User talk:Vintagekits

Comments from unregistered users will be deleted!

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Vintagekits, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! -- Alf ^melmac 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

cheers, its saturday is I'm am going to work on it for most of the day - come back and have a look at it later as there are plenty of things that I do not know how to do, cheers Vintagekits 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done

These are mainly good edits you are making now. Maybe just check and correct after you make a link that it works. Anyway, no hard feelings, and happy editing. --Guinnog 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

MacManus

All 4 versions of the name should now point to the article Joseph MacManus weggieWeggie 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Good man Weggie, I've also put in link to a reference on Seam MacManus also Vintagekits 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No probs the name change to Joe, he already has a re-direct for that name so you could use that page if necessary...Weggie 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sorry was working on another page! Had another look - the only other piece of information that I removed was the claim that he was a B-Special. I was going to check to see if this can be verified before I re-added. Which bits are you concerned with apart from this? Will be leaving the site until tomorrow night in about 10 mins...Weggie 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to revert it and input the minor editing remarks that you suggest and you verify the details in the book, have you got the book? Vintagekits 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

John Duddy

Hi Vintage, you have missunderstood the Irish amatuer boxing situation. There is no Irish team or British NI team, there is a combined All Ireland team. Duddy fought as a British representative on the All Ireland team not for the Irish team. see http://www.iaba.ie/boxing/main/IABA-profile.htm

You dont need to give me that link to his profile - I posted in on his page. You obviously havent a clue what you are talking about, I know the IABA situation, I should do my family has been through it at all levels! Duddy didnt fight as a British representative he fought for the All Ireland team - there is no distinction between the fighters, trained in Ireland, based in Ireland coached in Ireland and won his Irish title in Dublin, Ireland. If he wanted to fight through the British system he would have fought in the commonwealth games - he didnt! Vintagekits 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please recheck the facts, the IABA is a transnational body, it is not the Irish team. To state that is missrepresenting the situation.

you need to recheck the facts, both countries fight under the banner of Ireland and the flag of the repblic of ireland and no distinction is made between either country - its based on a provincial system Vintagekits 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes excactly as you say, both countries fight under the banner of Ireland, thus saying Duddy fought for the Irish team is missleading as it implies that he fought for that team alone and not the combined team.

OWNED!!

POV

The term IRA "Volunteer" is POV, just as is "terrorist" (although the latter is accurate); please use "member" from now on or this matter will have to go to Arbitration, especially if you continue to revert other people's edits without notice or explanation. Hope Springs Eternal 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thats YOUR POV, its factually incorrect but its your POV nonetheless Vintagekits 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Flavius

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you regarding Operation Flavius and wrote my response on the 'Discussion' page for Operation Flavius. I wrote:

Since they were immediately killed, they had no chance to defend themselves so we don't know what their personal intentions were. Meanwhile, since the British government had infiltrated the PIRA with numerous spys - including bomb experts - we don't know how reliable the evidence was against them. Do we? See the following references regarding just some of the 'outed' British spys within the PIRA: Matthew Teague talks about "Double Blind," his extraordinary profile of a double agent who helped undermine the IRA, 'Stakeknife' The Story of Britain's Army Spy at the Top of the IRA, Sinn Fein British agent shot dead Because of the infiltration with bomb expert spys into the PIRA, no one will ever know what false flag operations were carried out by the British spys - rather than any PIRA members.Bcsurvivor 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Paddy Cunningham

Hi, I think you put your Paddy Cunningham AFD contribution in the wrong place. It ended up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothlorien Hall. --Edchilvers 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, its my first time deleting anything Vintagekits 13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem. I have added the correct AFD nomination template. To do this yourself in the future just type subst:afd (including the brackets) at the top of the article--Edchilvers 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the update Vintagekits 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Hi Vintage. If you have more references could u please introduce them in the talk page of the article so we can discuss them? Thanks and merry christmas --Burgas00 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you know any, publish their names and we will buy them a one way bus ticket to San Roque. --Gibnews

Vintage, you are getting it all wrong. Please just fix the reference system again without changing the text which is now the consensus version. Thanx--Burgas00 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should I have to fix the referncing system that I work hard setting up? If you had any respect you should be the one that edits the article back in from that point. Vintagekits 14:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting a banned user

I noticed that you restored comments posted anonymously by User:Gibraltarian on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Please note that Gibraltarian is banned permanently (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian) and please also note this part of the banning policy:

Enforcement by reverting edits

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

If you see an anonymous user from 212.120.*.* editing Gibraltar-related articles or talk pages, it's almost certainly Gibraltarian again; anything he does can and will be reverted, so please be aware of this! -- ChrisO 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didnt realised the editor was banned--Vintagekits 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Damaen Kelly

Your revert seemed to be slightly misguided. Kelly fought for British and Commonwealth titles and thus must have dual nationality. Now, as you seem to be a republican I can understand your position, but it's a fact that Kelly must have British citizenship to fight for Commonwealth and British titles, isn't it? Kelly never fought for Irish titles and never fought in the Republic of Ireland, instead he fought over half his career in England. Its certainly NPOV to suggest that Kelly is a British citizen.

You also removed various other updates to an article in urgent need of an overhaul. Maybe actually reading my edit may have helped? NJW494 14:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer debate

I think we have a settlement. What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage Jdorney 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vintagekits, I think the settlement suggested, whilst not perfect should be accepted, as it allows the use of the term 'volunteer' within articles, the case of v or V, can be agrued as a seperate issue afterwards.--padraig3uk 12:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Referring to other editors as "West Brits" and "idiots" is not acceptable. Demiurge 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point; WP:POINT

Please stop arbitrarily removing information from articles [1] [2] [3] as a protest against the proposed compromise in the "IRA volunteer/member" mediation case. Demiurge 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are removing all information about the IRA's internal structure from multiple articles as a protest against the proposed settlement in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage. This is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and will not be tolerated. Please stop or you are liable to be blocked. Demiurge 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Vintagekits 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you up to?

Could you please stop deleting my work on the PIRA page? Why are you doing it?

Jdorney 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have outlined the reasoning for these edits. If wiki users prohibit reference to IRA military structure then they should be deleted if we are to be consistant. Vintagekits 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While I actually agree with you about the use of the term volunteer, what you are doing is just childish. You can argue your case without vandalising other people's work. Get a hold on yourself!

Jdorney 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with you, I am just a bit disillusioned with wiki at the moment and cant believe that POV is able to be pushed over fact just to satisfy some members. Saying that will refrain for the night to calm down. P.S. I did not intend to vandalise, simply edit to make them in line with what whould be the POV which I cant believe is being taken serious Vintagekits 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your childish vandalising of pages I've worked on.--Damac 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Involvement of Tiocfaidh Ár Lá

Hi Vintagekits, will you let me know where Tiocfaidh Ár Lá is involved in the previous discussion. Please do not campaign about the mediation cabal. The purpose of mediation cabal is to resolve the disputes. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See here for his previous involvement. I am not going to campaign on it and infact I am going to stay away from it for a few days as I am so mad that you dont not seem to have grasped the issues at hand and seem to be willing to accept POV over proven facts. Vintagekits 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating a category

It's the same as creating a page, just add "Category:" before the name. To add a category called "My New Category", type "Category:My New Category" in the searchbox and press Go. BTW you can use {{helpme}} to ask for help. jnestorius^(talk) 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please add {{db-author}} to Category:Irish republicans to get it speedy deleted.
• Also, change your userpage category from

[[Category:Wikipedians by politics|Wikipedians who support Irish republicanism|Vintagekits]] to

[[Category:Wikipedians who support Irish republicanism]]

Regards, jnestorius^(talk) 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Countess Markiewicz.jpg

Why do we think that this image is in the public domain? When and where was it first published? Jkelly 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I saw a pamphlet in Lissadell House that was handed out amongest the Irish American community with this picture on it --Vintagekits 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you think that might mean in terms of its licensing. It looks very much like it is old enough to have an expired copyright, but it seems we have no information to verify that. Jkelly 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer shambles

Hi, I wrote the greenbook P/IRA article and a few on the IRA during WW2. Noticed your changes and the debate youre involved in about use of volunteer. Nonsense like that from one particular editor drove me off wikipedia but if you want me to chime into that discussion and support you with reference to use of term Volunteer let me know. Fluffy999 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt contribute to the page but was called away on business. Looks like it was all agreed on anyway. Thanks for sticking up for accuracy in history. Shouldn't have been an issue to my mind but such is the nature of wikipedia- the encyclopedia any eejit with a library card can hack away at =) Fluffy999 11:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Flag

I have not broken the 3RR rule- ie more than 3 edits within 24 hours. Please check the history and count the edits if you want to confirm this.

In any case- the issue at hand is that the Flag is that of Northern Ireland and is used by many offical bodies to represent NI (Football, Rugby, Commonwealth Games etc). There is no basis or source for your claim. In any case, it is not an issue for the precedence template. The issue has been discussed at length in the NI article, and attempts to replace the Flag with that of the Union Flag have been rejected. Astrotrain 13:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not used by the rugby team. Secondly it is not the official flag and has no legal basis and therefore should not be used. For further info see here Vintagekits 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article you linked to again? It is the de facto flag of Northern Ireland and is even displayed in that very article as the flag of Northern Ireland in the "Flags of United Kingdom" section. Looking at your contributions on WP it seems this is far from the first time you've broken the reversion rules and it seems you're more interested in enforcing your own political agenda then of furthering the cause of WP with neutral information. If you're incapable of separating your own personal views from objective information maybe you should consider if WP is really the place for you? ExNihilo 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You have violated 3RR on Falklands War. I won't block you but please refrain from making more changes to the page in this 24hr period.

Thanks Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me the three reverts as I dont think I have. Vintagekits 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you, therefore I am not sure why you get upset at me. It was just a friendly warning. I've been an admin for more than a year and fully aware of 3RR so kindly refrain from aggresive comments (such as the one left on my talk page) as I haven't been anything but polite to you. Thank you. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk

I would just like you to show me where I have broken the 3rr. I am not getting upset nor am I being aggresive but when someone accuses me of doing something then I would have the deceny to highlight the facts of the issue. As I said I have not broken the 3rr as some of what you may consider reverts were actually edits.--Vintagekits 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the comment "you have to read WP:3R fully" as aggressive. As I said, I haven't blocked you for it and the policy is clear that "undoing edits by another editor" are reverts. In any even, the page is blocked making this point useless. You aren't blocked and won't be if the page continues to be blocked. I am not even required to leave the friendly message, but I did anyway. I don't need to provide evidence or defend my actions, and I'm not planning to do so. I wish you a good day. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So you cant back up your accusation and wont! interesting! Also you consider that a request that you read a wiki policy is aggressive - if you do then you are very sensitive and you are not assuming good faith--Vintagekits 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just take Sebastian's advice. You can't fight against everyone here and last very long. he is perfectly correct in what he says, SqueakBox 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof? Ever heard of it? Try using it--Vintagekits 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what you are talking about, but admins can block you and if you dont remain civil they doubtless will do so, SqueakBox 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They wont because they need a reason, I play within the rules so thats a ridiculous thing to say!--Vintagekits 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well good luck to you then, though according to Sebastian he already had a reason, SqueakBox 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah his reason was "that I asked him to read a wiki policy!" - really uncivil yeah!--Vintagekits 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your are missing the point, if he blocks you arent likely to find an editor to unblock you, you know how lawyers are with the lawyer, and admins do have leeway on interpretation, and your commets to me could easily have been construed as a personal attack, esp if you had carried out your threat. I have been around here long enough to know, SqueakBox 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Which comment exactly?--Vintagekits 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise. This one about 3 lines down, SqueakBox 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I hope you can see I may dislike your Falklands views but I am not against you as an editor working to make this a better encyclopedia, SqueakBox 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only stating facts, sorry if you tyhought it was aggressive, it wasnt meant to be--Vintagekits 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Malvinas war?

It may exist but it isnt notable enough to be included in the opening, I have never heard of it and it sounds thoroughly obscure given most people either call it The Falklands War or use spanish and call it "La guerra de las malvinas" which we do include in the opening. I am not the only one who thinks this, and the problem with Malvinas war is it gives credibility to the nname Malvinas in English, which I dont believe it has. Please dont threaten to report me for vandalism as you will be considered acting in very poor faith making what you know to be a false claim, edits need to be notable and not merely referenced, and anyway the article is protected, so much for alleged vandalism (lol), SqueakBox 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise.--Vintagekits 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Referenced material is absolutely subject to deletion if it doesn't fit NPOV and notability, in this case it fits neither. Marking yourself out as POV pushing trouble-maker is, I am sure, not whjat you want, so please dont even threaten to make false vandalsim claims, any good faith edit cannot be considered vandalsims and to acuse 2 editors of bad faith when you know this isnt true will just bring trouble onto ypour own head. The admin would have reverted any vandalsim before locking the page and there can no discussions about the validity of real vandalism on an article's talk page. Your POV comment is a clear indication that you know I have not committed vandalsim, so take this as a warning, SqueakBox 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminding me what you are warning me of again? Telling the truth, adding referenced material or requiring others to put forward a reason agrument to back up their POV--Vintagekits 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, threatening to or making false claims of vandalsim, SqueakBox 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks for the warning, c ya!--Vintagekits 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish to second SqueakBox's initial sentiment, and remind you of it. It's an extreme minority POV to use "Malvinas War". WP:NPOV does not state all views must be given equal weight. See Talk:Falklands War for the relative usage levels of this bizzare construction.

