Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Djegan 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Djegan 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses English language places names on the English language Wikipedia. If you wish to contribute in the Irish language, there is an Irish language Wikipedia at http://ga.wikipedia.org. Otherwise, do not change names in articles. -- 85.134.167.112 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure Dún Laoghaire is an English language place name? Very interesting. I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion?
Redking, please see recent edit history of Inis Mór. As User:Djegan has pointed out the article title and the name in main space should be the same. You will have to move the articles to their new name. It would probably be best to open a discussion on the project page before any mass moves. I would also caution other users to stop reverting your changes till this matter is sorted out. ( Sarah777 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
:Yes, I definitely got the wrong editor in this instance. Abject apologies.
Nope. There is a
User:Red King as well as Redking7 here! Holy Confusion Batman!
(
Sarah777 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
Please bear in mind that the material you added to Official Languages Act 2003 is copyrighted, please see WP:COPYRIGHT. Please bear in mind that using copyrighted material is subject to limitations, and may result in removal of material, the repeated use of inappropriate material in an article may result in the article been locked and users prevented from editing the article until any outstanding issues are resolved. Djegan 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what I added could constitute copyright material (a statement of facts in the public domain) but to address any concerns, I will try again. Thanks.
Note we already have an article that deals with the official name of Northern Ireland, its called Alternative names for Northern Ireland. We don't need ***another*** article on nomenclature. Djegan 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I will amend. Thanks. Redking7 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Redking7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The
Irish Republicanism WikiProject is a
collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of
Irish republicanism,
Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.
(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects). |
-- Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I confess that I've only just now seen that Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was not signed by the President until April 1949, which makes you right about the decription "Republic of" coming into effect in 1949. What confused me is that there is a UK Ireland Act 1949, which is what I thought you were referring to. If you would prefer to revert again, I won't complain. -- Red King ( talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not move pages without first seeking consensus, especially where the move might be controversial. Please also see here. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wholesales delition of text will only lead to tears. Please stop deleting material from
Eire.
Ceoil (
talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you using a name similiar to Red King's? GoodDay ( talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please consider creating another (separate) article for My Four Green Fields (the art work). Per convention it's not normally appropriate to include two disparate topics under one title. Consider creating a DAB page, and linking both back if necessary. Cheers Guliolopez ( talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring on the article The Troubles.
This edit misleadingly used the edit summary "disambig", when there was no disambiguation involved. Another editor who reverted your edit commented on the issue at Talk:the Troubles; please discuss the issue there rather than repeatedly reinserting a disputed edit.
May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? That's not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert ... it's discuss an edit as soon as it's contested.
Thanks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, please be advised that articles on this topic are subject to a general restriction (see The Troubles section of Wikipedia:General sanctions) according to which editors who engage in edit warring may be placed on probation at the discretion of any uninvolved adminstrator. CIreland ( talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would be grateful if some one could take the time to look at the edits I made and determine if I deserved to be blocked. I don't think I did. I edited the page. Some of the edits were reverted (without discussion). I reverted again. A discussion opened. I participated immediately and gave the reason for my edit, then reverted again. Some hours later, my edits had been reverted again. Instead of 'reverting', I made some changes which I though were a fair compromise so to speak. I then set out my reasons for the compromise on the discussion page. I though I'd acted fairly and reasonably, particularly in finding a compromise. Do I deserve to be "blocked" for this behaviour? I know it takes a few minutes to look at things properly and I am grateful for whoever takes the time to do that. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are no longer blocked, please don't use this template. Maybe a request on WP:ANI or using the helpme template would be more apt. — Golbez ( talk) 22:36, 13 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.
