and removing one fair use one Image:Northern_Ireland_wall_of_heros.JPG. I was looking at the image you uploaded Image:NI_murals_NI_football.jpg, it could be vunurable to being deleted as an imagevio, could you supply a reference as to the artist releasing the image into the PD, Thanks Fasach Nua ( talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ruby_Murray_promo_photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast ( talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:M punch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Kremlin (bar), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar). 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. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Marillion singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Marillionlp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Colourluna.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. One Night In Hackney 303 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Space-Time Telegraph | ||||||
The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter | ||||||
Issue 1 | March 2008 | |||||
For the Doctor Who project,
Sceptre (
talk)
19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
||
News
| ||
Archives • Discussion |
Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I am additionally warning you that any further sock puppetry will result in an indefinite block. You are hereby placed on probation for one year, per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement. Please read and follow those restrictions, or you may be blocked without further warning. Jehochman Talk 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Case unclosed. No decision had been taken. Attempts to debate and defend were removed. I have not engaged in sockpuppetry.
Decline reason:
You have been editing anonymously, as your post above proves. This is sockpuppetry, because it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny by others in view of your previous sanctions. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747, which is now closed, comes to the same conclusion. — Sandstein ( talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (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:
There are no rules against editing 'anonymously'. (As an aside, the post above proves nothing about my association to Setanta747, by the way). This is not sockpuppetry, and I have not been "avoiding scrutiny by others". I'm afraid you have not been informed of the full facts. Lastly, the SSP is not closed, it just expired, and it came to no conclusion either way. -- 90.206.36.159 ( talk) 01:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
if you would like to request an unblock, please do so via your main account (this one). Please note that while blocked, you may not continue to edit anonymously. If you wish to be unblocked, then request an unblock from you main (blocked) account, not via an anonymous IP address.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:19, 26 April 2008 (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.
Wait a second, according to the block log: [2] This account is not even blocked... What is going on here?!? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There are no rules against editing 'anonymously', so far as I'm aware. (As an aside, the post above proves nothing about my association to Setanta747, by the way). This is not sockpuppetry, and I have not been "avoiding scrutiny by others". I'm afraid Jehochman has not been informed of the full facts. Lastly, the SSP is not closed, it just expired, and it came to no conclusion either way. (Note: I have since looked at the page, and it has been closed by Jehochman yesterday. -- 90.206.36.159 ( talk) 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's called block evasion. And your IP address is now blocked for it. See WP:SOCK. — Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (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:
Once again, I place this request and ask that this time an admin listen to what I have said: I am not involved in "block evasion". I have read WP:SOCK before. I have read WP:SOCK each time the link has been posted on the various pages. Placing a link doesn't make it any more true or valid. I am not guilty of sockpuppetry. You are not aware of the full facts. I request the attention of an (non-partisan) administrator who is willing to listen to my case via private correspondence by e-mail. Thank you. -- 90.206.36.177 ( talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You may not edit via any method, including an IP address or another account, while one of your accounts is blocked. If you wish to request an unblock, you must log in to the blocked account, and request one that way. — Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:52, 1 May 2008 (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.
Indeed - perhaps you'd be interested in WP:Unionism in Ireland, unless your interest is mostly geographic? Traditional unionist ( talk) 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have file a report here over your breach of probation. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Only one revert was made by myself, after I had made an edit to the particular article in question. Also, I had submitted a 3RR report as both my 'opponents' had made no effort to explain their reverts.
Decline reason:
You were placed on probation, with a 1RR - I count 2 reverts. — :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:05, 22 May 2008 (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:
Again, I only count one revert.
Two edits, and
one revert.
Additionally there was the matter of the 3RR which I reported, for which an admin
decided, incorrectly(?), that no action was necessary. The admin suggested "3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting", yet doesn't provide assistance with regard to where one might report "tag-team reverting". The admin then went on to explain that "3RR is four reverts for a violation", whereas I seem to remember being blocked in the past for only two reverts (well before I was unfairly placed on 'probation') - it being explained to me that three reverts need not be reached for it to be considered edit warring.
I gave ample opportunity for those two individuals who started the edit war on the article to explain their reverts on the article's talk page, which they never bothered to do. I conducted my attempt at editing in a fair an civil manner, giving those who might protest every opportunity to explain why.
Decline reason:
Sorry, but I'm definitely seeing more than one revert there. Furthermore, I came here to warn you about your behaviour on User talk:BigDunc, so all in all it's not been a good day — Alison ❤ 16:20, 22 May 2008 (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:
Re-added request (see section below)
Again, I only count one revert.
Two edits, and
one revert.
Additionally there was the matter of the 3RR which I reported, for which an admin
decided, incorrectly(?), that no action was necessary. The admin suggested "3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting", yet doesn't provide assistance with regard to where one might report "tag-team reverting". The admin then went on to explain that "3RR is four reverts for a violation", whereas I seem to remember being blocked in the past for only two reverts (well before I was unfairly placed on 'probation') - it being explained to me that three reverts need not be reached for it to be considered edit warring.
I gave ample opportunity for those two individuals who started the edit war on the article to explain their reverts on the article's talk page, which they never bothered to do. I conducted my attempt at editing in a fair an civil manner, giving those who might protest every opportunity to explain why.