Following other discursive topics herein, I'm forced to deduce your irrational views, and subsequent repeated overriding of concensus view, is related to an anti-British bias related to your overt support for militant Irish Nationalism. May I suggest you consider avoiding British-centric articles if it's going to cause you such perceptual problems?

--BadWolf42 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Logica

Hi, Vintage. User:Logica has contacted me as he is slightly concerned about the disputes that have been occuring between you. Although I've told him that you're not obliged to retain warnings on your page, it is also considered bad practice to remove stuff unless you think it was added in 'bad faith'.

As for your comment at the top of the page; well I can stress to you Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies for the first one? As for Logica's edits; again it is your priority but its not going to get you anywhere in resolving disputes if you take such a stance. --Robdurbar 08:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar, I understand what you are saying but I consider him to be acting in bad faith and to be disrupotive and therefore he and his sockpuppets are not welcome on my talk page. regards--Vintagekits 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerry McGeough

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am unware of what "controversial" edits I made re McGeough and what "info" I removed. I only fixed a dysfunctional wikilink (Fermanagh and South Tyrone), and made a minor grammatical correction (deleting a comma).

Is this really controversial?? Pls. respond on your talk page. Thanks.

Cheers.

• Sorry bud, mistaken identity - the correct messege is now on the talk page--Vintagekits 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy

Saw your very weak keep on this article. I agree that it has NPOV and sourcing problems, but I think the real root of the issue is that it is a dicdef. What do you think about shortening as such and transwikying to Wikitionary? Jefferson Anderson 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

lost virginity

Congratulations on your first user page vandalism! Jefferson Anderson 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate, which page?--Vintagekits 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To your user page by Logoistic is what I'm refering to... Jefferson Anderson 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I just point out that isn't vandalism - the sock has been proven to be illegit and indefinantly banned. As per our discussion with the admin, I will not place the tag on Vintage's page, but I still had the right to. Logoistic 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know - the really has it in for me! ah well!--Vintagekits 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Beats me. The rules seem to be inconsistently applied. Alt accounts are not forbidden, and if they never edited the same articles, talk pages, etc. there should have been no reason for blocking. There are good reasons for having alternate accounts... say you have a technical specialty but are also interested in bondage or S&M, you might not want to edit both sets of articles from the same account.... AFAIK, that's allowed. Jefferson Anderson 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S., now they'll probably start saying that I'm your sock or vice versa. Some people... Jefferson Anderson 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, does your user name refer to any particular type of vintage kit? And is that kit as in build-it-yourself (American) or kit as in equipment (British)? Jefferson Anderson 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

More along the equipment type of thing than anything else - its a long story!--Vintagekits 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Audiophile? Amateur radio? Those are the usages I'm most familiar with... Jefferson Anderson 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, its nothing to do with that, I might have a look into it however--Vintagekits 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, thanks for answering. See you around... Jefferson Anderson 22:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool bud--Vintagekits 22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Our relationship

Vintage, even though I think you have violtated Wikipedia policies, I'd still like to say that if you took anything in bad faith, then I apologise. If you think I get anything wrong, tell me clearly and calmly why you think it is wrong, and I will double check, and I will gladly apologise.

With regard the issue of your sockpuppet, we will see what happens as I'm not totally sure of the process. Although I still think it an illegitimate account, we shall leave it to others to decide this,. The same goes for your removal of negative content.

Conisder this an olive branch... Logoistic 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

cool--Vintagekits 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil?

What is so uncivil about this: "Vintagekits your opinion of this article is irrelevant as you clearly state that you are part of the "Wikipedians who support Irish republicanism" Wikipedia category and thus have indicated your bias on an article addressing parts of Irish Loyalism."

All i did was state why your objection to the article is irrelevant - essentially the possibility of bias towards a rival ideology.

And considering you were giving a warning for making personal attacks, it would appear that i'm not as uncivil as some other Wikipedians. So please do not make statements that may come across as hypocritical.

Mabuska 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Striked out by myself Mabuska 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you dont consider that that was uncivil, maybe I should report it and let others decide! I make NO bones about supporting Irish republicans, in fact I am very open about it, however, that does not preculde me from editing any articles.--Vintagekits 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've altered my comment to be, i hope, more civil, and i hope you agree. However i still don't think that comment was uncivil, just badly worded. I suppose i should also of used the word "objections to this article" rather than the words "opinion of this article". However your political/ideological opinion does give a very real possiblity of bias to an article on a rival ideology. If i offended i didn't mean to. Mabuska 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have learned that the way to get along on wiki is to solely deal in facts not opinions--Vintagekits 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point i was making initially and still am is that the openness on your republican affiliation does give the possibility of bias against a loyalist article. Just as we would both assume a marking for deletion of an article dealing with an Irish republican matter by someone who is open about their loyalism is possibly biased. Mabuska 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And vice versa - I dont think that the article satisfies WP:N just like like i would consider a deletion for an article named Republicanism in Ballinascreen--Vintagekits 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The vice versa would work if i was a loyalist :-P As stated in my progfile i consider myself a Northern Irish Socialist Nationalist which contradicts loyalism. Then why did i create an article on Tobermore Loyalism? Because i am from Tobermore and want all aspects of it chronicled. If there was any republican history in Tobermore i'd have added it to the article and named the article Loyalism and Republicanism in Tobermore. Mabuska 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Show Preview

I know what you mean lol, its mind boggling, i am using it more though. Mabuska 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

how can yopu lose material to an edit conflict. Your version is stored ready to be copied and pasted, read the instructions (dont want to see you wasting your time), SqueakBox 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand. Which edit is missing?--Vintagekits 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is referring to my post. Logoistic 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet claim

Who is the sock[puppet? I noticed you made a sockpuppet claim, can you back it up with facts? SqueakBox 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An un registered user makes his first edit and that happens to be a revert of something that just happens to have been revert 4 times in the last ten minutes! Lol!!--Vintagekits 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this is suspicious. But where is the good faith? Plus, it isn't proven, so you can't say it was a sockpuppet - "suspected" perhaps. Logoistic 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is why I posed a question--Vintagekits 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked and it is BT ip based in London, and given I was reverting from Central America where I am sweltering in the heat at 6.50pm right now. How is that sockpuppetry (as only JoR 70 and I cant revert further). I would never edit from an ip address myself anyway as it isnt anonymous. I advise you to get solid evidence before making anyy accusations against me as as you know I know how wikipedia works, SqueakBox 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Get it right mate, I didnt say it was sock of yours!--Vintagekits 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Err wrong page, Vintagem, if you think the anon is someone's sock get a user check and make the allegation in the right place, 3RR isnt it. I suggets you remove our comments from 3RR. i assume you are referring to me as nobody else would use a sock in this case, ie I cant edit any more because I would be breaking 3RR, none of the other anti Malvinas as a terme editors would, SqueakBox 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was posting about his 4 reverts within an hour - not the sock situation, regards--Vintagekits 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) you should have warned him, hes a complete newbie (I have now done so) and (b) you need to format properly like I did or they wont take your complaint seriously, SqueakBox 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is your 3 reverts too. You could run a user check on the latest editor or request partial protection or both, SqueakBox 01:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Damaen Kelly Boxer

Proposal of changing the name on this article to Damien Kelly as this is how it is spelled. What do you think?--McNoddy 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just did a redirect for Damien also--Vintagekits 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Point Taken

Maybe, I'll find this out by asking people from his area, but people might find his wiki page easier if its done like that. It might even expand the acticle.--McNoddy 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a redirect page for Damien Kelly--Vintagekits 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sound just googled it Damaen it seems thats right (-: apologies --McNoddy 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) No probls - give my regards to the Turf!--Vintagekits 15:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that WeniWidiWiki is a Scottish editor who has some problems with a certain player playing for the Ireland team. I was looking at the history of his edits, and he wasn't long putting some absolute point of view stuff onto the article. He used to call himself HroptR. The article is still pov-ridden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.159.149 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I thought as much a chara--Vintagekits 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1996 Manchester bombing

So you did - my apologies. Nick Cooper 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problems--Vintagekits 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Population & Stuff

I agree to those edits on the foreign population bit, there is no way to verify them unless M'felt council did a survey which i doubt they'd spend the money on. I didn't word the band CD bit properly either, what i meant was that they contributed more tunes to the CD (16) than any of the other bands on their own (all contributed under 16 each).

The comment on more developments planned for the town is accurate i just have to find out the Mid Ulster Mail edition that published the planning approvals for a housing and commercial development (edition published within the last few months). Even better i'll just go to the planning permission website and see if they have it archived. Mabuska 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, all I will say is that even if you can prove WP:V. clippings from the Mid Ulster Mail do not always prove WP:N, regards --Vintagekits 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationality of MON

Hi. I noticed you were editing the Celtic article to remove the NI flag beside O'Neill's name. Can I ask you please not to do this; O'Neill was born in Northern Ireland and represented NI internationally. If you really want to argue this out I suggest you do it at the article's talk page. Best wishes --Guinnog 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I take it you know about our rule on WP:3RR? PLease don't remove the flag again as it would be such a shame to have to block you. Instead you should discuss on the talk page and seek to build a consensus there for the changes you proprose. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Its been discussed - you are breaking with the consensus my friend--Vintagekits 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Downdaroad

Well no harm to you, you're a good editor I agree with in most disputes but I suspected you of breaking the rules of wikipedia and was apparently correct. I don't want to get in a fight over this as you seem like a decent chap (and fellow Fenian bastard :P) but I think sockpuppetry is fairly low. I don't really know what happened about that volunteer thing, as I lost interest when it got too big. Was any consensus reached? I don't feel I need to apologise about the usercheck, I was following guidelines (although largely due to curiosity) and no action was taken over it anyway. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt think I broke the rules as I sent it to editors of opposing views, anyway, I think "we" won - well we are almost there.--Vintagekits 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge &c.

I have reintroduced the material which was sourced to Sir Norman's article, as per your request. I have also clarified it for those who may not be aware of Sir Norman or the background surrounding his murder.--Couter-revolutionary 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman (as he should be referred to on Wiki.) was not "targetted", whatever upon earth that means, he was murdered and in reprisals to murderes had no connection to. A reader without prior knowledge may think he was implicated in those. Assassination is a factual word, whether you want it to be or not Wiki. guidelines allow it.--Couter-revolutionary 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Assisnation and murder are both POV. The article is completely POV and biased. God only know how it has lasted this long!--Vintagekits 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

When someone kills someone it is murder, when they are high-profile it is assassination. Why should this be PoV. You may not like the use of the term but it best illustrates what occured, it's not as if they passed away in their sleeps after some warm milk is it? The were murdered. --Couter-revolutionary 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you educate yourself further on the terminology as you dont seem to have a full grasp of it at the moment.--Vintagekits 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have weaknesses, but education isn't one of them. This is from wikipedia; "Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual". I think this applies here.--Couter-revolutionary 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you found that page - three lines further down - "Assassination itself, along with terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term." - end of story. An apology and I will forget about it!--Vintagekits 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It may well be considered "loaded", whatever that means, but it doesn't mean that it can't as fact. I suppose JFK just died? No, he was very much assassinated and so was Sir Norman. An apology you shan't have.--Couter-revolutionary 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You dont have to wonder what it means - just click on loaded term and all shall be clear my dear boy--Vintagekits 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, how very kind. To describe, however, the violent assassination of an elderly former politician, with no provacation, as a death (one has images of a fall down the stairs) in the article of a third party clearly shows either your detachment from relaity or your bias.--Couter-revolutionary 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, this is an encyclopedia not site to wax lyrical about the Tynan Dallas, sorry, Dynasty--Vintagekits 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and nor is it a place to "wax lyrical" about appeasing a vicious murder from a republican perspective. I have made my position clear and am no longer willing to continue this discussion.--Couter-revolutionary 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, now - dont get yourself into trouble - please note WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On another matter, and these are my parting comments to you, it is also against wiki. policy to follow a particular editors contributions altering them. It is this which you seem to be doing. I shouldn't like to have to have you written up.--Couter-revolutionary 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Irish-Scots

Thanks for your offer there. There's no prejudice at you getting on with this while the category is up for deletion. Basically, unless the article on a person contains good, verifiable evidence that the person belongs in the category, they need to be removed from it. I'm off out for an hour or so; why not see how many you can get done? Thanks again, --Guinnog 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Burns