You may want to review WP:PARENT - going to a different location because you don't like the reply on the first isn't looked well upon. WLU ( talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Per your request, I deleted your userpage which a different user had created. Your userpage could be fully protected to prevent anyone editing it, but that seems to be uncommon. For someone else to edit your userpage by the addition of unwanted content is vandalism and they can be blocked if they persist. Your username now appears in red as it did previously. Edison ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? Why do you keep adding Category:Western Sahara to Sahrawi nationality law? That article is in three categories which are themselves subcategories of Category:Western Sahara, and the parent category of a country is supposed to remain virtually depopulated. See also Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD and cease edit warring. Traditional unionist ( talk) 10:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One-China policy. 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. Green caterpillar ( talk) 22:20, 2 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' 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting to see many of the comments made coming from a political stance. In my opinion, articles such as Flag of the Republic of Ireland can never be written or named from a purely encyclopedic perspective. Its unfortunate, but when the policy is to let anyone edit, which is a good thing in many respects, this will always happen. Articles with political overtones will never be stable, an editor could, if it lasts that long, spend his or her whole life arguing over the contents. I decided to join Wikipedia for the enjoyment of editing articles I have an interest in. As a new editor I have as yet to do so, but I don't think, other than looking in and making a comment or two, I will concentrate on these type of articles, I'm not sure how long I would want to remain an editor on wiki if I did. Titch Tucker ( talk) 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB ( talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&diff=249909297&oldid=249834461 No, that was introducing an inaccuracy. Taiwan refers to the island (its use as a stand-in for "ROC" is strictly colloquial) - Republic of China refers to the government. Plus Taipei, NOT Taiwan is used by governments with no formal recognition of the ROC. Why? Because if "Taiwan" is used then that implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, and we know the PRC doesn't like that. That is why Chinese Taipei is used at the olympics. That is why Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office is used to refer to de facto ROC embassies and consulates. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent recent edit by you to this article. Would welcome your views on its Talk Page on the whole question of the paragraph dealing with 'efficacy'. I think much of it should go. My view is that it over-simplifies the complex relationship between the institutions of the Irish Republic and the nascent institutions of the new Irish Free State. The courts were deliberately suppressed, not because of an inherent failing, but because of the janus-faced attitude of the new State towards them and the overriding necessity of indisputably controlling the 'new' judiciary. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redking. I have noticed that you piped ROI/Ireland on an article recently. I think you should read User talk:Mooretwin#Pipeing because the same principle applies (albeit in the opposite direction). I appreciate one edit doesn't a problem make, but its worth being aware as I expect you may be reverted before too long. I urge you to get involved in establishing a project wide consensus on this issue. Rockpocke t 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Redking7. If you keep on reverting the article itself, without waiting for a Talk page consensus, you and your counterpart may both be blocked, per WP:Edit war. Please work toward a consensus, and wait for it to form. Bring in outsiders if you wish. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed at WP:AN3, but you reverted again here after numerous warnings. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redking7, please read CfD - How to use this page about the procedure for proposing category renames. You provided an entry and rationale on the day's log, as is appropriate, but it is also necessary to tag the category itself to alert active contributors of the proposal. I have tagged Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence for you. Cheers. - choster ( talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i saw your post a little while ago on the Northern Ireland page about Constituent Countries. I thought the same thing a few days ago when i joined, i didnt like the idea of describing England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as countries, however there is reasonable justification for doing so based on many sources. The main concern has to be ensuring the relationship between the Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom is not lost. Countries of the United Kingdom does that in my opinion. There is debate on that page about merging it with the subdiv list which is currently listed.. If that was done, a reasonable opening line to the 4 parts of the UK could read, "Northern Ireland is a Country of the United Kingdom which is ALOT better than the current version, where just country is linked. If you have the time and are interested in this issue, pls comment on the Countries of the UK page. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You hit it right on the nail, Redking7. Too bad, we're in the minority. GoodDay ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
RedKing7 - UK law does not define the word 'country'. Your comment of "no legal basis" was utter rubbish. I also consider it a form of trolling, given all that is happened regarding this over the past year. Saying that someone describing England etc a "country" has "no legal basis whatsoever" is tantamount as saying it is unlawful - which is simply unacceptable - provacative and misleading to the point where I believe arbcom should be able to cut it out. You are entitled to you POV, but bullshiting regarding law is totally unacceptable. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 12:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this notice. This is now fixed. Regards 16@r ( talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Party pooper. GoodDay ( talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my amendement - it was poorly thought out and obviously won't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire ( talk) 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this account in any way related to the above user? If so/not, can you please consider making a note of it on your user page, as you are both active editors apparently interested in the same topics, which makes discussion confusing to follow for others. I placed the same note on their talk page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
reply ~ R. T. G 05:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
"Re.: On the Boundary commission part I've changed this big mistake - 'The report of the Commission (and thus the terms of the agreement) has yet officially to be made public:" - in fact the agreement was made public about an hour after it was made (and the agreement meant that the Commission and its report were no longer needed). See this.Red Hurley (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) From what I can see you have confused publication of the agreement concerning the border with publication of the Boundary Commission's report....Not the same thing! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Solomon Islands. 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. AussieLegend ( talk) 13:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Papua New Guinea has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Bidgee ( talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked your account for 48 hours as you continue to edit war at various articles such as The Bahamas, Papua New Guinea & Solomon Islands despite continued requests to discuss over many days. I also note that your edit summaries are not descriptive of what you are actually completing in the edit. I will post a template warning below this message so that you have appropriate links should wish to dispute the validity of this block. I should also note, in case you are not aware, that your blocks are being escalated in their length and you are in serious danger of being blocked indefinitely.-- VS talk 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. --