Decline reason:
Four admins now agree that you violated your probation - in any event, your conduct in dealing with User:BigDunc is unacceptable. — Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:19, 22 May 2008 (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.
{{unblock|I have agreed to the conditions suggested by Alison in the section below. My 'conduct' regarding BigDunc has nothing whatsoever to do with this and was, in any case, well within policy guidelines. If you, or anyone, has a problem with my notifying BigDunc about his own 'conduct' in regard to edit warring, feel free to discuss this with me here on my talk page. Please read my statements below, as well as Alison's offer before making a decision with regard to my block. Thanks in advance.}}
I'm not sure you should be involved with my unblocking requests, as I'm not confident you would necessarily be completely non-partisan - I seem to recall having seen your name quite a few times regarding Northern Ireland-related articles. Therefore, I am putting up another unblock request, above.
As regard a separate issue you seem to have about BigDunc's userpage. What is it you feel I deserve a "warning" about. Some kind of "behaviour", you say..? Feel free to reply here because, as seems to be becoming the norm recently, this is the only page in the whole of Wikipedia I believe I can edit. I'm sorry you haven't had such a good day. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't let yourselves succumb to edit warring, breaking arb sanctions, etc. That's the worst way to handle this. Use the WP:DR process and refrain from those tactics. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. And yes, I can totally understand where you're coming from there, and the frustration involved. If you wish to appeal the probation, you can probably directly appeal to ArbCom via email. Or possibly post a request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests and nudge an arbitrator to comment on it. But yes, you definitely have recourse - Alison ❤ 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your questions at the IP talkpage. Cheers, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi
We need to resolve the issue of whether Northern Ireland appears in the SSSIs template. As you appear to be aware, NI doesn't have SSSIs, so I would prefer to see it left out. If we can find a good reason to keep it in, we're going to need to find a suitable title for the template that covers both SSSIs and whatever types of Northern Irish sites we want to include, as the current one isn'wouldn';t be appropriate for obvious reasons.
SP-KP ( talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Re. this comment. I'm not suggesting for a second that you "did it for a laugh". However, as I stated here, I'm not seeing any copyvio. Can you please quote the exact sentences in question, as I can't see them at all - Alison ❤ 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi I noticed this edit this edit, I was wondering by what definition England has a capital. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would have understood a capital city to be the seat of government, and obviously England doesnt have a goverment in anyway that cannot be equally applied to any other non devolved part of the UK. 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua ( talk • contribs)
There is a heavy discussion right now, in this article, Miss Pakistan World here and it was nominated for deletion here; your opinion will be highly appreciated, especially your vote. Your participation in this matter is noteworthy, in view of the fact that you are a member of the Wiki Project Beauty Pageants. It doesn’t matter if your vote is favorable or not, but what matters most is your involvement since it seems to me that some commenter are against pageantry. Personally, I think that the article should be kept but should be freed from tremendous advertisement lines.-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes folks, it’s "the beatles" or "The Beatles" time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be easy to overlook because there are now two polls going at the same time. The newest one is here. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Pursuant to the report at
WP:AE#Setanta747, I've blocked you for three days for violating the conditions of your revert parole on both {{
IrishL}} and
Category:Real Irish Republican Army. You can request an appeal by placing {{
unblock|your reason here...}}
on this page.
east718 //
talk //
email //
16:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
If an admin would kindly take a look at the issue in question, instead of just responding straight away to any block request simply because of some weird 'arbcom' rule (and I will be addressing the issue of the previous charade as soon as this latest block business is out of the way), I would greatly appreciate it.
It appears to me that the first to complain are always these republican editors on Wikipedia: I rarely complain. This isn't really a fair and just process because of that. It seems that I might be more tolerant of these revert wars that people like to engage in, and don't go crying to mummy every time somebody changes something about an article that I
'own'.
I remind any admin who will happen along that the person who reported me,
Domer48/Fenian is also subject to the 'Arbcom' in question, and is also guilty of reverts. In his case, they were unjustified, unexplained reverts - as opposed to my fully explained edit.
I'm sick, sore and tired of this ongoing campaign to continually harass and attempt to block (presumably in the ultimate hope of banning) editors of certain opinions on this 'encyclopedia'. I'm also sick of Admins taking the side of the first person to complain, with NO RECOURSE: it's simply a process of complain ---> block ---> appeal ---> appeal ignored (block remains). Usually it takes two of them.
This time I would request that an Admin, or another editor, complain on my behalf about Domer48 with regard to his own violation of the Arbcom. He reverted a
good faith edit by myself, with no reasonable explanation
here,
here, and
here. I suggest that Domer48 is
gaming the system by monitoring, collaborating with other like-minded individuals in a by now well-established routine, and taking the earliest possible opportunity to make a complaint. Notice his late attempt at explanation for his comrade's reversions of my edits to
Category:Real Irish Republican Army. Notice, in contrast, my attempts to explain the rationale of my edits in both cases.
I suggest that accuracy in Wikipedia's articles is not of concern to Domer48 or RepublicanJacobite. Rather, they would like to retain ownership of a genre of articles and try their best to continue their campaign of harassment of certain editors. What it results in is disillusionment of editors - at least a couple of prolific editors have all but stopped contributing because of the hassle caused to them by the likes of Domer48 - and in removing the ability other prolific editors have to contribute.