Hi again I was interested in your edit here. I couldn't see any evidence that Burns claims Irish heritage. Would you be able to provide any? Otherwise I'd say it has to come down. --Guinnog 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And again. The reference you provided, [4] only mentions Tom Conti is of Irish descent. That doesn't seem to justify saying that he is a Roman Catholic. Ian Paisley is also of Irish descent, for example. Don't get me wrong by the way; it's good that you're adding references to these articles, just make sure the reference actually says what you are using it to verify. Cheers. --Guinnog 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop? I would really rather you answered the point about the difference between people of Irish descent and Catholics before you make any more edits like that. --Guinnog 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the reference for Gerard Butler--Vintagekits 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked it yet. Would you please address the questions above? --Guinnog 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am working, I dont have you dance around to your timescales!--Vintagekits 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If your work is against important Wikipedia principles like WP:V, it will be reverted, though not by me, as I don't revert-war. It would be better for you to go back and amend some of your (apparent) errors I pointed you to, than to make more edits. I know you are making good-faith edits there, but maybe you need to slow down and make fewer, better edits. --Guinnog 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

Bloody good edit. Nice one (especially as I had edited it just before you!). Well spotted. --Guinnog 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish

Can you think about this edit here please? [5] You are right that NI didn't exist, but at that time Ireland was not a country either. The use of the tricolour is certainly inappropriate. At least you didn't categorise him as Irish-Scots again, so there is hope for you yet! --Guinnog 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed some of your errors from yesterday as you did not do them when I asked you. Can we please be clear that:

1) Being of Irish descent is not the same as being a Roman Catholic

2) Blogs are not acceptable references, see WP:EL

As I said, you need to slow down and make better edits as it is a lot of work to check your edits and correct your errors. You should be able to do that yourself. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock accounts

Hi Vintagekits, I have a solution for your sock account problem that I think will help you. Go to this page, and follow the instructions on the page. Last time I checked, multiple accounts on Wikipedia are allowed, as long as you follow the rules. I think you should limit it to two accounts, any more is kind of annoying.--CJ King 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be avoiding is the fact that the account he wants to use has been banned for breaking these rules. Logoistic 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Dickson

I didn't see anything in the article to indicate he had Irish ancestry and still cannot, so why are you reverting the category? Also, can you please not misuse the edit summary "rvv"; Vandalism implies a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia, which this certainly was not. Categories, like anything here, meed to be verifiable and as I've tried to exaplain to you before, being a Roman Catholic, being of Irish extraction and having an Irish surname are three different things. Please stop. --Guinnog 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dickson is an Irish name now!?--Vintagekits 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why did you add him again to the category? --Guinnog 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you're at it again. Will you please stop? --Guinnog 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about?--Vintagekits 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean you are making sloppy edits again. Irish is not the same as Catholic. Simply adding the categories without any explanation looks like WP:POINT. If you add the information to the article along with a verifiable reference then that is fine. Once again, slow down and do a better, more thorough job and that way your edits are more likely to persist. --Guinnog 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

stop posting nonsense please--Vintagekits 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm choosing to ignore your rudeness for the moment. Take a look at KT Tunstall. This is what you should be doing; adding well-referenced information to the article, not just a category. Please slow down and do a better job. --Guinnog 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Willie Gallacher is another example. --Guinnog 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the Cat and a reference, that is sufficiant for now. also you are reverting articles where I have provided a reference for the Cat - such as John McAllion--Vintagekits 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

John McAllion

See, there's a perfect example of what I mean. By adding the information to the article you actually improve it as a resource. Growing up in a Catholic family is not the same as being a practising Catholic. I am struggling to understand why you find this so difficult. --Guinnog 15:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He stated in parliment - "I was born and grew up in Glasgow, a member of an Irish Catholic family." - what more do you want?--Vintagekits 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I want you to add the information to the article, not just the reference (which on its own is fairly meaningless). I want you to realise that the RC category is not for people who grew up in a Catholic family, but for practising Catholics. Does that make sense? --Guinnog 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Guinnog you are entirely inaccurate. Look at what the Category: Northern Irish Roman Catholics page states right at the beginning:

"The following persons from Northern Ireland are or were members of the Roman Catholic Church. Membership does not necessarily indicate personal Christian faith." El chulito 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Faint praise

Well, your edits have moved from being very very poor to just being poor, so I suppose that's progress. In your hurry to push your POV, you don't seem to be making much effort to actually improve the articles. For example, how can you look at an arrticle like William Crozier (Irish artist), and not see that it needs cleanup? Worse than that, your revert removed my tag from it as well as another edit I made. Please make an effort to improve the encyclopedia. Why should I have to search through an entire reference to find your cherished racial distinction? Add the info, make some actual improvements to articles, and I will start to take you seriously as a contributor. At the moment I just see you pushing your POV. --Guinnog 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, your work could be construed by some to have undertones of anti-Irish bigotry - but not I--Vintagekits 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad then that we understand each other. The difference is that I am trying to improve the articles I edit. As I said, I see some small progress in your editing, but it needs to get better still. --Guinnog 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dad, I just wanna make you pwoud!--Vintagekits 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I enjoyed that. In spite of what you may think, I am actually just trying to make he encyclopedia better, as I'm sure in your own way you are too. Don't you think the category we are arguing over looks better with only actual Irish-Scots in it, rather than a random selection of people with Wikipedia articles with Irish surnames? The funniest ones I took out were Terry McDermott (no Scottish connections whatsoever) and Michael Ancram (added mistakenly by you I think). --Guinnog 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, that was User:GSR05. --Guinnog 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there were some funnies in there. However, I think you will admit that many if not most of those you took out are actually of Irish descent. Proving it is a different matter.--Vintagekits 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another bad edit I'm afraid. As I explained the RC categories are for people who profess to be practising Catholics. Merely having grown up in a Catholic family is not enough. Unfortunately too, in your haste to revert, you removed information from the article which I had added. This was a bad edit. I invite you to revert it yourself. --Guinnog 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does he say the he is no longer a practising Catholic?--Vintagekits 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No. He doesn't say he is not a Muslim either, but we don't add that to the article. The onus of proof is on an editor wanting to add information (including categories). Please revert it as a sign of good faith. --Guinnog 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is nonsense, does he have to make a statement daily? The edit is good, I have proven he is Catholic and until you can come up with to show he is not then it stays!--Vintagekits 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference states he was in a Catholic family as a child and suggests he identifies as one now, but it does not prove it. It has to be proved. Under WP:BLP we exercise caution and sensitivity to living people in articles about them. This is not a good edit summary: (you got any proof that he is not? Why dont I take a roll call outside Mass on Sunday - crazy!) It is not a question of proving he is not a Catholic. It has to be proved that he is. Otherwise the category shouldn't be used. Tyrenius 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an incorrect interpretation of the pocily. If he states that he grew up a Catholic and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that has changed then it is safe to say that he still is a Catholic as once you are baptised into the Catholic church then you remain a member of that church.--Vintagekits 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's two people saying your interpretation is incorrect, so I suggest you seek a wider consensus before reinstating it. Tyrenius 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

James McDade

Cheers for that, they neglected to do that. Think their over-use of the word "terrorist" gives a lot away. Vote seems to be mainly in favour. :) GiollaUidir 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, he is doing the same on a lot of articles, see also Gerard Montgomery - in fact just go and see his edit history to see what he has been up to!--Vintagekits 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this

What is this: "Logoistic is using the fact that you have banned the account against me in arguements to make a point" found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#User:Vintagekits.27_sockpuppet_tag. Where have I done this? Please provide evidence. Logoistic 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop using my talk page as your own personal forum

Vintagekits, you and Logoistic need to stop writing stuff on my talk page that has nothing to do with me. I see no reason to get involved in this with you. Just read the rules and obey them, and you will be fine.--CJ King 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasnt my intention mate, sorry!--Vintagekits 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerard Mongtomery

Provide references, or the article will be deleted. Don't throw nonsense tags at me, as that will not do you any good. You are on the verge of being blocked. WP:BLP is policy. Without verifiable references, we cannot keep your allegations. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for what, writing well referenced articles?? They are not my allegations they are the Daily Mails. --Vintagekits 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeating the same claim doesn't wash. No, for recreating libelous claims without evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only repeating them because they are true and you are ignoring them for some reason. Remember I am not the only editor who has used this article as a source/reference!--Vintagekits 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am ignoring them because you haven't provided them. The links you provide are not reliable sources, and fail our policy at WP:BLP. Have you read BLP? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe you deleted the other article without a prompt or even any debate! This is amazing!--Vintagekits 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. Have you read BLP? Especially, Jimmy Wales has said:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the other articlres??--Vintagekits 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you not reading what I am writing? I deleted them because they were not only poorly sourced, they were not sourced at all. As the quote above says, it should be removed, aggressively. Provide reliable references, and the articles can be recreated. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How can I access the history of those pages so I dont have to totally rewrite them from scratch as I dont think I have the stomach for that. Also you need to calm down and discuss these things as you are going way over board. Did you even ask EricR where he got that quote? Thats seems like it would have been the first thing a reasonible admin would have done.--Vintagekits 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources on the article Talk pages and I will undelete them. And I didn't need to ask Eric where he got the quote, as he didn't provide a link, despite multiple requests for one. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So you only consider as source verifiable if its on the internet? That is not standard policy!--Vintagekits 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but we only have the word of the bloggers and forumeers of the existence of the Daily Mail link, when the Daily Mail's own archives contain no mention of the people. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you getting a hardcopy of the article direct from the DM. I see that EricR has posted further details. Also as an act of good faith can you reinstate the other two articles so I can do a couple of hours work on them - and then you can judge them. regards--Vintagekits 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a hard copy? Perhaps you can provide a scan of it. Tyrenius 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain

You left a comment at User:Astrotrain's Talk page saying "you are supposed to let the originator of the article know first". I am not sure that that is really the case. For example whenever I nominate an AFD I usually assume that the original author (and subsequent editors) have "Watch"ed the page. Of course, as a courtesy, you could go round notifying people. Some may consider this politeness, but others consider it to be spamming! Either way, it should remain a voluntary practice, not an obligation. --Mais oui! 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mais, I am sure I read that you should let the originator know in the AfD policy page.--Vintagekits 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I defer to your greater knowledge!! I rarely read these things :) Often, in real life, as well as at Wikipedia, common sense should be our guide, not bloody rulebooks. It is often very useful to ask oneself: "what is reasonable"? I, personally, consider it reasonable to choose not to invest one's time in notifying people of AFDs. --Mais oui! 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin McGartland at AfD

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Martin McGartland, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA

I warned you once about personal attacks. Don't make any more, or you will be blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Which personal attack?--Vintagekits 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if you know just have it in for me because we disagreed over the Montgomery article but I was raising a serious issue - Asrotion has taken to mass deletion of my work all at once how am I supposed to defend them all at once? I feel like I am being bullied here.--Vintagekits 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have it in for you. I just think your understanding of BLP and reliable sources is wrong. If you look at my contributions, you'll see I've been issuing NPA warnings to several people today. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I just think that Astrotrain has been pretty crafty today, he knows if he puts things up for deletion all at the one time then there is less time to defend - it only takes seconds to nominate for AfD but it takes a good while to extand and defend articles.--Vintagekits 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that why you've just done the same thing to me Vintage??Weggie 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I proddy a couple of people who are glorified local councillors - Astrotrain has nominated over 20 just today!--Vintagekits 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If something is a good article about an appropriate subject, properly written and set out, and soundly referenced, then it will speak for itself and the community will decide to keep it. If it's not all those things, then get your act together.... Tyrenius 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology

No, this isn't one, but you will get one if I turn out to have been mistaken. I'm a reasonable chap, or so I like to think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For your information, I've requested that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold be reopened. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you've rumbled me!--Vintagekits 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what it says: no, they won't check. You can ask Mr Gordon why, if you like, but I doubt you'll get an answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldnt they check? I wont them to (looking forward to see you groveling!!--Vintagekits 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's nobody going to see it where you left it. Try User talk:Jpgordon, but based on past "please disprove I'm a sockpuppet" attempts you've got two chances: fat and slim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What reason could they have for not lookinh into the case?--Vintagekits 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did they knock me back? They may believe you are innocent as the driven snow. Or they may think I'm fishing. They might think there isn't enough evidence. They could think that evading a block is not a big enough deal to justify the effort and the invasion of privacy. If you meant why did they ignore your request, first off they never do checkusers for the subject and secondly someone had aleady taken it off the list when you left your message so they wouldn't have seen it. You may be in line for that apology all the same: Bluegold never posted when he'd been on the drink that I remember. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin McGartland

Thanks. I recommend not creating stubs, but bringing articles up to this standard, so they become AfD-proof. They need to be tightly referenced. Please note how the info is presented in the references. Don't worry if stubs (or other articles) get deleted. You can recreate them, provided you create an article which is substantially different to the deleted one — i.e. with extra material not present in the first version. Never recreate an identical version however. Tyrenius 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

References

The sources you are using, particularly (but not limited to) Relatives for Justice and Republican News are not neutral or independant, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Donaghy

Thanks for your advice. I think it's pretty obvious his name was Gerard, not Gerald; the BBC, among other sources confirm this.