VS
talk 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Thanks for your comments about Mongolia, Luxembourg, Solomon Islands, and Samoa. -- Evertype· ✆ 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, how are you doing RK7? GoodDay ( talk) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I again deleted your user page, per your request on my talk page, so your signature would appear red. Please note that you can make your signature appear in a variety of colors by clever formatting. Take a look at the colorful sigs of other users and do some expermenting. Regards. Edison ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
...for pro-movers like me, to accept the fact that there'll never be a consensus to move those Ireland articles. GoodDay ( talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
After months of continous failed attempts for a consensus, I've given up on those Ireland article titles. GoodDay ( talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm an administrator, but no, I have no intentions of trying to get you in trouble. However, further violations of the edit warring policy may lead to consequences. Please discuss the matter on a relevant talk page, and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. Thank you. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have put up a request for clarification to ARbCom here, regarding your actions. -- MASEM ( t) 17:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. You now have enough blocks to be straying close to an indef block next time. I very strongly caution you to move more slowly and to make more effort to seek consensus before reverting, and indeed to simply edit different articles if you cannot edit except by reverting at a given article William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)EXTRACTED FROM RELEVANT TALK PAGE
You were (correctly) blocked. At the time, you were given clear instructions for appealing that block, which you didn't follow. Now please stop wasting my time [2] and yours. No, I am not going to post your appeal for you because you can't be bothered to read stuff. If you want to avoid such problems in future, please read WP:1RR William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDunc Talk 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You were (correctly) blocked. At the time, you were given clear instructions for appealing that block, which you didn't follow. Now please stop wasting my time [3] and yours. No, I am not going to post your appeal for you because you can't be bothered to read stuff. If you want to avoid such problems in future, please read WP:1RR William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
Hi, I just wanted to contact you directly, as I feel our dispute comes from a misunderstanding. So to clarify, I'm fine with working on your section and try to reach a compromise. Currently, some parts of it are borderline WP:OR which is why I removed them. For instance, you wrote that the list of 23 states is unique because there are no members of the Security Council among the ROC's diplomatic relations. I'd tend to agree with that, however do we have a source explicitely saying so (i.e. that this fact makes the list unique)? That's what we need to find out. To quote the WP:NOR policy, "we must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Hope what I mean is clearer now, and that we can work towards a consensus. Laurent ( talk) 13:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Redking7 (
talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. Thank you. Kransky ( talk) 06:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop canvassing the poll to various unrelated pages like this. Sciurinæ ( talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You might wanna consider taking your cause to WP:RFC. Saves you time (has a bot) and won't get you blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You're not listening, are you? 48h William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Keeping the reasons short: (1) Please look carefully at all my recent Edits. I have done nothing wrong (2) Administrator who blocked me and User: Kransky, another editor who has a legitimate disagreement on a content matter concerning "sources" and "OR" (relating to diplomatic missions) are best of pals - the Admin is not objective (3) I think I have been accused of spamming but this is not so....all the talk pages I left messages were relevant to the topic concerned - country pages (countries send diplomatic missions, hence the relevance) (4) I think Admin User: William M. Connelley has accused me of doing something wrong here - [5]? No, you cannot do that User:William M. Connolley - That edit was entirely legitimate - the intro to the poll was written by User: Kransky and so was completely biased - Kransky even purported to speak on my behalf etc. I obviously needed to change the way my views were being represented. This was entirely legitimate, although undesirable, the background to the "poll" was that User: Kransky set it up, engaged in extensive canvassing (6) Admin Connnolley has abused his position and is prohibiting me from "canvassing" in the same sort of way that he has condoned Kransky's canvassing - this is censorship of a kind. Over all, whoever reads this, I am a bona fide contributor who takes pride in always making contributions that are well sources...What is going on here with User: Kransky and User:William M. Connolley is not fair. Please look into it. If you are going to uphold the block, please give reasons and also please address whether Users Kransky and WM Connelley have behaved appropriately. Thanks for your time. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Editing someone else's talk page comments is bad enough. Editing someone else's poll after people have voted in it is beyond the pale.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not add any further reason for unblocking that has not been dealt with previously and therefore is inadequate for the purpose of another review. It is clear that the diff provided by SarekOfVulcan shows that you did edit another persons poll after people have voted, and it also shows that your request was not simply glossed over. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Indeed with the amount of times that you have been blocked you should not have to have this detail repeated but in case you neglected to on previous occasions would you please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information and before you lodge another unblock request. -- VirtualSteve need admin support? 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I won't repeat what I've set out above - this appeal is amed at VirtualSteve (who sounded, at least, like he may have his heart in the right place - Steve, what was I to do - look at the Edit. My views were being expressly referred to and inaccurately. Did I not have a right to input on how MY views were being put across. Can an Editor say anythin he/she likes about another Editor provided it is in the text of a poll? Please set out your reasons why my edit was not appropriate under those circumstances?. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I looked at the edit. You completely refactored someone else's comment and changed the meaning of it. No, you do not have the right to do that. You have to right to write a rebuttal. Smashville talk 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I note your insertion of a template warning that citations for verifications are required for this article. Please let me draw your attention to the link at the bottom of the page to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It was the view of 9 editors to 1 (you) to include quasi diplomatic missions in Taiwan. The matter has been closed. If you want to pursue the matter further I suggest you consult with the appropriate appeals guidelines. Kransky ( talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you are continuing to engage this war. Your actions are breathtakingly unwise - are you really prepared to risk a total ban, as you have been warned about in the past, just for the sake of how we choose what goes in these lists - a project you have never had any interest in contributing to anyway. Your actions (and name) reminds me of the Black Knight who fights until he is limbless, but there is an end point for everything. You have exhausted my patience, and I will now actively seek your permanent ban. Do you know what that means? It means logging on to your computer and discovering you can no longer partake in Wikipedia. No point waiting 48 hours watching DVDs until your punishment lapses, because this means a permanent ban. Finito. The End. And unless you have a hobby or some other life outside Wikipedia you are going to find yourself quite miserable. Think about it. Kransky ( talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Redking7, I also suggest you stop inserting your personal analysis of the ROC diplomatic relations all over Wikipedia. If you feel something should change, discuss it or bring to WP:DR but don't just make these controversial edits without getting a consensus. Laurent ( talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You are a WP:SPA dedicated to edit warring over Roc / Taiwan. You have had numerous blocks and learnt nothing. You were warned on 20:42, 21 March 2009 by VS that you risked an indef block but have chosen to disregard that warning. Well, now I've done it William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
I've had enough of this kind of stuff here. See below. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It has been established that you engaged in
sockpuppetry by evidence presented here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redking7, and you are therefore blocked indefinitely. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tim Vickers (
talk) 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
You created a sockpuppet and went back to the same set of articles and behaviors that prompted your initial block. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also if you ever get unblocked, please please learn how to use templates and talk pages and stop inserting your comments and questions within the articles. This kind of edit or this one are very annoying, especially when you've been told many times no to do that, and to use templates like "fact" or "dubious" instead. After two years of editing Wikipedia it's unbelievable you haven't learnt that. Laurent ( talk) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sock-puppetry? Rd7, how could you? GoodDay ( talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks GoodDay and Sarah777 for your interst and maybe sympathy....GoodDay, it will take a few minutes, but if you want to know why I was banned, the quickest way is probably to read this posting of mine from a couple of months back when I was banned....The real reason I was banned was that the now disgraced ex-Admin William Connolly did not like me (I disagreed with his friend User: Kransky on the "List of diplomatic mission articles.." concerning the "Republic of China" entries. Most countries like Canada do not have diplomatic relations or missions to the RoC yet some users insisted in claiming Canada and other countries did...I fully agree that some countries do have diplomatic missons to the RoC (like
Palau for example) but not countries like Canada - Here is the posting I mentioned just now:
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
I've had enough of this kind of stuff here. See below. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
PS - Don't you love the detailed reasoning of the Admin "I've had enough of this kind of stuff here." Almost echos the latest Admin's response yesterday - that I deserve it because I was "going back to the same set of articles and behaviors".. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for a review of your September indef ban (at ANI). I gotta tell ya, had I'd know about it then, my first advice to you would've been don't try & evade your block/ban with a sock (particularly at the Ireland Naming Poll). GoodDay ( talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
@Redking7: "my extra vote was a sin I admit but really only a strike for a bit of fairness..." Are you serious? You really think cheating in a contentious poll - which had clearly stated there would be severe penalties for socking - is "fair"?
@Sarah777: "I also note that Bastun is piling in to get yet another editor who doesn't share his basically British perspective on Irish matters censored; last time it was Vk. Nice guy." Bullshit, Sarah. British perspective on Irish matters, me arse! First, Redking was blocked long before I stumbled upon the fact, thanks to an WP:SPI report by Vk's friend and well known supporter of all things British, User:One Night In Hackney. And you're - yet again! - conveniently forgetting the times I argued against blocks/bans for both you and Vk. Your apparent advocacy of a "win at all costs, including cheating" position and of a proven vote-stuffing sockpuppet does you no credit. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Up until being caught, you've never disclosed that you had a 2nd account. A 1-month old sock would've been bad enough, but a 2-yr old sock is shocking. Now, an atmosphere of mis-trust is created. One will wonder if there's more socks, or will there be more (considering you're still blocked). GoodDay ( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
How you used your sock, isn't the issue. That you've used a sock (without letting us know) is. GoodDay ( talk) 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
One editor, User Luna has gone and created a User Page for me. I never wanted a personalised User Page and, on two occasions in the past, contacted an Admin to have my User page deleted (after Users created one for me - GoodDay did once by accident I recall - Can some one ask another Admin who is not party to the discussion above etc (i.e. unbiased) to undo my Talk page). I see Uswer Luna made a posting above, but there is no point going round in circles. His comment addresses none of my points and is more of the same....These sort of arbitrary decisions by Admins (refusal to give proper reasons etc) inevitably users into less transparent practices so to speak....or else they just force them to quit WP. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of countries by Corruption Perceptions Index, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Corruption Perceptions Index. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. The Talking Sock talk 05:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph ( talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Wire Man has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Vrac (
talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Djegan 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Djegan 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses English language places names on the English language Wikipedia. If you wish to contribute in the Irish language, there is an Irish language Wikipedia at http://ga.wikipedia.org. Otherwise, do not change names in articles. -- 85.134.167.112 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure Dún Laoghaire is an English language place name? Very interesting. I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion?