I further believe that this 'Arbcom', which I wasn't party to except as an afterthought, has created far more trouble than it has ever solved. I suggest that it isn't working, and that a better solution or process should be considered.
The issue in question regarding the use of the flag of Northern Ireland in a template about
Loyalism, as I explained already on the template's talk page, is that the flag is not representative of Loyalism specifically - it is used by individuals and bodies who would never describe themselves as Loyalists. This is despite the fact that the flag is flown in what would be described as Loyalist areas in Northern Ireland. The flag I used in its place is specifically representative of a Loyalist group, however. The equivalent to what Domer48 would like would be to have a template on
White Supremacy in America, and then filling the image of the template box with the
Stars and Stripes: just because some people in the USA may be white supremacists, it doesn't follow that the flag is representative of their ideology.
In addition to what I have already suggested above, I believe Domer48's intent is to 'dirty' the flag of Northern Ireland by removing it from some articles (which may show it in a neutral or positive light) and making sure it stays in other articles (ones which would attempt to show the flag in a bad light). Either that, or he doesn't fully understand the usage of the flag as pertaining to Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish people.
Thanks in advance to whatever Admin takes the time to read this reasonably lengthy appeal. Please restore my faith in what one might term due process in Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
I've looked at the issue. If this were standard editing then the block would not be justified. However, you clearly did violate your ArbCom parole (and are welcome to report other users if they have done similarly). Stifle ( talk) 09:21, 19 August 2008 (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:
My editing was "standard editing" - I was attempting to improve Wikipedia's accuracy. I cannot report other users as I am currently blocked from editing any pages other than this one.
I would also prefer that an Admin who doesn't
express a relevant political opinion - of any shade - review my block, given the information I submitted above, to wit: editor(s) have successfully taken
ownership of a genre of articles on Wikipedia, and that they indulge in the
attempted blocking of editors who do not share their view of how information in Wikipedia is presented. Further to that, with each revert by others, in the two examples cited, no satisfactory explanation was given - I gave reasons for my edits and subsequent reverts. I also attempted to discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages.
Once again, the
enforcement by a couple of editors on certain articles on Wikipedia is upheld by the system, and by a simple matter of them basically saying "No - I don't allow you to do that", followed by an attempt to block a good faith editor.
While I may well have been in violation of an Arbcom, that is the simplistic picture - I urge Admins to look at the wider picture instead of just concentrating on this one issue. This pattern has been going on for months now, and it will continue. --
Setanta747 (
talk)
17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of that matters here, what matters is that you violated the terms of your probation and have been blocked for doing so (you have even admitted to violating your probation). Unblock request declined, — Tiptoety talk 17:56, 19 August 2008 (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:
I only suggested that I may have violated the Arbcom ruling.
It does matter - very much so. This is part of a wider issue, and I'd like it considered as such.
Decline reason:
Okey, well the unblock request form is not a dispute resolution forum, so once your block expires, pursue the wider issue. — MBisanz talk 18:47, 19 August 2008 (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:
The wider issue affects me right now. I am again requesting an unblock on the grounds that I have been unduly harassed and pursued (on more than one occasion, and always by members of the same group), and unfairly gamed. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not the forum to make such requests, and it is becoming disruptive. Consider this your only warning, further disruptive unblock requests will result in this page being protected. — Tiptoety talk 19:24, 19 August 2008 (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.
Mal, you may be interested in this. Traditional unionist ( talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know why you feel you should punish me, instead of responding to my requests. In what way do you consider my request to be "disruptive"? Have I not been punished enough (unjustly so) for my alleged violation?
If you cannot answer me, considering I cannot edit any other page except this one, my only recourse will be to include yet another unblock request.. or a help request or something. This punishment has already severely limited my ability to contribute to Wikipedia, and has wasted much of my valuable time. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Jim Neilly, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Sandstein 09:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the tags you attached to the UDR are not correct. To attach an external link for each of the three sources listed would turn it into a link farm. The deaths can easily be referenced at the Palace Barracks site as they are listed by battalion and year to match the Roll of Honour, so why discredit the list by saying there are no inline citations? Furthermore it is a sub-page of Ulster Defence Regiment which is categorised. Why does it need to have its own categorisation? The Thunderer ( talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The other one is Ulster Defence Regiment Operations. The Thunderer ( talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (outdent) Thanks for those edits, I appreciate it. Could you take a look at the Blood Money poster again? In my browser it's off the section. The Thunderer ( talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You are incorrect in your assertion that the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 covers the whole of the United Kingdom. The legislation specifically covers Great Britain only. Northern Ireland is covered by a parallel series of legislation that includes some significant differences. This difference is identified through several sources;
Do you have any sources to support your viewpoint? Regards. Road Wizard ( talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
See my query on talk:Vernon Erskine-Crum, I think we've got in a bit of a tangle over the date of his relief, and that of his heart-attack. Can yo try and straighten it out? David Underdown ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Mspraveen ( talk) 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Pleased don't keep adding this stub type to the speedy list at CFD. As explained in the instructions on CFD, stub categories go to WP:SFD, where I relisted this the first time you posted it at CFD. Oh, and FWIW, "United Kingdom film actor stubs"" is standard naming per stub naming conventions. Grutness... wha? 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sentata. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'ostensibly' means 'for show, to disguise some hidden reality' (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the picture). So unless you're arguing that the Orange Order and similar groups are secretly Catholic or Buddhist or in some other way not really Protestant, you should not use the term 'ostensibly Protestant' to describe them.