As far as using the "move (move page)" option, I have never done so, and I guess I am a little nervous about trying something new for fear of losing all the data if I screw up, but I'll try it the next time I have to redirect something. El chulito 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After reading User:Stubacca's comments just above I must say that I agree with him.El chulito 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you dont know how to use thing just ask, people as usually willing to help. As for the name change, there is a discussion on the page - you are more than welcome to join in. regards--Vintagekits 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bastin8

That felas a dope.He really was getting me wroked up.Althoguh he was probably taking the piss. Dermo69 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya a chara, just remember WP:CIVIL and dont get yourself banned! I am also having trouble with some editors with a similar viewpoint to Bastin--Vintagekits 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:PUI

Your comments on WP:PUI were unwarranted. It is hardly useful for this project to attack users who try to ensure compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy. —xyzzy_n 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For issues with the conduct of another user, try dispute resolution. However, I’m fairly certain that the PUI entries were justified. The images really don’t quite meet the requirements. —xyzzy_n 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Using a non-free image of a poster for illustration of an article about a person is like copying an entire newspaper article because it happens to discuss the same person as a Wikipedia article. Basically unless you can track down the copyright holder and get an image under a free licence or prove that the image is legally usable for some other reason, you’re out of luck—even if other websites use images of the poster with somewhat less consideration of copyright issues. (Non-free images of posters are usable under fair use e. g. when the poster itself is notable or if the poster is an important example of an art form.) —xyzzy_n 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice mate, I appriciate it--Vintagekits 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism Categorys

You have recently removed categorys on articles about terrorism in the United Kingdom. You state in the edit summary that it is a POV. But I can not see how it is a POV that these incidents were not terrorism. If it is not terrorism then what would you call these incidents? I am keen to resolve this issue to stop a Edit war. --Benjaminevans82 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Define terrorism. 2. Have you read wiki policy on the use of the term terrorism?--Vintagekits 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

About the same issue with regards the Shankill Road bombing and the Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings. I did reply to you on the Shankill Road bombing talk page, see there for my objections to your changes to that article. With regards to the Hyde & Regents Park attacks, they are a seperate incident and should be discussed seperately at that article's talk page. With regards to your edits of IRA attacks within the United Kingdom, your attitude is woefully short on wikiettiquette and consideration for NPOV. You are repeatedly pushing the idea that the IRA are not a terrorist organisation. As stated on Wikipedia' own article on List of terrorist organisations, the Provisional Irish Republican Army was listed, at the times the articles in question are referring to, as a terrorist organisation by almost the entire English-speaking world, including the UK, Ireland and the United States.

The articles you have been editing are not simply attacks on an "occupying force" of the British Army, but have included a civilian fish shop, a civilian hotel and two off-duty military units in England, which attacks caused respectively seven civilian deaths and dozens of civilian injuries. The UN depiction of terrorism, with my own emphasis on aspects which make the IRA a terrorist organisation, is below taken from the Definition of terrorism article:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988).

By this standard, all the acts you have repeatedly edited are unequivocally by definition of the UN, terrorist.

Finally, your own attitude does not reflect the ethos and environment in which Wikipedia should be worked upon. You have relentlessly criticised, insulted and degraded those that disagree with you, have made little effort to discuss changes with other editors and repeatedly changed articles in a manner you know to be in bad faith. You have done this despite repeated warnings and cautions from many different users over a protracted period of time. Please stop this. In future please discuss any controversial changes on an articles talk page before making them. If you do this rationally, then a compromise can be reached which stops endless and fruitless edit wars and conflicts, which only harm Wikipedia as a whole. Thankyou--Jackyd101 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very close to breaking WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway we have been through this all before--Vintagekits 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing these categories: NPOV policy states that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views." not removing views with which one disagrees: these are designated terrorist offences in UK law. Tim! 10:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar. If I have offended you then I apologise and in any case I am withdraw from his debate, I don't have time to fight with you over every article about the IRA and will leave the issue for future editors to clear up. Just to note, the discussion you linked to and the Wikipedia guidelines indicate that the use of the word terrorism should be sourced. I agree with this totally. However, you have been removing the categories linking to terrorism. This is deliberately disingenuous as a category cannot be sourced no matter how well referenced the article is. Anyway, goodbye, I have already been drawn to far into this and would rather be working on articles, not debating semantics, so I'll leave you to it.--Jackyd101 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you notice I havent removed the category from each article only those in which civilians were not the specific target.--Vintagekits 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SPG

Thanks for the comments.

All I had prior to searching the web was the quotes from McCaughey in Bandit country. However, just searching the web this afternoon for stuff on collusion, there's stuff that would actually make your eyes pop out. Read this http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html and this http://www.nd.edu/~cchr/publications/IIP_final_11_06_06.pdf. Absolutely shocking. Allegations that the RUC, UDR and British Army were all involved to one degree or another in sectarian killings. Really disturbing stuff.

Also on a less serious note, I may have made a mistake about the nature of the SPG, it seems it was a counter terrorist division of the RUC, with a number of different units, rather than being just one unit based in Armagh. I'm going to have to look up a book or two to sort this out.

Jdorney 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Background

In response to your inquiry: I am neither Guatemalan nor Puerto Rican.

Btw--your spelling is atrocious. Does this mean you were not educated by the Irish Christian Brothers?? Slainte. El chulito 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was educated by ICB but never listened, I know my spelling is terrible, I should use a spell check more!--Vintagekits 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew you were educated by the ICB anyway given your Fenianism. El chulito 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish War

This is the correct terminology, the other (Irish War of Independence) is emotive, manipulative and POV, for example the American Revolutionary War is never called the "American War of Independence".

P.S. I haven't read your last message yet (the "new messages" sign just arrived in (lol) orange) but if it's to whinge about my reference to your Fenianism, forget it, bub. If you can call people "idiots" and "West Britons" (as per User:Demiurge) then you have lost the right to squeal about WP:CIVIL.

Slainte. El chulito 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt mention you calling me a fenian (which if I was in a more sensitive mood could have called a personal attack!!). Anyway, Tan War and Anglo-Irish War are both redirects to the correct page which is Irish War of Independence, so how can that be, as you say, "emotive, manipulative and POV" - if anything that shows me that you possibly do not really have an indepth knowledge on the subject, and that to you calling the PIRA "terrorist's" and this shows you potentially biased POV.--Vintagekits 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You have just admitted that the use of the term "Volunteer" (as applied to the IRA) is "in mediation" - therefore you have no right to use it or at least I have the right to change it, and I will.

You are the one who made the redirect in question, which I told you I am going to let slide, although I could easily reverse it. Don't push your luck, bud.

And btw, I have plenty of in depth knowledge of this subject matter as you must realize by now, but since that (your accusing people of lacking knowledge of something that they disagree with you about) has become a boilerplate response on your part I am not even going there. El chulito 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything you said there is incorrect.

• What is in mediation is whether or not "member" or "Volunteer" should be used, in the mean time both can be used but should not be substituted for each other. Did you read the links I provided?

...in the mean time both can be used but should not be substituted for each other. -proof please El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Anglo-Irish War has been a redirect to Irish War of Independence, since March 2006, see here, what you have mistake is my additional redirect of Anglo Irish War which I made for additional clarification. An apology for that would be nice. I will ask you again, Tan War and Anglo-Irish War are both redirects to the correct page which is Irish War of Independence, so how can that be, as you say, "emotive, manipulative and POV"--Vintagekits 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will have to relook at the issue of the redirects and make appropriate corrections. Thanks for the update.El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrod's Bombing

I am happy to explain - you conveniently removed all references to civilian casualties (one of whom was an American citizen, although I can understand if you didn't know that) and that and the issue of not having time to defuse the bomb constituted most of the change back overriding your prior rv. Slainte. El chulito 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this just goes to show that you didnt even read what you were reverting. Please read what you reverted and then come back and apologies.--Vintagekits 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer/Member

Why would I make a necessary correction just to revert my own work? If you want to report me about something which is already in mediation and give momentum for a final ruling, fine. Anyone who reviews your talk page and most of your edits will come to the same (sane) conclusion as I have -- you are inserting a republican slant to almost everything you touch.

P.S. - give up the notion of ever getting an apology out of me. You are wasting your time, bud. El chulito 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Paddy Quinn (Irish republican)

As far as the changes go:

• a) You can indicate your feelings - you do not tell me what to do
• b) You inserted Oglaich as part of his name in Gaelic when you know full well that is not the case and what that word means.
• c) I readded the Northern Irish Roman Catholics category because as you yourself argued earlier once someone is born and raised Catholic, unless they officially leave the Church, they are Catholic, and I agree with you on that (hard to believe, huh)
• d) The fact that his mother who introduced him to republicanism (as it states on the page and which you never removed) was also the one who got him off the strike (and I read all about it and can quote the "epileptic fits" part) is exceedingly notable.
• e) The fact that other families did the same following her example is also quite noteworthy.

What problems with the above do you have?

El chulito 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I do not tell you what to do but when you edit on wiki it is expected that you should abide by there rules, policies and procedures.--Vintagekits 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Óglach is the Irish version of Volunteer which was his title within the PIRA that is why it has been added.
3. Have you got a link to state that he is a Catholic?
4. Have you got a link to state that your ascertion about his mother and his health? I have no problem with you adding it, and I am sure it probably happened as he was on hunger strike for over a month, but the issues is that you must add references to back the statement up.--Vintagekits 15:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. That was not a part of his name at birth in any language, and the issue of Volunteer is unsettled; your continuing to use it (in a foreign language) shows your continuing disregard for all Wikipedia rules and regulations that you don't personally like or agree with

.El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Paddy Quinn (redux)

I am getting sick and tired of your refusal to answer directly a question posed to you rather than using some nonsense like implying that your opponent does not "abide by the rules" or is "breaking with consensus" or "POV", which you yourself do too much of, but overuse the word way too much as an accusation against others -- these are not answers, these are braindead soundbites which you employ when you cannot answer something or know you are wrong. Thus I am no longer going to respond to any questions re Paddy Quinn when I have already provided the answers (see above).

I do not understand you aggressive attitude, you are very close to breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Vintagekits 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My attitude is due to the fact that you are a wanna-be censor/revisionist.

Tom Begley

The claim that he was fervently anti-sectarian is POV and unsubstantiated (unsubstantiatable) El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The following was retrieved from your discussion page: Firstly the article did not state he was "fervently anti-sectarian" is state he believed in non sectarian republicanism - a. can you explain what you consider is POV about that and b. it is reference in Tirghrá within his biography.--Vintagekits 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is POV to project or imply an outlook or political vision ("non sectarian republicanism") to another person for which there is no objective substantiation, only another one of your boilerplate pro-IRA news outlets (in this case Tirghrá), which is what you rely on most of the time.El chulito 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Glenbryn Estate incidents had nothing to do with Begley, but merely coincided with the date of his death -- there is no connection as far as I know, nor have you provided any such connection.

As far as the "illiterate" goes, I know I read it, but for now I cannot source it so I cannot stop you from removing it for now. It appears I will have to wade into the An Poblacht archives -- what a horrific prospect.

El chulito 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrod's Bombing

• Q: As the target of the attack you stated "Christmas shoppers at Harrods" - can you clarify this answer and the store and not the shoppers was the target and this is confirmed by the prior phoned warning to evacuate.
• A: I did not insert that, although the IRA obviously knew that there was a strong possibility of civilian casualties, and given your undoubted links to the IRA, you know it as well.

• Q: You deleted the time of the explosion and replaced it with "Unfortunately they did not have time to defuse it" - a. why do you delete the time and b. "Unfortunately" may be correct but it is POV, why did you and it.
• A: "Unfortunately" is NOT POV.

Not every adjective or adverb is prohibited from being used on Wikipedia. There is a clear universality that it was unfortunate that the bomb could not be defused, except by die-hard PIRA supporters, which I suppose includes ... - guess who. So "Unfortunately" is fine, unless you can provide an impartial third party to confirm otherwise.

• Q: You previously added the line "Three officers and three civilians (including one citizen of the United States) were killed." but then deleted from my last edit, can you please explain this.
• A: I don't remember offhand whatever I removed but I am sure if you wrote it it deserved to be removed.

• Q: you removed the line "It stated that a bomb was placed the C&A deptartment store on the east side of Oxford Street, London." and replaced it with "They claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart of Oxford Street. It was said to be at the C&A store on the east side of the shopping street." the later sounds messy and POV can you explain the edit.
• A: I did not make that change to the best of my knowledge; it doesn't sound like anything I would have done; pls. check the edit history to confirm who made that particular change.