Redking, please see recent edit history of Inis Mór. As User:Djegan has pointed out the article title and the name in main space should be the same. You will have to move the articles to their new name. It would probably be best to open a discussion on the project page before any mass moves. I would also caution other users to stop reverting your changes till this matter is sorted out. ( Sarah777 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
:Yes, I definitely got the wrong editor in this instance. Abject apologies.
Nope. There is a
User:Red King as well as Redking7 here! Holy Confusion Batman!
(
Sarah777 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
Please bear in mind that the material you added to Official Languages Act 2003 is copyrighted, please see WP:COPYRIGHT. Please bear in mind that using copyrighted material is subject to limitations, and may result in removal of material, the repeated use of inappropriate material in an article may result in the article been locked and users prevented from editing the article until any outstanding issues are resolved. Djegan 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what I added could constitute copyright material (a statement of facts in the public domain) but to address any concerns, I will try again. Thanks.
Note we already have an article that deals with the official name of Northern Ireland, its called Alternative names for Northern Ireland. We don't need ***another*** article on nomenclature. Djegan 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I will amend. Thanks. Redking7 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Redking7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The
Irish Republicanism WikiProject is a
collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of
Irish republicanism,
Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.
(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects). |
-- Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I confess that I've only just now seen that Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was not signed by the President until April 1949, which makes you right about the decription "Republic of" coming into effect in 1949. What confused me is that there is a UK Ireland Act 1949, which is what I thought you were referring to. If you would prefer to revert again, I won't complain. -- Red King ( talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not move pages without first seeking consensus, especially where the move might be controversial. Please also see here. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wholesales delition of text will only lead to tears. Please stop deleting material from
Eire.
Ceoil (
talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you using a name similiar to Red King's? GoodDay ( talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please consider creating another (separate) article for My Four Green Fields (the art work). Per convention it's not normally appropriate to include two disparate topics under one title. Consider creating a DAB page, and linking both back if necessary. Cheers Guliolopez ( talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring on the article The Troubles.
This edit misleadingly used the edit summary "disambig", when there was no disambiguation involved. Another editor who reverted your edit commented on the issue at Talk:the Troubles; please discuss the issue there rather than repeatedly reinserting a disputed edit.
May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? That's not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert ... it's discuss an edit as soon as it's contested.
Thanks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, please be advised that articles on this topic are subject to a general restriction (see The Troubles section of Wikipedia:General sanctions) according to which editors who engage in edit warring may be placed on probation at the discretion of any uninvolved adminstrator. CIreland ( talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would be grateful if some one could take the time to look at the edits I made and determine if I deserved to be blocked. I don't think I did. I edited the page. Some of the edits were reverted (without discussion). I reverted again. A discussion opened. I participated immediately and gave the reason for my edit, then reverted again. Some hours later, my edits had been reverted again. Instead of 'reverting', I made some changes which I though were a fair compromise so to speak. I then set out my reasons for the compromise on the discussion page. I though I'd acted fairly and reasonably, particularly in finding a compromise. Do I deserve to be "blocked" for this behaviour? I know it takes a few minutes to look at things properly and I am grateful for whoever takes the time to do that. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are no longer blocked, please don't use this template. Maybe a request on WP:ANI or using the helpme template would be more apt. — Golbez ( talk) 22:36, 13 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.