Saying that Protestant groups such as the Orange Order do most of the parading in NI doesn't imply that all Protestants parade or approve of parading, any more than saying 'the majority of skinheads are white' implies that all or most white people are skinheads. There is a discussion to be had about how truly religious the Orange Order actually are, but I don't think the intro to the parades article is really the place to get into that. For the purposes of that paragraph I think it should be enough that they strongly identify as Protestant. -- Helenalex ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is a "veteran editor" creating an AfD for I HATE MEXICANS? What was wrong with {{ db-vandalism}}? — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a recent, long discussion in WikiProject Waterways (of which I'm a member) which started on my talk page. It would have been better to consult with the WikiProject before changing the name to "United Kingdom". All Irish canals are covered by Canals of Ireland. I will leave things as they are so you can consult with the guys about this, but the consensus was to leave things as they were. Regards' Renata ( talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.-- Tznkai ( talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi
If you look at the text for the category of Wars involving Ireland you will see that it is specifically stated that it refers to wars involving independent Irish states, not other parts of the island of Ireland. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm obliged to give you this warning.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hi Uncle Sam, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.flemingmultimedia.com/Personal/ulsterlinks.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Hi Uncle Sam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Non-dropframe (
talk)
04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Setanta, I would like to discuss your recent edits to Arthur O'Sullivan. You contend that, because he was born in pre-independence Ireland, he should be labelled as British. This may be technically correct but has far wider implications. Do you intend similarly editing articles whose subjects were born before 1922 in what is now the Irish Republic? For instance, Patrick Pearse or Jack Lynch to name but two examples? Without knowing Arthur O'Sullivan's politics, I think it unwise and a little perverse to label him British. However, I am happy to refer this matter to a third-party adjudicator if such a thing is possible within Wikipedia. Jim Bruce ( talk) 07:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the kind warm welcome! i hope to create numerous articles and help out WP:NIR. Thanks again Adster95 ( talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read over [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.-- Domer48 'fenian' 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop moving articles from "Flag of Ireland" to "Flag of Republic of Ireland". This is plainly disruptive, especially in light of the recent discussions to reverse the latest moves. 75.145.158.173 ( talk) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) two move requests and related edits, even if you didn't intend it (assuming good faith) it looks political. If you don't get what I am saying then look here to see what happens. -- Snowded TALK 04:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings,
I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Mal. I'm not quite sure on how to do the whole article rating thingy so was wondering would you be able to see about an article rating for this page Tobermore which i've done a hell of a lot of expanding from the simple stub it was. Mabuska 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Marillion has been nominated for deletion and is under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR talk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination), this userbox violates policies and guidelines, and so I have removed it (again). Please do not try to circumvent the MFD. -- Core desat 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[de-indent] Thank you. Would you mind letting me know the duration of the block as well? -- Mal 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind - I figured it out. 09:09, 14 October 2007 -- Mal 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I protest most strongly at this nannying and censorship. This issue is, yet again, getting in the way of valuable editor contribution. The campaign to censor the flag of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia is ridiculous, and bolstered by administrators who feel they are only doing their job, based on 'consensus'. Let me tell you: there is consensus, and there is censorship. This is censorship - not only am I not allowed to place the flag of Northern Ireland on relevant articles, but now I am not allowed to voice my concern either. I have userboxes on my userpage which voice my concern over other Wikipedia issues, or which have been deleted. Why is this one being treated differently?
Decline reason:
You have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. Your unblock request does not address this issue. — Sandstein 07:17, 13 October 2007 (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:
As it has been pointed out to me that my bad boy behaviour was for reverting my user page three or more times under the WP:3RR rule, I would like to point out that this was in fact, therefore, an edit war: another user also reverted my userpage three times. In the interests of fair play, I'd like to see the other user blocked for the same duration, or my block lifted immediately. Thank you.
Decline reason:
"He did it too" is not grounds for unblocking. — jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 13 October 2007 (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.
Animum we have a situation whereby Wikipedia is at odds with itself: it respects consensus, yet it also respects non-censorship. I am being censored.