El chulito 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You did make those changes, please check you edit, I would not send you a messege about it if you hadnt, regards.--Vintagekits 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

Harrassment is not going to get me to do anything for you. And considering the mood I'm in right now, you do NOT want to cross me right now. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I really do not understand your aggresive attitude towards me. I simply asked you if there was any update with the issue. You asked me for certain links which I provided you but since then I havent heard anything, what do you suggest I do? Why/how can you consider this harrassment?--Vintagekits 07:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not harrassment: you are being responsible. However, Zoe is under pressure at the moment and rather sensitive to things, so the best thing is to back off from her. I would wait a few days, and if you have sound sources, then you can start the article again with them, and explain exactly what you are doing in the edit summary and on the talk page - and why the situation is now different. However, I suggest you are very careful in how you write such an article and cautious in the statements you write. It would be best to say something like, "The Daily Mail said..." and put in a quote. You are welcome to link to this post on the article talk page. You might also want to liaise with another editor to review the article to make sure that it conforms to WP:BLP. However, if you can verify with reliable sources then it is legitimate. Tyrenius 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

.--Couter-revolutionary

I see you thought I was a sock-puppet! Ha! The problem with Sir Walter Palmer's article was that I created it as "Walter Palmer" and Kittybrewster moved it to "Sir Walter...", therefore the article, as it stands was created by him, whereas de facto it was I who established it.--Couter-revolutionary 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, it was just that you said you started the page but there was no mention of you in the history. regards--Vintagekits 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Diarmuid O'Neill

• I have no evidence that he was ever legally named "Dermot".
• I have seen no evidence he was shot in his bed, only that he was dragged down the stairs.
• The use of the word Volunteer as far as I know is still being mediated, if otherwise, please provide me with a link to any conclusion supporting your claims. El chulito 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph MacManus

• For your edification - for categorizing purposes all people whose surnames start with Mc or Mac must be categorized as Mac... (see the instruction left on Martin McGuinness' edit page from a Wikipedia editor as an example if you wish); it goes as follows:

Please use Macguiness, ie with an 'a' and a lowercase 'g', to assist category sorting

El chulito 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

• When dealing with the issue of nicknames "Joe", "Tom", it is a matter of personal preference how to do so, e.g.

Joseph Thomas Murphy, also known as Joe Murphy

or

Joseph Thomas "Tom" Murphy

or

Joseph Thomas ("Tom") Murphy

There are no rules prohibiting any of the above and all are correct grammatically.El chulito 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling at AN/I

In order to help your case, please consider running your post through spell check. You do, as you already suspect, have some troubling errors. for one: Accusation, not acquisation. second, barrage of, not barge on. Please fix these as to make your posting more readable, and consider constructing longer posts of a serious nature like this in Word or another text editor with spell check first. I note this in order to help you, not to pick on you. ThuranX 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

your right, thanks!--Vintagekits 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're!User:Vintagekits

Lol!!!--Vintagekits 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Banned

You are banned from leaving any sort of message for me whatsoever. Not only do you write as though you are an illiterate, you have nothing I am interested in hearing. I am going to recommend to the Administrators that you be blocked again for a lengthy period of time, and I am also going to recommend that all 8 IRA terrorists killed at Loughall be redirected to Loughgall as they do not merit their own pages, which are almost identical, anyway.

You banned User:Logica and User:Logoistic from your discussion page; you are banned forever from mine.

New identity 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Logica and User:Logoistic are both the same person, he is not banned from discussing topics with me. When he was a newbie he would leave numberous warnings on my page without knowing what they meant. Infact there are messege on my talk page from him, see here, here, here, here, here and here. You are being massively uncivil and breaching many policies, please stop.--Vintagekits 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Without knowing what they meant": I know exactly what they meant, and still stand by them! I'm assuming good faith in letting past issues I have with Vintagekits go (more understandable given his block), but that doesn't mean policy breaking past or present will be tolerated. Logoistic 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, do not contact me on my talk/discussion page -- you are creating a stressful situation for me. If I have a problem with you I will have to go through an Administrator; I see that the threat of being blocked is the only thing you respect.New identity 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Book

Don't have that Andy McNab book. Can probably get a hold of it, for a look though. What is it in it that you are looking for? Jdorney 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, what's the name of that book. I'll see what I can do. Jdorney 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: McCormack and Davison

Due to an altogether separate conflict, I wouldn't add this to Zoe's plate right now or expect any responses from her. If you think there is geniunely a lot more to say about this men that is really worth including in Wikipedia, then you can create new articles on them. Please be mindful of sticking to reliable sources and citing what you include in the article. Once a fully sourced article is created, you could try to get the history undeleted at WP:DRV; however, the BLP concerns about those versions may prevent that from happening. It is of course up to you to establish the notability of the men should that be challenged at AFD. Best of luck, Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you need to contact anyone for re. the above? The objection was to lack of valid references. If these exist then there is no objection under WP:BLP to the article. You may want to make a note of the changed ref. of the conversation on AN/I, in case you need to cite it. If you do start the article again, you'll need to explain change circumstances in edit summary/talk page.[6]. Tyrenius 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Re. your request I have left a note for New identity that personal attacks must stop. Regardless of any other problems, that is not acceptable. Feel free to notify me with diffs if there is a recurrence, but I trust not. Re. the other issues, I'm afraid someone else will have to deal with those. However, please have a look at WP:DR. It can be a very good idea to back off if things get stressful. Wiki will still be here in a year. We're writing for the long term, not just next week. Also if there is a sound point, you can rely on the fact that someone else will also turn up to make it. It's not all down to you. Tyrenius 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PS build up your case in an article with cast iron verifiable references. Tyrenius 03:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland

you clearly have an interest in topics such as this. I draw your attention to it. Kittybrewster 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing member to Volunteer

That was about the only time that you could have done that within the rules! Logoistic 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Regular" Irish Army

Vintage, "regular" implies that there is an "irregular". I worry that people will think the Irish Army is linked with the PIRA. Logoistic 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a historical term, the IRA were called the "irregulars", seriously.--Vintagekits 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

If you have a message for User:Astrotrain could you please leave it on his Talk Page. My Talk Page contained a message from him to me - only. It is not a debating page. David Lauder 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not debating, he made a claim about me there which was false so I cleared the issue up there so anyone who saw it could see the actual facts and know that it was false.--Vintagekits 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have moved your message to his talk page and told him you left it on mine. David Lauder 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you have seen that he fabricates.--Vintagekits 10:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. Tyrenius 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

At least get this checked out to clear your name

Vintage, User:Our Day Will Come at first appears to be a sockpuppet of yourself, judging by their edit history. However, this seems too obvious - you would have realised people would have caught onto you right away if you did that. So I'm going to put in a case for checkuser - I'll post the link when I do so - to confirm this. Logoistic 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did say all that on the DO'N AfD page. I am 1. happy for him to be checked and 2. Think he should be reinstated until there is proof he is a sock.--Vintagekits 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link[7]. Don't be stupid about him being reinstated. It was clearly aimed at making you look as if you had a sock. Logoistic 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was tongue in cheek--Vintagekits 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think about maybe trying to get a checkuser on recent users who may have had disagreements with you (not me, although you can try it if you want to be sure!). Logoistic 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure some of them are socks - proving it is a different matter! I think we actually have a decent relationship these days, based on mutual opposition.--Vintagekits 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you know what they say! Logoistic 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Christmas shoppers"

You may find this relevant.[8] I will back up any removal of unsubstantiated material. Tyrenius 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt expectin that! --Vintagekits 09:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Block-Log on User:Kittybrewster

Have you heard about the block-log to User:kittybrewster from User:Mr. Darcy because, apparently, a personal attack towards you by reffering to you in an unnapropiate way? --TomasBat (Talk) 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kelly g.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kelly g.jpg. The image description 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

It would help your case greatly if you made citations in the recommended way. Compare "Notes and references" in Martin McGartland (apart from a couple I didn't do) with Charles Breslin. In the former it is easy for an editor (or a reader) to see the quality of the references to BBC, Hansard etc, as they are visible. In the latter article only a title is visible with no indication of the source. You can either do the cites by hand, as I have done, or you might find it easier to use the appropriate template on Wikipedia:Citation templates. See also WP:CITE. Tyrenius 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

cheers, will do.--Vintagekits 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ONH

Thanks for making the references nice & clear. I haven't gotten the hang of that yet! I wonder; do you think that Óglaigh na hÉireann (2006) would be a fair compromise between length and specificity for the CIRA splinter group? I'd also appreciate your input at Template talk:IRAs, if you have the time. Erin Go Bragh 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference deletion

Replied here. Tyrenius 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I.R.A. WikiProject?

Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. Erin Go Bragh 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain this?

Vintage, why did you change "member" to "Volunteer" here? Logoistic 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the history and you will find out. You are going to have to dig deeper if you are search for things to try and "get me in trouble" for.--Vintagekits 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving you the opportunity to explain what appears to be a blatant change from "member" to "Volunteer". If "getting you into trouble" means upholding mediation, then that's definantly true. Logoistic 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have told you the answer.--Vintagekits 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a legitimate reason to do this, please highlight it in your edit summary. You can't expect people to wade through the history of edits, Vintage. Logoistic 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to provide a fuller answer. Tyrenius 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is hard to be really helpful to people who you feel are harassing you. Weggie made an edit earlier in mediation believing mediation was closed, however, as you can see mediation is still ongoing. Here is the edit Weggie made.--Vintagekits 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so (1) why didn't you mention this in your edit summary, and (2) why didn't you indicate this right away as I asked. You realise this is a contentious issue, and it doesn't help when you make legitimate reverts that go back so far that it looks like blatent mediation-breaking. Please be more helpful in future. Logoistic 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you have accused me for this before without looking at the edit history.--Vintagekits 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stressed

I know what you mean!!!!! Logoistic 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldnt have started this tonight with one day to go. Just to get him to reconsider PLEASE self revert at tell him that because you take this SO serious you are prepared to do this. This is not admitting you are wrong this is a jesture - whatever the real word will be there in 48 hours--Vintagekits 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will. But I still stand by the point, and will expect him to look at it. The case should never have been closed. If anything, Shyam should have responded to my initial posting about you creating that article. Logoistic 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice

The mediator has made his position clear. If the differing parties agree to co-operate with me, I will look at the issue afresh. Tyrenius 01:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do, but presumably you'll need to message all of the other involved parties? Logoistic 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I would rather sack wiki off altogether rather than go through this again. Shyam is reconsidering opening the case again, so lets see if he does, this is not a relaxing experience. T, can you please have a word with him and ask him to open it as there is only one day left of the cabal after 3 months of arguing.--Vintagekits 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that we would keep what we've already got there. I am seeing it as a transfer from one mediator to another rather than competely reopening it. It would be pointless to disregard all the progress that's been made on it. Logoistic 13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest...

Where do you stand? Logoistic 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Did it before -

Economic Left/Right: -2.16

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.00

Refs

In case there's anything useful here - a template I've just devised! To post to another user:

{{subst:Refstart}}

It signs automatically.

Tyrenius 11:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things.

Hi, got your note. One, you must start using edit summaries. Your failure to use them is unacceptable, and frankly it makes it look like you're trying to sneak stuff into articles. Two, I'm not going to start a wide revert war on all the articles where you and Stubacca are editing. You might consider reverting him once, and only once, on each article, with a descriptive edit summary (not just "rv"), and an accompanying note on each talk page that either explains the problem or points to one central discussion (perhaps Talk:Diarmud O'Neill?]]). I want to be clear that I'm not saying that your sources all meet WP:RS, but that reverts are not the way to determine this. Talk it out with him and other users, using WP:RS as the basis for the discussion and not your respective POVs. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Mr.Darcy, I will try to be more clear with the edit summaries also. cheers--Vintagekits 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inserting any POV into any article. I'm not sure how you're alleging that? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse MrDarcy's statement. Vintagekits, if you want any intervention then you have got to play by the rules scrupulously. You have done very well in your communication on user talk pages, but not as yet in edit summaries and article talk pages. Please read thoroughly my posts on User talk:Stubacca. If I feel my advice is not being regarded, I'm outta here. Tyrenius 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, my edit summaries have not been up to stratch, possibly a case of trying to do too much at one time rather than misleading other. SInce he has said it I have tried to put a summary in all edits and will keep it up. cheers--Vintagekits 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend doing one thing well rather than 20 not well. Edit summaries weren't the only thing to take note of by the way. Tyrenius 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go to your preference settings you can use an option which will remind you if you haven't left a summary. Tyrenius 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that in at least one spot, you used a Xanga page as a source - please note that blogs of any sort fail WP:RS and can't be used as sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 12:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Xanga isn't the only blog being used. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse MrDarcy and have no objection to Stubacca or any other editor removing sources which are blogs which do not follow policy. A blog which would follow policy is, for example, a blog on an official newspaper site (e.g. The Guardian) which was written by a staff journalist or regular columnist for the paper. This would be valid, but subsequent posts to the same blog by members of the public would not be. It should be explained clearly and helpfully in the edit summary (and if necessary on the article talk page) exactly why the source was removed. Tyrenius 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would go along with that.--Vintagekits 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"more commonly"?