You may want to review WP:PARENT - going to a different location because you don't like the reply on the first isn't looked well upon. WLU ( talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Per your request, I deleted your userpage which a different user had created. Your userpage could be fully protected to prevent anyone editing it, but that seems to be uncommon. For someone else to edit your userpage by the addition of unwanted content is vandalism and they can be blocked if they persist. Your username now appears in red as it did previously. Edison ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? Why do you keep adding Category:Western Sahara to Sahrawi nationality law? That article is in three categories which are themselves subcategories of Category:Western Sahara, and the parent category of a country is supposed to remain virtually depopulated. See also Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD and cease edit warring. Traditional unionist ( talk) 10:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One-China policy. 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. Green caterpillar ( talk) 22:20, 2 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' 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting to see many of the comments made coming from a political stance. In my opinion, articles such as Flag of the Republic of Ireland can never be written or named from a purely encyclopedic perspective. Its unfortunate, but when the policy is to let anyone edit, which is a good thing in many respects, this will always happen. Articles with political overtones will never be stable, an editor could, if it lasts that long, spend his or her whole life arguing over the contents. I decided to join Wikipedia for the enjoyment of editing articles I have an interest in. As a new editor I have as yet to do so, but I don't think, other than looking in and making a comment or two, I will concentrate on these type of articles, I'm not sure how long I would want to remain an editor on wiki if I did. Titch Tucker ( talk) 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB ( talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&diff=249909297&oldid=249834461 No, that was introducing an inaccuracy. Taiwan refers to the island (its use as a stand-in for "ROC" is strictly colloquial) - Republic of China refers to the government. Plus Taipei, NOT Taiwan is used by governments with no formal recognition of the ROC. Why? Because if "Taiwan" is used then that implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, and we know the PRC doesn't like that. That is why Chinese Taipei is used at the olympics. That is why Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office is used to refer to de facto ROC embassies and consulates. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent recent edit by you to this article. Would welcome your views on its Talk Page on the whole question of the paragraph dealing with 'efficacy'. I think much of it should go. My view is that it over-simplifies the complex relationship between the institutions of the Irish Republic and the nascent institutions of the new Irish Free State. The courts were deliberately suppressed, not because of an inherent failing, but because of the janus-faced attitude of the new State towards them and the overriding necessity of indisputably controlling the 'new' judiciary. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redking. I have noticed that you piped ROI/Ireland on an article recently. I think you should read User talk:Mooretwin#Pipeing because the same principle applies (albeit in the opposite direction). I appreciate one edit doesn't a problem make, but its worth being aware as I expect you may be reverted before too long. I urge you to get involved in establishing a project wide consensus on this issue. Rockpocke t 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Redking7. If you keep on reverting the article itself, without waiting for a Talk page consensus, you and your counterpart may both be blocked, per WP:Edit war. Please work toward a consensus, and wait for it to form. Bring in outsiders if you wish. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed at WP:AN3, but you reverted again here after numerous warnings. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redking7, please read CfD - How to use this page about the procedure for proposing category renames. You provided an entry and rationale on the day's log, as is appropriate, but it is also necessary to tag the category itself to alert active contributors of the proposal. I have tagged Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence for you. Cheers. - choster ( talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i saw your post a little while ago on the Northern Ireland page about Constituent Countries. I thought the same thing a few days ago when i joined, i didnt like the idea of describing England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as countries, however there is reasonable justification for doing so based on many sources. The main concern has to be ensuring the relationship between the Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom is not lost. Countries of the United Kingdom does that in my opinion. There is debate on that page about merging it with the subdiv list which is currently listed.. If that was done, a reasonable opening line to the 4 parts of the UK could read, "Northern Ireland is a Country of the United Kingdom which is ALOT better than the current version, where just country is linked. If you have the time and are interested in this issue, pls comment on the Countries of the UK page. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You hit it right on the nail, Redking7. Too bad, we're in the minority. GoodDay ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
RedKing7 - UK law does not define the word 'country'. Your comment of "no legal basis" was utter rubbish. I also consider it a form of trolling, given all that is happened regarding this over the past year. Saying that someone describing England etc a "country" has "no legal basis whatsoever" is tantamount as saying it is unlawful - which is simply unacceptable - provacative and misleading to the point where I believe arbcom should be able to cut it out. You are entitled to you POV, but bullshiting regarding law is totally unacceptable. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 12:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this notice. This is now fixed. Regards 16@r ( talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Party pooper. GoodDay ( talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my amendement - it was poorly thought out and obviously won't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire ( talk) 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this account in any way related to the above user? If so/not, can you please consider making a note of it on your user page, as you are both active editors apparently interested in the same topics, which makes discussion confusing to follow for others. I placed the same note on their talk page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
reply ~ R. T. G 05:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