I will think of a compromise with regard to this matter but I repeat: I will not be censored (unless Wikipedia changes its policy on that particular matter). -- Mal 09:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your edit comment when you censored my user page reads: "No, you will not. You will demonstrate consensus is what you're going to do." Please learn some Netiquette, and learn how not to rile up users - you do NOT order me to do anything. Respect my status as a fellow human being, and do not throw your weight around as an administrator. It is most unprofessional. -- Mal 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see a friendly name back on wiki. There aren't enough. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom#Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, -- John 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Joe Doyle Actor/Musician is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Northern Irish cities was created to avoid protection on Template:Northern Ireland cities and was subject to an Tfd where it was decided to make Template:Northern Irish cities a redirect, so don't interfere with that decision.-- Padraig 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The English, Scottish and Welsh Flags are National Flags, but none for Northern Ireland except the Union Flag.-- Padraig 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Look at this:
That's the flag of Northern Ireland. -- Mal 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I really apologise for asking this out of the blue, but if possible, do you think at some point you could add an image or two of the C3K trains used by Northern Ireland Railways? I ask because no one seems to be the least bit interested in uploading some free use pictures, and every time I try uploading one it is classed as non-fair use. I would do this myself, only I live in London, so obviously getting pictures of trains in Belfast is slightly difficult!! I'm asking you because I've noticed you've made the odd edit to the NIR page, and that you live in Belfast. It's a massive bugbear of mine that all the train operators in the UK and Ireland have pictures of their rolling stock except NIR. I'm most grateful. Thanks for your time. Hammersfan, 29/10/07, 21.54 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Setanta, Padraig, VK: I have protected the above article to prevent another edit-war. Given the ArbCom ruling, this really would not be a a good idea. Use the talk page, please. ELIMINATORJR 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Setanta. My only concern about naming wasn't about the word "synagogue" per se but to shift from a generic to the official name of the congregation. Is it called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation" or something like that? Usually, articles on synagogues use the community's official name. It's so great you live in Belfast, you can find this out for us easily. Or we can just rely on this website: JCR-UK. Listen, I'll move the article and you can revert etc if I've made a mistake, ok? I was going to do it before; seeing the website now makes me think it's correct. Be well and thanks so much for encouraging us so nicely. HG | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Previous addresses: Annesley Street, Carlisle Crescent, Belfast from 31 August 1904 (foundation stone laid 26 February 1904). Prior thereto - Great Victoria Street from 1872 (foundation stone laid 7 July 1871).
I have absolutely no reason to oppose the move. Good call. :) -- Setanta 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in this -- andreasegde 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I invite your attention to the following edit. [1]. SirFozzie 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Eliminator, to be frank I'd rather not have to trudge though a mountain of words on the subject. I suspect nothing has been said that hasn't already been said. Do what you feel you must - if that includes blocking a valuable contributor who is interested in this encyclopaedia reporting the facts, or otherwise taking action against me, then so be it I guess.
You may take note of my objection, considering I wasn't involved in the discussion.. or whatever process this 'ArbCom' went through to arrive at the decision or policy it did arrive at. -- Setanta 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked at that image again since you asked. The issue is that the photo doesn't show Watson racing, receiving a prize, or otherwise document an historic event. It merely shows what Watson looks like. Our nonfree content policy doesn't permit the ue of nonfree images for the purpose of showing the appearance of living people. If the photographer would like to grant us permission to use this image, they must release it under a license that we regard as free, for example CC-BY-SA. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Irmapping, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{ deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 06:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Per this edit, are you going to actually add anything else to NIHE (disambiguation)? It is pointless to have a disambiguation page with one blue link. In fact, I think that used to be specifically mentioned as a reason for a housecleaning speedy deletion. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I was working with some images on the NI page, adding a lot of free ones, and removing one fair use one Image:Northern_Ireland_wall_of_heros.JPG. I was looking at the image you uploaded Image:NI_murals_NI_football.jpg, it could be vunurable to being deleted as an imagevio, could you supply a reference as to the artist releasing the image into the PD, Thanks Fasach Nua ( talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ruby_Murray_promo_photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast ( talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:M punch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Kremlin (bar), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar). 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. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Marillion singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Marillionlp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Colourluna.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. One Night In Hackney 303 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Space-Time Telegraph | ||||||
The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter | ||||||
Issue 1 | March 2008 | |||||
For the Doctor Who project,
Sceptre (
talk)
19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
||
News
| ||
Archives • Discussion |
Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I am additionally warning you that any further sock puppetry will result in an indefinite block. You are hereby placed on probation for one year, per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement. Please read and follow those restrictions, or you may be blocked without further warning. Jehochman Talk 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Case unclosed. No decision had been taken. Attempts to debate and defend were removed. I have not engaged in sockpuppetry.
Decline reason:
You have been editing anonymously, as your post above proves. This is sockpuppetry, because it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny by others in view of your previous sanctions. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747, which is now closed, comes to the same conclusion. — Sandstein ( talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (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:
There are no rules against editing 'anonymously'. (As an aside, the post above proves nothing about my association to Setanta747, by the way). This is not sockpuppetry, and I have not been "avoiding scrutiny by others". I'm afraid you have not been informed of the full facts. Lastly, the SSP is not closed, it just expired, and it came to no conclusion either way. -- 90.206.36.159 ( talk) 01:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
if you would like to request an unblock, please do so via your main account (this one). Please note that while blocked, you may not continue to edit anonymously. If you wish to be unblocked, then request an unblock from you main (blocked) account, not via an anonymous IP address.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:19, 26 April 2008 (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.
Wait a second, according to the block log: [2] This account is not even blocked... What is going on here?!? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There are no rules against editing 'anonymously', so far as I'm aware. (As an aside, the post above proves nothing about my association to Setanta747, by the way). This is not sockpuppetry, and I have not been "avoiding scrutiny by others". I'm afraid Jehochman has not been informed of the full facts. Lastly, the SSP is not closed, it just expired, and it came to no conclusion either way. (Note: I have since looked at the page, and it has been closed by Jehochman yesterday. -- 90.206.36.159 ( talk) 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's called block evasion. And your IP address is now blocked for it. See WP:SOCK. — Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (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:
Once again, I place this request and ask that this time an admin listen to what I have said: I am not involved in "block evasion". I have read WP:SOCK before. I have read WP:SOCK each time the link has been posted on the various pages. Placing a link doesn't make it any more true or valid. I am not guilty of sockpuppetry. You are not aware of the full facts. I request the attention of an (non-partisan) administrator who is willing to listen to my case via private correspondence by e-mail. Thank you. -- 90.206.36.177 ( talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You may not edit via any method, including an IP address or another account, while one of your accounts is blocked. If you wish to request an unblock, you must log in to the blocked account, and request one that way. — Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:52, 1 May 2008 (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.