Vintage, your most recent edit to the Volunteer (Irish republican) article asserts that "it is more commonly used to describe a "rank and file" member, similar to that of a Private". From the presentation of evidence on the talk page, I would disagree. In fact, I woudl say the opposite. I would prefer you to say it could mean either, and not give more weight to one than the other, as you cannot tell either way from the evidence. Logoistic 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree - the only explicit evidence shows the term in used to denote a rank and file or ordinary member of the IRA akin to a Private.--Vintagekits 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need another opinion. I'll ask Tyrenious. Logoistic 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool!--Vintagekits 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:IRA

You know Vintagekits, we've got a Participants list over at the WP:IRA. It'd look real fine with you name in it. ;) Erin Go Bragh^talk 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer v member

I checked mediation; there was no final decision, so I have as much right qas you to use "member" rather than Volunteer. I left messages with User:Logoistic and Shyam asking about this as well, but have not heard back yet.

You are not going to be allowed to use pro-IRA propaganda on an encyclopaedia. El chulito 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said -- show me/link me to a final decision in mediation or arbitration ruling that uses of terms such as IRA Volunteer and Óglach are acceptable on this encyclopaedia. Until then ... El chulito 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Q: DO you not think you should not edit it until they get back to you then and also regarding the message you just left me may I also remind you of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A: No, I do not think I can roll over and let you make so many edits that they are unchangeable or left by attrition. I also wonder why YOU DO NOT wait until they get back to you. You refuse to show me any proof that the mediation or arbitration has been resolved in your favour.

Cheers, El chulito 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the mediation disposition and it is not very helpful: Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.

The above can be used to legitimize almost any well-intentioned or scholarly edits.

We are going to have to come to a decision ourselves, it seems. I suggest, in good faith, that you can use volunteer with a small v ("v", not "V"), but not try to sneak Óglach in as though it were part of a translation of the person's name from English to Irish, which you know it is not. Fair??!! Let me know before setting off a revert war.El chulito 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair interpretation of the consensus agreement. Tyrenius 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Your tone is quite uncalled for on this page. Tyrenius 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the key points are:

• First definition is "member".
• This is followed immediately by IRA's own definition of "volunteer".
• However, in the text of the article, we do not refer to the member with a title as "Volunteer O'Brien", in the way we might mention "Private Smith" in a regular army. This is because mainstream sources do not do this, whose precedent we follow under WP:NOR.
• volunteer can be used in the main text of the article to refer to a member when it is required stylistically e.g. "several volunteers stayed at the farm, because "several members stayed at the farm" sounds stilted. An alternative might be "several members of the IRA stayed at the farm." This would depend on the context.
• The consensus was lower case v for the time being.
• It has now been shown that "Volunteer" is applied as a title, so I suggest it is upper case in the first definition as a title, but thereafter not used as a title but only as generic, when it will be lower case.

Tyrenius 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re. the last point: this is my idea, but as yet has not been accepted by others, so we stick with the consensus of lower case until it has. Tyrenius 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First mention in Antony Gormley should be member not volunteeer per above. - Kittybrewster 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge

You have broken the 3 re-write rule and action will be taken as soon as I alert someone to it.--Couter-revolutionary 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have ZERO understanding of WP:3RR.--Vintagekits 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, this is exactly what you did:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

--Couter-revolutionary 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please report it, I am due a laugh!--Vintagekits 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have done. I do hope it amuses you.--Couter-revolutionary 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me know the outcome (as if I cant predict that one!!!)--Vintagekits 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The outcome is that if you engage in this edit warring again you will be blocked. 3RR is not an entitlement, it is a maximum. I trust this will provide the laugh you are due. Tyrenius 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

so I made two reverts and Couter-revolutionary made two reverts but I am the only one warring? A little harsh I think.--Vintagekits 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a little harsh, but this is with prevention in mind, rather than cure. It also takes into account the general situation and the need to damp down on user conduct which is constantly skirting the boundaries of what is acceptable, as, for example, the tone of your remarks above, which do not strike me as a CIVIL manner of discourse. If this situation continues to deteriorate, then it will get harsher, I'm sure, for you and any other editors who choose to act as if this is a school playground feud, rather than an encyclopedia. Tyrenius 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the NPOV tag? Please reply on his page. - Kittybrewster 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

This edit is taunting and not civil. You have been protected from harrassment so don't engage in provocation of others. Continued behaviour of this nature will result in being blocked. Tyrenius 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I didnt realise that I was taunt, merely sticking up for myself against false accusations. If it was considered taunting then I apologise.--Vintagekits 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please be advised that I have lodged a Request for Comment into your agenda, your behaviour on Wikipedia and your unacceptable treatment of other editors.El chulito 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the link you want is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. You haven't actually filed an RfC into the things you said; you've filed a RfC on issues relating to an article, not to a user. By the way, you're the only person who doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the mediation consensus. Tyrenius 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation consensus

You are not carrying out the consensus format which was member then volunteer. I have made the change to it as here. Please stick to it. Tyrenius 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind to use small "v" for volunteer. I have corrected it on some of the pages, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. Please correct on all other pages as well. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin McCaughey

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Martin McCaughey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove {{prod}} without explaining the reason and inproving the article. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did state that I would add the detail and references later when I removed the prod. I have added the details of the references now and will add fuller detail later tonight. regards.--Vintagekits 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your referencing is below par. It doesn't display the details as it should and as I've mentioned before. I've spelt it out above:

For a book it might look like this:

<ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref>

An online newspaper source would be:

<ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref>

If you want to convince people, do it properly.

Also I think you've misunderstood prod. You should leave it in place as it gives you 5 days breathing space to get the article up to scratch. Then remove it. If you take it down straightaway with the article unchanged, AfD tends to follow as a matter of course.

Tyrenius 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I did misunderstand the prod, but I did state in the edit summary that I would sort it out that night. Anyway, its done now.--Vintagekits 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, read it! "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days. Prod, concern: non-notable person. This template was added 2007-02-08; five days from then is 2007-02-13." [22] Tyrenius 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair it doesnt say anything about iproving the article first.--Vintagekits 10:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But assume good faith of other edits. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour‎- a similar AFD debate Astrotrain 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over prod. Vintagekits was perfectly within his rights to remove the prod template the first time, and it shouldn't have been re-added after that. Contested prods should go to AfD. The policy on prods is quite clear about all of this. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with Mr. Darcy. Sorry for bothering to Vintagekits. Shyam ^(T/C) 04:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. In case it wasn't clear, what I meant by "you should leave it in place" was that it is in your interest not to remove it immediately (even though you are entitled to) as it's likely to invoke an AfD. Tyrenius 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Raymond Gilmour

An editor has nominated Raymond Gilmour, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Bonkers

He's at it again.... I added a more reliable source to the Billy Reid article anyway, the usual suspects won't be able to say Peter Taylor isn't reliable. One Night In Hackney 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers--Vintagekits 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Bonkers has been warned not to repeat this behaviour. Tyrenius 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You corrected me

you corrected me for deleting a part of the Celtic article. I deleted a part that said supporters of Celtic are not victims of sectarianism. They are. Thats what I'm contact you about.

Rory, I didnt revert a bit about sectartianism I reverted this paragraph. "In 2004 Celtic launched its own digital TV channel Celtic TV available in the UK through Setanta Sports on satellite and cable platforms. Since 2002 Celtic's Internet TV channel, Channel67 (previously known as Celtic Replay), has broadcast Celtic's own content worldwide, offers live match coverage to subscribers outside the UK, and now provides 3 online channels." - regards--Vintagekits 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

La Rouche

If you havent seen it see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, SqueakBox 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sligo

If you have not realised just to clarify sligo was not protected. So a new requested would be required to protect. Djegan 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

cool.--Vintagekits 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages

It is better to discuss an article on the article talk page. Other editors can then participate. If there is no response to your talk, you then have effective clearance to implement a change. Tyrenius 00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Gratuitous derogatory comments of this nature are a violation of WP:BLP. Please make sure you do not do this again, or you are likely to be blocked. Tyrenius 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this again is a bit ott when dealing with me, I called them traitors in an AfD. Hardly strong stuff, especially when you compare that to Astrotrain, Major Bonkers, David Lauder et al commenting on every AfD that they are "terrorists", or this or this on the Diarmuid O'Neill AfD.--Vintagekits 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Vintagekits, but you're mistaken here. Calling them traitors is, in the eyes of Wikipedia, identical to calling them terrorists, whether in articles or on talk pages or on AfD. Just don't do it. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Darcy, thats what I am saying - on every AfD the usual mob have been throwing "terrorist" and worse around without a word being said.--Vintagekits 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have issued similar warnings when anyone has used unsubstantiated derogatory terms about a living person, including comment made about you. Another consideration is that they may well be a large number of reliable sources (in wikipedia terms) who substantiate the use of the term for certain individuals. Do you have the same for the use of the word "traitor"? Let us take a legal point of view. Someone who has been found guilty in a court of planting bombs or whatever is not going to have much success if they sue someone for calling them a terrorist. Calling someone a traitor who has not been convicted in a court of "treacherous" acts, could result in a very different outcome. However, the basic principle, as MrDarcy has pointed out, is that WP:BLP applies equally. Tyrenius 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Ty, anyway search Google with any of their names and any of the following words stoolie, rat, grass, supergrass or traitor and there will be plenty of hits. As an aside its funny that the so called "terrorists" are the ones with the support both on the street and in the ballot box while the likes of O'Callaghan, Gilmour et al can never return to Ireland for fear the community would send them to an early grave. Anyway point taken as long as similar disparaging from the other side are dealt with in a similarly heavy handed manner.--Vintagekits 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt the street would tell its own tale. However, this jungle is the wiki one and these are its laws, like it or not. If the Google hits reveal reliable sources, then they can be used. If not, then they are irrelevant for our present purposes. My aim is to treat both, any and all sides equally. Tyrenius 23:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Brendan Hughes

Cheers for starting the article, it's definitely an important one in my opinion. I'm a bit busy working on other articles for the next couple of days, but I'll try and chip in when I can. There's a couple of sources you can use here and here, one of them provides the citation needed for "The Dark". Definitely include the bit about his escape from prison and being on the run as "Arthur McAllister-toy salesman". I've got a couple of books I need to look through for some other information as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 07:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Take a look at Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill#Analysis of sources used when you get a chance. Cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers and good work!--Vintagekits 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An Phoblacht

This article was taken from An Phoblacht’s Remembering the Past page. It was reproduced with the consent and permission of Aran Foley, the journalist who produced the article. For a much more detailed history, An Phoblacht has its own page. Should you wish to confirm this An Phoblacht can be contacted on the links provided. (unsigned comment from 83.71.179.186)

• I'm not sure how you can prove that?--Vintagekits 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Template:WikiProject IRA

If the scope of the project was expanded to include more aspects of Irish republicanism, then I think that your choice of banner would be infinitely better and much more appropriate than the IRA poster. However, as the scope of the project is limited to the IRA, the 1916 flag (a symbol for republicanism and nationalism, which are rather broad ideals) might not work. Slán go fóill! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

we are in 100% agreement--Vintagekits 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

William Fleming

There's one reference for you. One Night In Hackney 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Seán1905

This user is also known as Donnchadh or Cael, see [23] where the tried to vandalise the article there, at the same time as Seán1905 was doing the same to the Republican Sinn Féin article here, whilst here he was attacking me on politics.ie. as Cael. --padraig3uk 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV disputes

You are quuite experienced enought o know the difference between vandalism and a POV dispute so poleas e dont make empty vandalism claims when you are involved in a POV dispute with an editor who you know is not a vandal, SqueakBox 14:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say you were vandalising, please reread what I said. Also you cannot whitewash out the term Malvinas just because it might fall under the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Vintagekits 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

List of British flags

Very few things are "official" in British law. English is not even the "official" language of the UK, "God Ssve the Queen" is not the "official" anthem, and the Union Jack is not the "official" flag. The NI flag is not historical as in a de facto sense (as is clearly stated over and over again, which is not actually necessary to state IMO) it is in present use. Report me if you wish, but I do not see anything "uncivil" in my edit summary. I'm afraid all I have stated is the truth behind your little game. Jonto 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. It was the flag designated for use by the regional government. Since it's creation, it was always the defacto civil flag and still is. Irrespective, in British contexts "officialness" has little definition. The talk page you link to offers little new, apart from your regurgitation of issues that were covered months, if not years ago. 2. If you say so - I'm sure I will lose lots of sleep over it. Jonto 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ulster disam. article- Go raibh míle maith agat a chara! Tír Eoghain abú

Thank you Vintagekits

Vintage thank to again for interest. If you could, would it be possible to link this discussion page to the John Mitchel page. I think it would be very informative, and interesting to those who may visit the page. It would also avoid other users making the same mistakes I have made. I don’t have a problem with using the term Londonderry, were it is appropriate, but in all the literature, I have read on the subject, the term is never used. All I want to do is place a the disposal of other users is as much information on the subject as possible. I have started to reference my edits, on the advice of all who contributed to the article. I think one of the most useful people to contribute to this article will be Ben W Bell, because he his pushing me to get it right. Like I said, could you link this materiel, or possible put it on the John Mitchel page, other users will defiantly benefit, and we can avoid all this in the future.Best regards, Domer

Kittybrewster

If you don't stop harrassing Kittybrewster I shall report YOU! Kittybrewster has done sterling work for Wikipedia and is an intelligent, educated individual. We know nothing about you, other than you support the IRA. David Lauder 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider this a breach of WP:NPA. Please back up your statement with facts.--Vintagekits 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How to back up complaints

Whether posting to me or elsewhere, it is essential to provide diffs of alleged problems. It is up to you as the complainant to provide proof, not just make allegations. Just in case you're not conversant with this, it means clicking on the history button at the top of the article, talk page or whatever and finding the edit that proves your point. You copy the URL at the top of the page, then put a square bracket either end, as in this example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]
Then somebody else can go straight to it and see what you're talking about. You should provide all the relevant diffs concerning the problem. Tyrenius 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Barons and Baronettes

Heho, I quote from Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)

British Peers and holders of courtesy titles (i.e. heirs apparent), as well as those holding the Scottish substantive title of "Master" or "Mistress" given to heirs are automatically notable, as are their spouses. Articles on spouses may be merged with articles on Peers if there is little chance of their articles becoming more than stubs. Other relations of British peers only qualify if they qualify under WP:BIO.