"Re.: On the Boundary commission part I've changed this big mistake - 'The report of the Commission (and thus the terms of the agreement) has yet officially to be made public:" - in fact the agreement was made public about an hour after it was made (and the agreement meant that the Commission and its report were no longer needed). See this.Red Hurley (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) From what I can see you have confused publication of the agreement concerning the border with publication of the Boundary Commission's report....Not the same thing! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Solomon Islands. 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. AussieLegend ( talk) 13:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Papua New Guinea has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Bidgee ( talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked your account for 48 hours as you continue to edit war at various articles such as The Bahamas, Papua New Guinea & Solomon Islands despite continued requests to discuss over many days. I also note that your edit summaries are not descriptive of what you are actually completing in the edit. I will post a template warning below this message so that you have appropriate links should wish to dispute the validity of this block. I should also note, in case you are not aware, that your blocks are being escalated in their length and you are in serious danger of being blocked indefinitely.-- VS talk 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. --
VS
talk 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Thanks for your comments about Mongolia, Luxembourg, Solomon Islands, and Samoa. -- Evertype· ✆ 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, how are you doing RK7? GoodDay ( talk) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I again deleted your user page, per your request on my talk page, so your signature would appear red. Please note that you can make your signature appear in a variety of colors by clever formatting. Take a look at the colorful sigs of other users and do some expermenting. Regards. Edison ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
...for pro-movers like me, to accept the fact that there'll never be a consensus to move those Ireland articles. GoodDay ( talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
After months of continous failed attempts for a consensus, I've given up on those Ireland article titles. GoodDay ( talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm an administrator, but no, I have no intentions of trying to get you in trouble. However, further violations of the edit warring policy may lead to consequences. Please discuss the matter on a relevant talk page, and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. Thank you. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have put up a request for clarification to ARbCom here, regarding your actions. -- MASEM ( t) 17:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. You now have enough blocks to be straying close to an indef block next time. I very strongly caution you to move more slowly and to make more effort to seek consensus before reverting, and indeed to simply edit different articles if you cannot edit except by reverting at a given article William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)EXTRACTED FROM RELEVANT TALK PAGE
You were (correctly) blocked. At the time, you were given clear instructions for appealing that block, which you didn't follow. Now please stop wasting my time [2] and yours. No, I am not going to post your appeal for you because you can't be bothered to read stuff. If you want to avoid such problems in future, please read WP:1RR William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDunc Talk 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You were (correctly) blocked. At the time, you were given clear instructions for appealing that block, which you didn't follow. Now please stop wasting my time [3] and yours. No, I am not going to post your appeal for you because you can't be bothered to read stuff. If you want to avoid such problems in future, please read WP:1RR William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
Hi, I just wanted to contact you directly, as I feel our dispute comes from a misunderstanding. So to clarify, I'm fine with working on your section and try to reach a compromise. Currently, some parts of it are borderline WP:OR which is why I removed them. For instance, you wrote that the list of 23 states is unique because there are no members of the Security Council among the ROC's diplomatic relations. I'd tend to agree with that, however do we have a source explicitely saying so (i.e. that this fact makes the list unique)? That's what we need to find out. To quote the WP:NOR policy, "we must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Hope what I mean is clearer now, and that we can work towards a consensus. Laurent ( talk) 13:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Redking7 (
talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. Thank you. Kransky ( talk) 06:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop canvassing the poll to various unrelated pages like this. Sciurinæ ( talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You might wanna consider taking your cause to WP:RFC. Saves you time (has a bot) and won't get you blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You're not listening, are you? 48h William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Keeping the reasons short: (1) Please look carefully at all my recent Edits. I have done nothing wrong (2) Administrator who blocked me and User: Kransky, another editor who has a legitimate disagreement on a content matter concerning "sources" and "OR" (relating to diplomatic missions) are best of pals - the Admin is not objective (3) I think I have been accused of spamming but this is not so....all the talk pages I left messages were relevant to the topic concerned - country pages (countries send diplomatic missions, hence the relevance) (4) I think Admin User: William M. Connelley has accused me of doing something wrong here - [5]? No, you cannot do that User:William M. Connolley - That edit was entirely legitimate - the intro to the poll was written by User: Kransky and so was completely biased - Kransky even purported to speak on my behalf etc. I obviously needed to change the way my views were being represented. This was entirely legitimate, although undesirable, the background to the "poll" was that User: Kransky set it up, engaged in extensive canvassing (6) Admin Connnolley has abused his position and is prohibiting me from "canvassing" in the same sort of way that he has condoned Kransky's canvassing - this is censorship of a kind. Over all, whoever reads this, I am a bona fide contributor who takes pride in always making contributions that are well sources...What is going on here with User: Kransky and User:William M. Connolley is not fair. Please look into it. If you are going to uphold the block, please give reasons and also please address whether Users Kransky and WM Connelley have behaved appropriately. Thanks for your time. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Editing someone else's talk page comments is bad enough. Editing someone else's poll after people have voted in it is beyond the pale.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not add any further reason for unblocking that has not been dealt with previously and therefore is inadequate for the purpose of another review. It is clear that the diff provided by SarekOfVulcan shows that you did edit another persons poll after people have voted, and it also shows that your request was not simply glossed over. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Indeed with the amount of times that you have been blocked you should not have to have this detail repeated but in case you neglected to on previous occasions would you please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information and before you lodge another unblock request. -- VirtualSteve need admin support? 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I won't repeat what I've set out above - this appeal is amed at VirtualSteve (who sounded, at least, like he may have his heart in the right place - Steve, what was I to do - look at the Edit. My views were being expressly referred to and inaccurately. Did I not have a right to input on how MY views were being put across. Can an Editor say anythin he/she likes about another Editor provided it is in the text of a poll? Please set out your reasons why my edit was not appropriate under those circumstances?. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I looked at the edit. You completely refactored someone else's comment and changed the meaning of it. No, you do not have the right to do that. You have to right to write a rebuttal. Smashville talk 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I note your insertion of a template warning that citations for verifications are required for this article. Please let me draw your attention to the link at the bottom of the page to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It was the view of 9 editors to 1 (you) to include quasi diplomatic missions in Taiwan. The matter has been closed. If you want to pursue the matter further I suggest you consult with the appropriate appeals guidelines. Kransky ( talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you are continuing to engage this war. Your actions are breathtakingly unwise - are you really prepared to risk a total ban, as you have been warned about in the past, just for the sake of how we choose what goes in these lists - a project you have never had any interest in contributing to anyway. Your actions (and name) reminds me of the Black Knight who fights until he is limbless, but there is an end point for everything. You have exhausted my patience, and I will now actively seek your permanent ban. Do you know what that means? It means logging on to your computer and discovering you can no longer partake in Wikipedia. No point waiting 48 hours watching DVDs until your punishment lapses, because this means a permanent ban. Finito. The End. And unless you have a hobby or some other life outside Wikipedia you are going to find yourself quite miserable. Think about it. Kransky ( talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Redking7, I also suggest you stop inserting your personal analysis of the ROC diplomatic relations all over Wikipedia. If you feel something should change, discuss it or bring to WP:DR but don't just make these controversial edits without getting a consensus. Laurent ( talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You are a WP:SPA dedicated to edit warring over Roc / Taiwan. You have had numerous blocks and learnt nothing. You were warned on 20:42, 21 March 2009 by VS that you risked an indef block but have chosen to disregard that warning. Well, now I've done it William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
I've had enough of this kind of stuff here. See below. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It has been established that you engaged in
sockpuppetry by evidence presented here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redking7, and you are therefore blocked indefinitely. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tim Vickers (
talk) 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
You created a sockpuppet and went back to the same set of articles and behaviors that prompted your initial block. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also if you ever get unblocked, please please learn how to use templates and talk pages and stop inserting your comments and questions within the articles. This kind of edit or this one are very annoying, especially when you've been told many times no to do that, and to use templates like "fact" or "dubious" instead. After two years of editing Wikipedia it's unbelievable you haven't learnt that. Laurent ( talk) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sock-puppetry? Rd7, how could you? GoodDay ( talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks GoodDay and Sarah777 for your interst and maybe sympathy....GoodDay, it will take a few minutes, but if you want to know why I was banned, the quickest way is probably to read this posting of mine from a couple of months back when I was banned....The real reason I was banned was that the now disgraced ex-Admin William Connolly did not like me (I disagreed with his friend User: Kransky on the "List of diplomatic mission articles.." concerning the "Republic of China" entries. Most countries like Canada do not have diplomatic relations or missions to the RoC yet some users insisted in claiming Canada and other countries did...I fully agree that some countries do have diplomatic missons to the RoC (like
Palau for example) but not countries like Canada - Here is the posting I mentioned just now:
Redking7 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
I've had enough of this kind of stuff here. See below. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
PS - Don't you love the detailed reasoning of the Admin "I've had enough of this kind of stuff here." Almost echos the latest Admin's response yesterday - that I deserve it because I was "going back to the same set of articles and behaviors".. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for a review of your September indef ban (at ANI). I gotta tell ya, had I'd know about it then, my first advice to you would've been don't try & evade your block/ban with a sock (particularly at the Ireland Naming Poll). GoodDay ( talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
@Redking7: "my extra vote was a sin I admit but really only a strike for a bit of fairness..." Are you serious? You really think cheating in a contentious poll - which had clearly stated there would be severe penalties for socking - is "fair"?
@Sarah777: "I also note that Bastun is piling in to get yet another editor who doesn't share his basically British perspective on Irish matters censored; last time it was Vk. Nice guy." Bullshit, Sarah. British perspective on Irish matters, me arse! First, Redking was blocked long before I stumbled upon the fact, thanks to an WP:SPI report by Vk's friend and well known supporter of all things British, User:One Night In Hackney. And you're - yet again! - conveniently forgetting the times I argued against blocks/bans for both you and Vk. Your apparent advocacy of a "win at all costs, including cheating" position and of a proven vote-stuffing sockpuppet does you no credit. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Up until being caught, you've never disclosed that you had a 2nd account. A 1-month old sock would've been bad enough, but a 2-yr old sock is shocking. Now, an atmosphere of mis-trust is created. One will wonder if there's more socks, or will there be more (considering you're still blocked). GoodDay ( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
How you used your sock, isn't the issue. That you've used a sock (without letting us know) is. GoodDay ( talk) 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
One editor, User Luna has gone and created a User Page for me. I never wanted a personalised User Page and, on two occasions in the past, contacted an Admin to have my User page deleted (after Users created one for me - GoodDay did once by accident I recall - Can some one ask another Admin who is not party to the discussion above etc (i.e. unbiased) to undo my Talk page). I see Uswer Luna made a posting above, but there is no point going round in circles. His comment addresses none of my points and is more of the same....These sort of arbitrary decisions by Admins (refusal to give proper reasons etc) inevitably users into less transparent practices so to speak....or else they just force them to quit WP. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of countries by Corruption Perceptions Index, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Corruption Perceptions Index. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. The Talking Sock talk 05:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph ( talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Wire Man has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Vrac (
talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)