Indeed - perhaps you'd be interested in WP:Unionism in Ireland, unless your interest is mostly geographic? Traditional unionist ( talk) 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have file a report here over your breach of probation. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Only one revert was made by myself, after I had made an edit to the particular article in question. Also, I had submitted a 3RR report as both my 'opponents' had made no effort to explain their reverts.
Decline reason:
You were placed on probation, with a 1RR - I count 2 reverts. — :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:05, 22 May 2008 (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:
Again, I only count one revert.
Two edits, and
one revert.
Additionally there was the matter of the 3RR which I reported, for which an admin
decided, incorrectly(?), that no action was necessary. The admin suggested "3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting", yet doesn't provide assistance with regard to where one might report "tag-team reverting". The admin then went on to explain that "3RR is four reverts for a violation", whereas I seem to remember being blocked in the past for only two reverts (well before I was unfairly placed on 'probation') - it being explained to me that three reverts need not be reached for it to be considered edit warring.
I gave ample opportunity for those two individuals who started the edit war on the article to explain their reverts on the article's talk page, which they never bothered to do. I conducted my attempt at editing in a fair an civil manner, giving those who might protest every opportunity to explain why.
Decline reason:
Sorry, but I'm definitely seeing more than one revert there. Furthermore, I came here to warn you about your behaviour on User talk:BigDunc, so all in all it's not been a good day — Alison ❤ 16:20, 22 May 2008 (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:
Re-added request (see section below)
Again, I only count one revert.
Two edits, and
one revert.
Additionally there was the matter of the 3RR which I reported, for which an admin
decided, incorrectly(?), that no action was necessary. The admin suggested "3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting", yet doesn't provide assistance with regard to where one might report "tag-team reverting". The admin then went on to explain that "3RR is four reverts for a violation", whereas I seem to remember being blocked in the past for only two reverts (well before I was unfairly placed on 'probation') - it being explained to me that three reverts need not be reached for it to be considered edit warring.
I gave ample opportunity for those two individuals who started the edit war on the article to explain their reverts on the article's talk page, which they never bothered to do. I conducted my attempt at editing in a fair an civil manner, giving those who might protest every opportunity to explain why.
Decline reason:
Four admins now agree that you violated your probation - in any event, your conduct in dealing with User:BigDunc is unacceptable. — Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:19, 22 May 2008 (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.
{{unblock|I have agreed to the conditions suggested by Alison in the section below. My 'conduct' regarding BigDunc has nothing whatsoever to do with this and was, in any case, well within policy guidelines. If you, or anyone, has a problem with my notifying BigDunc about his own 'conduct' in regard to edit warring, feel free to discuss this with me here on my talk page. Please read my statements below, as well as Alison's offer before making a decision with regard to my block. Thanks in advance.}}
I'm not sure you should be involved with my unblocking requests, as I'm not confident you would necessarily be completely non-partisan - I seem to recall having seen your name quite a few times regarding Northern Ireland-related articles. Therefore, I am putting up another unblock request, above.
As regard a separate issue you seem to have about BigDunc's userpage. What is it you feel I deserve a "warning" about. Some kind of "behaviour", you say..? Feel free to reply here because, as seems to be becoming the norm recently, this is the only page in the whole of Wikipedia I believe I can edit. I'm sorry you haven't had such a good day. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't let yourselves succumb to edit warring, breaking arb sanctions, etc. That's the worst way to handle this. Use the WP:DR process and refrain from those tactics. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. And yes, I can totally understand where you're coming from there, and the frustration involved. If you wish to appeal the probation, you can probably directly appeal to ArbCom via email. Or possibly post a request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests and nudge an arbitrator to comment on it. But yes, you definitely have recourse - Alison ❤ 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your questions at the IP talkpage. Cheers, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi
We need to resolve the issue of whether Northern Ireland appears in the SSSIs template. As you appear to be aware, NI doesn't have SSSIs, so I would prefer to see it left out. If we can find a good reason to keep it in, we're going to need to find a suitable title for the template that covers both SSSIs and whatever types of Northern Irish sites we want to include, as the current one isn'wouldn';t be appropriate for obvious reasons.