Barons are peers and as such they fell under this point. Baronets are not automatically notable (at the moment) - here are then other (additional) "features" necessary, for example diplomatic, political or academic offices. I hope I could satisfy you :-). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ /

• As Barons do not automatically fall under that "Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses." so do not automatically qualify and because they are "Lesser nobility and gentry" they need to satisfy WP:BIO.

Under the "Lesser nobility and gentry" section of Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) it states - A member of the lesser nobility or gentry who does not meet the above standards may be notable if he or she verifiably meets any two of the following criteria:

1. The subject serves in an official capacity within the government, such as an Ambassador or Administrator.
2. The subject is a member of one or more national orders, such as the Order of the Chrysanthemum or the Order of the Garter.
3. The subject is no further than 8th in the order of succession to the throne.

If the subject meets only one of these requirements, he or she may still be notable under the terms of WP:BIO.

This suggests that Barons and Baronettes do not qualify under WP:ROYAL.

regards.--Vintagekits 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Barons don't belong to the "Lesser nobility and gentry". The Members of the House of Lords are all Peers and have either a hereditary barony or a life barony. Even in the term life peers the word peer is included.

With the "Lesser nobility and gentry", baronets or knights bachelor are meant. They have to meet additonal requirements, how you have posted. ~~ Phoe _talk 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

PS: I quote from hereditary peer:

The ranks of the Peerage are, in descending order of rank, duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron.

~~ Phoe _talk 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Taunting

Per this edit and Tyrenius' warning above, I am blocking you 24 hours for taunting User:Astrotrain during his block. The goal here is to prevent you from taunting him further while he's still on block. This is also a warning that if you do this again you will face a longer-term block. You had absolutely no business inserting yourself into that discussion after the matter had been clearly resolved, and given the rising tensions in your ongoing content dispute with Astrotrain and his friends, your action was completely counterproductive. If you can't behave more civilly in the future, you're not going to be able to edit on Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please recheck this - that comment is not a taunt it is aimed at User:Astrotrain at all the post was for Kitty's comment above my comment in which Kitty stated "the persistent boring relentlessness of another editor" that obviously breaches both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and I was just asked Kitty not to breach the policy- I am not sure how a reminder to not breach policy is a breach of policy? You have either got the posts mixed up or this is a massive case of assuming bad faith. Can yoy please read the comment again and get back to me. regards.--Vintagekits 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Infact Tyrenious warned Kitty here over that exact comment. --Vintagekits 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk page - the comment isn't indented to appear as a reply to Kittybrewster. It looks to me like it was directed at Astrotrain. And while I don't buy your argument, let me ask you this: Why were you responding there *at all*? You weren't in the discussion. Astrotrain was already blocked. If Kittybrewster attacked you, then the appropriate response is to say nothing to him and to take it to an admin (or WP:AN/I, if it's severe enough) for review. When you jump in like that on a third party's talk page and make a comment that taunts or otherwise targets another user, you're just pouring gasoline on the fire, one that in this case was almost out. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Darcy, I am telling you honestly that that was a reply to Kitty to remind that editor not to breach both policies. If it was aimed at Astrotrain why would I say that "Havent you been warned about your breaches on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL" when it was Kitty that was warned about these and not Astrotrain. How can I be the subject or a personal attack and then I remind the editor not to attack me but I get the block. That is possibly THE biggest assumption of bad faith that I have ever read. Can you please reread it. I really hope that you can be big enough to admit that you misread this one. kind regards.--Vintagekits 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Additonally, I have just realised the Astrotrain has not even posted there so it is impossible for that comment to be aimed at Astrotrain.--Vintagekits 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's on Astrotrain's talk page. Comments on another user's talk page are usually be directed towards that user. I'm not unblocking you because even if we accept your explanation - which I don't - you had no business inserting yourself into a discussion of another user's block on that user's talk page. You know that you're at loggerheads with that user and his cohorts. Don't exacerbate it. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For God;s sake, I was replying directly to a breach of NPA in the post IMMEDIATELY above my comment, can you not please use some common sense, it is obvious who the comment was directed at. It is not taunting to ask someone to not breach NPA toward me. Do you think it is reasonable to block someone for asking not to be personally attacked but not block the person who carried out the personal attack. It seems to me like you are just hitting me with a block for no reason at all just because you blocked Astrotrain. To consider my comment taunt is a MASSIVE break of assuming good faith. I will self impose a 7 day block on myself if you are not prepared to accept my genuine word that I was not taunting.--Vintagekits 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious to me. In fact, it was obvious to me that in leaving a comment on Astrotrain's talk page, you were talking to Astrotrain. And you still have not provided any explanation for why you showed up in that discussion anyway. It didn't concern you. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have always thought of you as a fair admin, so I am going assume good faith on this and assume that you really do actually think that I was commenting toward Astro and that you are not just saying that as you dont want to change your mind for fear of losing face. I have already shown how I could not have been commenting towards Astrotrain, I believe I have shown that very clearly. As for the question as to why I was on that page in the first place - Kitty had just directed a personal attack towards me - I have the right to ask that editor to cease that type of behaviour.--Vintagekits 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the right to ask that editor to cease that type of behaviour. You do - on his talk page. But the fact that this was posted on Astrotrain's talk page, in a thread discussing the fact that I blocked him, says to me that you were taunting him. You've been warned previously not to do so, and given how tensions are escalating among you, Astrotrain, and his cohorts, I felt that a block would both defuse that tension and reinforce the earlier warning. As for any "fear of losing face" ... if I thought I was wrong, I would have unblocked you earlier. I don't think I'm wrong, especially given the sniping from both sides of this debate. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that you have made a genuine mistake then. The comment was 1. Not aimed at Astrotrain and you would have to make a massive leap of bad faith to assume that and 2. was not a taunt (again another massive leap of bad faith) but merely a request to Kitty not to make personal attacks towards me, which he had done in the previous comment and which he had been blocked for previously, hence the wording in my messege when I said "Havent you been warned about your breaches on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL" - why would I say that to Astrotrain when Astrotrain has never been blocked for any personal attack on me but Kitty was.--Vintagekits 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

I've been blocked for 24 hours for taunting by a very good a experienced admin called Mr. Darcy. Much of the details of the accusation is set out in the discussion above. Mr. Darcy stated that this comment was an attempt to taunt another editor called Astrotrain who had just been banned. However, the comment I made was in reply to the comment made directly above my comment made by Kittybrewster which was a comment in breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL that was directed at me. Kittybrewster has previously been warned for breaches of these policies towards me and was again warned here for the exact comment that I am stating that my comment was in relation to. Mr. Darcy considers that my comment was directed at Astrotrain and not Kitty, however, Astro had not even posted on that discussion and Kitty had, Astro was already block so there was no point in discussing with him at that stage, my comment was "Havent you been warned about your breaches on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from this in future" however, Astro has never been warned for WP:NPA and Kitty was just warned about it lasty week for a comment towards me. My comment was simply in good faith to ask Kitty not to engage in breaches WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL which he had just done with his previous comment toward me. I am hoping that Mr. Darcy has simply misinterptered that situation and once reread will realise that my comment was in good faith and to ask Kitty not to attack me.

I will ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Vintagekits 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See the thread just above this one for a rather thorough explanation of my reasoning behind the block. I will not oppose an un-block nor will I reblock unless there's a new offense, but I chose not to unblock him because I think that the most likely interpretation is that the taunt was aimed at Astrotrain. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1. To say that the comment was aimed at Astrotrain is firstly an assumption, so the accusation is already starting off on shaky ground.
2. To assume that it was aimed at Astrotrain you solely have to base that on the fact that the comment was left on his talk page. That is pretty much the only argument that you are basing the assumption on, and to make that assumption you would have to ignore that
3. Astrotrain had not posted any comment on that discussion
4. Kitty had just made a personal attack on me in the previous post, namely "the persistent boring relentlessness of another editor"
5. My comment comes directly after that personal attack
6. My comment was a request to stop breaching CIVIL and NPA
7. Kitty was then warned for the exact comment to which I am referring to
8. My comment makes reference to previous blocking for breach of NPA on me which Kitty had been blocked for but Astrotrain had not been
9. And the fact that I have told that the comment was not directed at Astrotrain (obviously zero good faith is being assumed and my word as an editor with near 5000 counts for nothing
10. So after ignoring all of that we get to the only possibly piece of evidence that you are using to assume that the comment was directed Astrotrain and that is that I posted the message on his talk page, the reason I posted the request his talk page (again directly after Kitty's comment) was that the breach of CIVIL and NPA occurred on Astrotrain's talk. I have the right to highlight personal attack here and when they occur.

I am really astounded that such a massive leap of bad faith and an assumption that ignores all common sense and the plain facts as ended up with someone who was subjected to a personal attack ending up with a 24hr block for requesting the personal attacks stop. As I have said, if this block stands then I will self imposing a weeks block on myself instead on the 24hr that Mr. Darcy put in place in protest at this wild assumption of bad faith at every turn. --Vintagekits 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On careful review of the entire thread, I think it is quite possible that Vintagekits meant his comment as he describes it, i.e. not as a taunt of the blocked editor as Mr. Darcy read it. Frankly, even in that context, the comment would have been much better left unsaid, especially in that location, but it probably wouldn't warrant a block. The most important thing is that you remain civil toward (and for awhile, probably avoid interacting at all with) these editors from now on. Please avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility. If you promise to do that I will unblock. Newyorkbrad 12:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you.--Vintagekits 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am now unblocking on the conditions stated. Please bear our understanding in mind. Newyorkbrad 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I feel like a cross between Nelson Mandela and Christopher 'Crip' McWilliams.--Vintagekits 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The analogy to Nelson Mandela is quite a stretch. I'm not familiar with Mr. McWilliams. Please edit some articles removed from the ones that were involved in the dispute. Newyorkbrad 14:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I will stay away from those articles for a few days until things calm down.--Vintagekits 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits did leave a specific complaint on my talk page about this remark by Kittbrewster,[24][25] so I am inclined to believe that the complaint on User talk:Astrotrain was directed at Kittbrewster, following on from a previous remark by the latter [26], which Vintagekits had already just complained about on my talk page. It seems the odd indenting (or lack thereof) could have given rise to a misinterpretation. The moral is to indent properly so it is indented further than the post you are replying to. Also, following this, it would seem best to make any complaints directly to an admin or relevant notice board. I hope there won't be any cause for that anyway and that things will settle down now. Tyrenius 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Stalking?

You seem to be following edits I have made, this is known, I think, as WikiStalking and can be actionable. Please refrain from it, especially when some of the issues are areas you have previously shown no interest in until I edited them.--Couter-revolutionary 23:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider this a breach of WP:NPA if it continues I will be reporting you. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the details of WikiStalking before you go around throwing unfounded accusations about--Vintagekits 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

None of my remarks were personal. You do, however, seem to be drawn to articles which I have edited. Perhaps I am wrong.--Couter-revolutionary 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, you are accusing me of wikistalking, unless I get an apology I WILL be reporting you.--Vintagekits 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot apologise. I have not made a personal attack, nor have I blatantly accused you of anything. I stressed that you seem to be...I shall take my chances with the integrity of an administrator.--Couter-revolutionary 23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the heading of this conversation - there in lies the accusation. If it happens again I will take action.--Vintagekits 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's better.--Couter-revolutionary 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikistalking" means "harrassment". Try referring to Wikipedia:Wikistalking, and it'll take you to Wikipedia: harassment. Editors are allowed to follow one anothers edits, presumably that's what it was set up to do. You should have nothing to worry about unless Vintage is breaking policies. Logoistic 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you my Durham friend.--Vintagekits 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was recently accused of this myself. Logoistic 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am asking you kindly to delete certain comments from the talk-page of Sir Norman Stronge.--Couter-revolutionary 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I decline.--Vintagekits 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling?