SP-KP ( talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Re. this comment. I'm not suggesting for a second that you "did it for a laugh". However, as I stated here, I'm not seeing any copyvio. Can you please quote the exact sentences in question, as I can't see them at all - Alison ❤ 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi I noticed this edit this edit, I was wondering by what definition England has a capital. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would have understood a capital city to be the seat of government, and obviously England doesnt have a goverment in anyway that cannot be equally applied to any other non devolved part of the UK. 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua ( talk • contribs)
There is a heavy discussion right now, in this article, Miss Pakistan World here and it was nominated for deletion here; your opinion will be highly appreciated, especially your vote. Your participation in this matter is noteworthy, in view of the fact that you are a member of the Wiki Project Beauty Pageants. It doesn’t matter if your vote is favorable or not, but what matters most is your involvement since it seems to me that some commenter are against pageantry. Personally, I think that the article should be kept but should be freed from tremendous advertisement lines.-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes folks, it’s "the beatles" or "The Beatles" time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be easy to overlook because there are now two polls going at the same time. The newest one is here. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Pursuant to the report at
WP:AE#Setanta747, I've blocked you for three days for violating the conditions of your revert parole on both {{
IrishL}} and
Category:Real Irish Republican Army. You can request an appeal by placing {{
unblock|your reason here...}}
on this page.
east718 //
talk //
email //
16:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Setanta747 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
If an admin would kindly take a look at the issue in question, instead of just responding straight away to any block request simply because of some weird 'arbcom' rule (and I will be addressing the issue of the previous charade as soon as this latest block business is out of the way), I would greatly appreciate it.
It appears to me that the first to complain are always these republican editors on Wikipedia: I rarely complain. This isn't really a fair and just process because of that. It seems that I might be more tolerant of these revert wars that people like to engage in, and don't go crying to mummy every time somebody changes something about an article that I
'own'.
I remind any admin who will happen along that the person who reported me,
Domer48/Fenian is also subject to the 'Arbcom' in question, and is also guilty of reverts. In his case, they were unjustified, unexplained reverts - as opposed to my fully explained edit.
I'm sick, sore and tired of this ongoing campaign to continually harass and attempt to block (presumably in the ultimate hope of banning) editors of certain opinions on this 'encyclopedia'. I'm also sick of Admins taking the side of the first person to complain, with NO RECOURSE: it's simply a process of complain ---> block ---> appeal ---> appeal ignored (block remains). Usually it takes two of them.
This time I would request that an Admin, or another editor, complain on my behalf about Domer48 with regard to his own violation of the Arbcom. He reverted a
good faith edit by myself, with no reasonable explanation
here,
here, and
here. I suggest that Domer48 is
gaming the system by monitoring, collaborating with other like-minded individuals in a by now well-established routine, and taking the earliest possible opportunity to make a complaint. Notice his late attempt at explanation for his comrade's reversions of my edits to
Category:Real Irish Republican Army. Notice, in contrast, my attempts to explain the rationale of my edits in both cases.
I suggest that accuracy in Wikipedia's articles is not of concern to Domer48 or RepublicanJacobite. Rather, they would like to retain ownership of a genre of articles and try their best to continue their campaign of harassment of certain editors. What it results in is disillusionment of editors - at least a couple of prolific editors have all but stopped contributing because of the hassle caused to them by the likes of Domer48 - and in removing the ability other prolific editors have to contribute.
I further believe that this 'Arbcom', which I wasn't party to except as an afterthought, has created far more trouble than it has ever solved. I suggest that it isn't working, and that a better solution or process should be considered.
The issue in question regarding the use of the flag of Northern Ireland in a template about
Loyalism, as I explained already on the template's talk page, is that the flag is not representative of Loyalism specifically - it is used by individuals and bodies who would never describe themselves as Loyalists. This is despite the fact that the flag is flown in what would be described as Loyalist areas in Northern Ireland. The flag I used in its place is specifically representative of a Loyalist group, however. The equivalent to what Domer48 would like would be to have a template on
White Supremacy in America, and then filling the image of the template box with the
Stars and Stripes: just because some people in the USA may be white supremacists, it doesn't follow that the flag is representative of their ideology.
In addition to what I have already suggested above, I believe Domer48's intent is to 'dirty' the flag of Northern Ireland by removing it from some articles (which may show it in a neutral or positive light) and making sure it stays in other articles (ones which would attempt to show the flag in a bad light). Either that, or he doesn't fully understand the usage of the flag as pertaining to Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish people.
Thanks in advance to whatever Admin takes the time to read this reasonably lengthy appeal. Please restore my faith in what one might term due process in Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
I've looked at the issue. If this were standard editing then the block would not be justified. However, you clearly did violate your ArbCom parole (and are welcome to report other users if they have done similarly). Stifle ( talk) 09:21, 19 August 2008 (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:
My editing was "standard editing" - I was attempting to improve Wikipedia's accuracy. I cannot report other users as I am currently blocked from editing any pages other than this one.
I would also prefer that an Admin who doesn't
express a relevant political opinion - of any shade - review my block, given the information I submitted above, to wit: editor(s) have successfully taken
ownership of a genre of articles on Wikipedia, and that they indulge in the
attempted blocking of editors who do not share their view of how information in Wikipedia is presented. Further to that, with each revert by others, in the two examples cited, no satisfactory explanation was given - I gave reasons for my edits and subsequent reverts. I also attempted to discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages.
Once again, the
enforcement by a couple of editors on certain articles on Wikipedia is upheld by the system, and by a simple matter of them basically saying "No - I don't allow you to do that", followed by an attempt to block a good faith editor.
While I may well have been in violation of an Arbcom, that is the simplistic picture - I urge Admins to look at the wider picture instead of just concentrating on this one issue. This pattern has been going on for months now, and it will continue. --
Setanta747 (
talk)
17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of that matters here, what matters is that you violated the terms of your probation and have been blocked for doing so (you have even admitted to violating your probation). Unblock request declined, — Tiptoety talk 17:56, 19 August 2008 (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:
I only suggested that I may have violated the Arbcom ruling.
It does matter - very much so. This is part of a wider issue, and I'd like it considered as such.
Decline reason:
Okey, well the unblock request form is not a dispute resolution forum, so once your block expires, pursue the wider issue. — MBisanz talk 18:47, 19 August 2008 (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:
The wider issue affects me right now. I am again requesting an unblock on the grounds that I have been unduly harassed and pursued (on more than one occasion, and always by members of the same group), and unfairly gamed. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not the forum to make such requests, and it is becoming disruptive. Consider this your only warning, further disruptive unblock requests will result in this page being protected. — Tiptoety talk 19:24, 19 August 2008 (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.
Mal, you may be interested in this. Traditional unionist ( talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know why you feel you should punish me, instead of responding to my requests. In what way do you consider my request to be "disruptive"? Have I not been punished enough (unjustly so) for my alleged violation?
If you cannot answer me, considering I cannot edit any other page except this one, my only recourse will be to include yet another unblock request.. or a help request or something. This punishment has already severely limited my ability to contribute to Wikipedia, and has wasted much of my valuable time. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Jim Neilly, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Sandstein 09:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the tags you attached to the UDR are not correct. To attach an external link for each of the three sources listed would turn it into a link farm. The deaths can easily be referenced at the Palace Barracks site as they are listed by battalion and year to match the Roll of Honour, so why discredit the list by saying there are no inline citations? Furthermore it is a sub-page of Ulster Defence Regiment which is categorised. Why does it need to have its own categorisation? The Thunderer ( talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The other one is Ulster Defence Regiment Operations. The Thunderer ( talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (outdent) Thanks for those edits, I appreciate it. Could you take a look at the Blood Money poster again? In my browser it's off the section. The Thunderer ( talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You are incorrect in your assertion that the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 covers the whole of the United Kingdom. The legislation specifically covers Great Britain only. Northern Ireland is covered by a parallel series of legislation that includes some significant differences. This difference is identified through several sources;
Do you have any sources to support your viewpoint? Regards. Road Wizard ( talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
See my query on talk:Vernon Erskine-Crum, I think we've got in a bit of a tangle over the date of his relief, and that of his heart-attack. Can yo try and straighten it out? David Underdown ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Mspraveen ( talk) 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Pleased don't keep adding this stub type to the speedy list at CFD. As explained in the instructions on CFD, stub categories go to WP:SFD, where I relisted this the first time you posted it at CFD. Oh, and FWIW, "United Kingdom film actor stubs"" is standard naming per stub naming conventions. Grutness... wha? 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sentata. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'ostensibly' means 'for show, to disguise some hidden reality' (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the picture). So unless you're arguing that the Orange Order and similar groups are secretly Catholic or Buddhist or in some other way not really Protestant, you should not use the term 'ostensibly Protestant' to describe them.
Saying that Protestant groups such as the Orange Order do most of the parading in NI doesn't imply that all Protestants parade or approve of parading, any more than saying 'the majority of skinheads are white' implies that all or most white people are skinheads. There is a discussion to be had about how truly religious the Orange Order actually are, but I don't think the intro to the parades article is really the place to get into that. For the purposes of that paragraph I think it should be enough that they strongly identify as Protestant. -- Helenalex ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is a "veteran editor" creating an AfD for I HATE MEXICANS? What was wrong with {{ db-vandalism}}? — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a recent, long discussion in WikiProject Waterways (of which I'm a member) which started on my talk page. It would have been better to consult with the WikiProject before changing the name to "United Kingdom". All Irish canals are covered by Canals of Ireland. I will leave things as they are so you can consult with the guys about this, but the consensus was to leave things as they were. Regards' Renata ( talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.-- Tznkai ( talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi
If you look at the text for the category of Wars involving Ireland you will see that it is specifically stated that it refers to wars involving independent Irish states, not other parts of the island of Ireland. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm obliged to give you this warning.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hi Uncle Sam, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.flemingmultimedia.com/Personal/ulsterlinks.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Hi Uncle Sam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Non-dropframe (
talk)
04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Setanta, I would like to discuss your recent edits to Arthur O'Sullivan. You contend that, because he was born in pre-independence Ireland, he should be labelled as British. This may be technically correct but has far wider implications. Do you intend similarly editing articles whose subjects were born before 1922 in what is now the Irish Republic? For instance, Patrick Pearse or Jack Lynch to name but two examples? Without knowing Arthur O'Sullivan's politics, I think it unwise and a little perverse to label him British. However, I am happy to refer this matter to a third-party adjudicator if such a thing is possible within Wikipedia. Jim Bruce ( talk) 07:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the kind warm welcome! i hope to create numerous articles and help out WP:NIR. Thanks again Adster95 ( talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read over [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.-- Domer48 'fenian' 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop moving articles from "Flag of Ireland" to "Flag of Republic of Ireland". This is plainly disruptive, especially in light of the recent discussions to reverse the latest moves. 75.145.158.173 ( talk) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) two move requests and related edits, even if you didn't intend it (assuming good faith) it looks political. If you don't get what I am saying then look here to see what happens. -- Snowded TALK 04:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)