That was no spelling mistake. My username does not even have an "n" within it. You have yourself relied on protection of exactly the same grounds before.--Couter-revolutionary 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I told you on Kitty's talk page, I thought your sign was Counter-revolutionary

My above comments stand.--Couter-revolutionary 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say on the issue, you are no milking it and failing to adhere to WP:AGF.--Vintagekits 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Murder vs killing

In reference to the recent edit war(s) you have been involved in over use of "murder" over "killing" (or words to that effect), please comment on the issue here so that we might come to a conclusion. Thank you. Logoistic 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:TPG

Please study WP:TPG. Indent talk just one extra colon : than the preceding post, not by an extra half dozen colons. Tyrenius 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ivor Bell

The wonderful manual of style for lead paragraphs says that there shouldn't be references in the lead because everything there should be in the main article and referenced there. Ivor Bell has a ref to him being chief of the IRA army council, but that should really go in the body. Is Ivor alive (because if he's still breathing he should be in Category:Living people) or dead (in which case the date of his death should normally be given)? Toodle pip, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Federal Commonwealth Society

If you interfere with the posts on AfDs again I will make a complaint on the Administrator's Notice Board. It appears I will not be the first to complain about you. Christchurch 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are suposed to put new comments at the BOTTOM not the top.--Vintagekits 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what policy or guideline CC thinks you've violated, but I have added a strong comment explaining that the organization's notability is not established, with a link to the policy. I'm asking you to now stop accosting every keep !voter with questions or criticisms. It may not be a violation of any policy, but it's definitely obnoxious. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a bang out of order comment Mr.Darcy, the "usual team" of voters have turned up with "Keep" votes without backing them up. All I am asking is that they qualify their opinions, to classify that as "obnoxious" is again failing to assume good faith on my behalf.--Vintagekits 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Have a look at WP:AGF, since you don't seem to understand the guideline. You don't get to harass keep !voters on an AfD and then run and hide behind AGF. The point about notability has been made. Now please knock it off. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a large leap of bad faith to go from requesting clarification of a comment to harassment, combine that with you calling me "obnoxious" and that could be a breach of WP:NPA. I am not really sure why you seem to have it in for me as I have struck to the rules and policies of wiki or is it that I just get so much mud thrown at me by monarchists that you feel some of it has stuck??--Vintagekits 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating All we need is Major Bonkers and we have the full set. was absolutely unnecessary. You have already been warned numerous times about your problems staying within WP:CIVIL. You continue to take no responsibility for the ongoing conflict between yourself and the Kittybrewster/Astrotrain/Lauder group. Regardless of what they have done or said, you have more than played a part in fueling that fire. If you don't want to end up blocked, then keep the commentary to yourself and focus on content. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually think you are being far more uncivil towards me than I have ever been towards any other editor.--Vintagekits 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think that it is uncivil to point out that your behavior has been very aggressive. I'd really like to see you treat the "monarchists" (as you call them) with more respect, whether or not you feel that they're giving the same respect to you. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Books of Interest

Vintagekits, I was leaving a message on Logoistic’s page and noticed the An Phoblacht comments. Aran Foley is one of their Journalists. I read the remembering the past page, get some useful information from it. On that subject of “Killing versus Murder.” There is a very good book by Liz Curtis, entitled, “Ireland: The Propaganda War,” which is very well referenced, and has verifiable sources. Another great book well referenced is Michael Farrell, “Northern Ireland, The Orange State.” Just thought I’d mention them, hope you don’t mind. Regards,--Domer48 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What does it say in them a chara?--Vintagekits 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It deals with the language used during the conflict, for example how one side “murdered,” and the other side “killed.” A quote from Peter Taylor should give you an Idea.

“At the most basic level, where is the conflict taking place? Is it in Ulster? Northern Ireland? The province? The North of Ireland? Or the Six Counties? And once you’ve sorted out the names, what’s actually going on there? Is it a conflict? Is it a war? A rebellion? A revolution? A criminal conspiracy? Or a liberation struggle? Lastly, and probably most important, how do we describe those involved? Are they terrorists? Criminals? The mafia? Murderers? Guerrillas? Or freedom fighters? It depends on your perception of the conflict, and who you happen to be working for at the time.” All aspects of media and its manipulation, with detailed references to support the information. They are a must for anyone genuinely interested.--Domer48 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ivor Bell

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Ivor Bell, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. •Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook)} 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain your accusation?--Vintagekits 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies! Sorry, I just got confused btween you and a vandal. •Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook)} 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

He's asked you not to leave comments on his talk page, so, unless it's important and unavoidable, please don't. It reads as provocation with the history of interaction to date. Tyrenius 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant remember you asking me not to. Anyway, if you didnt want me to I wont unless as you say its "important and unavoidable". regards--Vintagekits 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've lost track, but he's left a note for you. Mine was a pre-emptive message! Tyrenius 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

M62 coach bombing and elsewhere

Vintagekits, we have been through all this before! 1) Please mind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, this rule applies to edit summaries as well as comments and edits, and you failed to show it at Euston Station. 2) My use of the word terrorism in the coach bombing was sourced, don't remove it again. If you wish to counter source it with reliable verification be my guest. 3) Given your relentless quest for "NPOV", this edit by yourself [27] must strike even you as biased. If you want to put such one sided statements into an article, do so with a source and in the correct place. I'm getting really tired of this.--Jackyd101 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the opposite is true, you are the one putting in a slanted view of the issue - am I calling it an act of war carried out by freedom fighters on the agents of our oppressors? no! But you are stating it is acts of violence by terrorists which is a breach of WP:NPOV.--Vintagekits 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The bombing of a coach carrying off-duty soldiers and their families in rural Yorkshire is seen as terrorism by a large proportion of the population. I am aware this in itself is not enough to warant its inclusion, for the use of the word terrorism should be sourced. I have sourced it here and it should remain in the article. If you want to counter source it with the idea that this was not terrorism then feel free. By removing it, you are pushing a directly opposite POV.--Jackyd101 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

By British people maybe - wiki doesnt just promote the British POV - many people would state that it is actually the Britsh Army that are the terrorists. Neutralise your POV in the articles or I will. regards.--Vintagekits 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To note, you have added an NPOV tag to the article. Please can you also add a rationale for the tag to the talk page, otherwise it is meaningless.--Jackyd101 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware Wiki doesn't practise British POV, and if you could find a reliable and acceptable source proclaiming the British Army as terrorists then I have no doubt it would be on Wikipedia faster than I could blink. However, the claim that the M62 coach bombing was a terrorist incident is perfectly legitimate provided it is presented in a grammatically correct manner, doesn't sound like propaganda and most importantly, 'is sourced. I feel that the article as it currently stands conforms to this. If you have some problem with the way the word is presented then it is a simple matter for us to discuss it on the article's talk page. The word itself however is able to legitimately stay as it is properly sourced.--Jackyd101 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is so heavily slanted that it almost needs to be deleted and started again. If you are note prepared to modify the article to provide a NPOV instead of the Anti-republican Pro-British state that it is now then I will.--Vintagekits 00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. The article does not make any anti-republican comments of any kind, in fact it doesn't comment at any point on Irish Republicanism, and barely mentions the IRA. The first half of the article centres on the bombing itself and the second half on the miscarriage of justice which locked up Judith Ward. There is no hyperbole, there are no offensive adjectives and there is nothing derogatory about the IRA. It would not be possible to include anything from the IRA's point of view as they have never admitted culpability or released any comment, a fact which is stated in the article. The entire article is sourced and conforms to WP style guidelines. If you persist in attempting to delete or change it we will have to call in arbitration from somebody mutually acceptable. --Jackyd101 01:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy for that to happen. I am going to remove the absurd categories and they are POV. If you wish to re-edit the "Prosecution" section then I am sure we can come to an argeement with regards the article. Balls in your court.--Vintagekits 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have reworded the prosecution section. It was a hangover from before my recent edits (I'm not sure who wrote it, it may have been me a year ago), and I think the new wording is more acceptable to both sides. The issue of the terrorism categories is one that I'm not going to give in to you on without a very good reason. Is there an appropriate place where these things can be discussed and do you have a preferred person with which to do it?--Jackyd101 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've commented as a 3rd party on the article talk page. Tyrenius 02:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make myself completely clear about my attitude on this subject. The issue of my own political beliefs is both private and irrelevant, because as a Wikipedia editor I should alway attempt to conform to NPOV and thus my own views should not be involved. Thus my belief that articles on IRA attacks should be provided with terrorism categories is based solely on the evidence below. I will also make clear my support of the idea that when the word terrorism is used in the main body of the article it should be placed in context and sourced (As [[here. However, with regard to categories, where this is not possible, you have claimed that the use of terrorist categories is POV and they should be removed in accordance with WP policy. I will respond by stating that this attitude maybe POV, but it is not mine. The terrorist nature of the IRA is the POV of the following (taken directly from the article on the Provisional Irish Republican Army which is well sourced and has been heavily debated):

The PIRA is described as a terrorist organisation by the governments of the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, Germany and Italy . . . It is described as a terrorist organisation by An Garda Síochána, the police force of the Republic of Ireland, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, (PSNI). It is generally called a terrorist organisation by the following media outlets: The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Irish Examiner, the Sunday Independent, the Evening Herald, the Sunday Tribune, Ireland on Sunday and The Sunday Times. On the island of Ireland among political parties Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats who together form a coalition government in the Republic of Ireland refer to it as a terrorist organisation, as do the main opposition parties Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Workers Party, while in Northern Ireland it is described as a terrorist movement by the mainly nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, the cross community Alliance Party, and from the unionist community the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Progressive Unionist Party. Members of the IRA are tried in the Republic in the Special Criminal Court, a court set up by emergency legislation and which is described in its functioning as dealing with terrorism.

To counter this the article then states:

On the island of Ireland the largest political party to suggest that the IRA is not a terrorist organisation is Sinn Féin, currently the largest pro-Belfast Agreement political party in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin is widely regarded as the political wing of the IRA, but the party insists that the two organisations are separate . . . Peter Mandelson, a former Northern Ireland Secretary (a member of the British cabinet with responsibility for Northern Ireland) contrasted the activities of the IRA and those of Al-Qaeda, describing the latter as "terrorists" and the former as "freedom fighters", although its supporters preferred the labels freedom fighter, guerrilla and volunteer.

Therefore, in Wikipedia's own blanket article about the PIRA, the only quasi-reliable sources which described the IRA as anything other than a terrorist organisation during the years under discussion were Sinn Fein itself and a disgraced British politician. In the face of this overwhelmingly one sided mass of reliable and acceptable sources, to remove the terrorism categories from the articles about actions of the PIRA is to provide Undue Weight to the beliefs of a minority. This is my argument for the retention of the categories and I will repeat it whenever required to support this view. --Jackyd101 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the PIRA are a designated Terrorist organisation in the UK and ROI - any crimes perpetrated were/are prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation. Weggie 13:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New sig

I'm gathering evidence of a certain editor's misconduct, and there's plenty of it too! One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a shout if you need help.--Vintagekits 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. You could always post about your problems at the same time as me anyway? One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Please read up on WP:TPG. You should not remove another editor's comments unless there is an extreme reason for doing so. In this case, simply inserting a space would allow the "vote" to be carried on. You should avoid as much as possible any inflammatory acts. Tyrenius 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It stated avoid the discussion was to end for we could see where we were up to, further discussion would only continue to muddy the water. I took this tactic for your solution of the Volunteer issue.--Vintagekits 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the procedure, and understand why you felt the comment was disrupting it (it was not appropriately placed), but another solution such as a sub heading for "comments" or even ; to create a bold heading would separate it off and keep the peace.

Also this edit summary was not very friendly. If you have a point to raise, do it civilly on the talk page, rather than the edit summary. Astrotrain had, as far as I can see, moved the page correctly to a new title. It appears he was not quite so accurate in the lead section per WP:MOS, but that should not be taken as disruptive, if it was a good faith edit. Tyrenius 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WHat was his reason for removing Slabs name in Irish?? Blatant provocation imo.--Vintagekits 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF unless you can prove otherwise and are supported by 3rd parties, in which case continued behaviour can be addressed in an appropriate way. Otherwise your conduct will be seen as at fault. It is better to leave a note to explain to the editor what they have done wrong and quote appropriate policy or guidelines, per WP:MOS for example. Tyrenius 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you havent noticed he has stop replying to my messages so its like talking to the wall.--Vintagekits 12:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a disputed edit and you leave a post on the talk page which the other editor does not answer, they are at fault. But check it's not just an oversight, if necessary by pointing them to the article talk page with a note on their user talk page. Tyrenius 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintage

Thanks for the information. Cheers. (Roaster2008 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

WP:CIVIL, etc.

Please try to remain calm and cool when in disputes with other editors. In reviewing your edit history with regards to User:Roaster2008, it's clear that you're only escalating the situation. You can use templated messages (in this case, {{nn-warn}} and {{drmspeedy}} would work) to help keep things from getting out of hand. -- Merope 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I didnt know those tags, I got a little uncivil because he has been vandalising my talk page. Additonally see this edit--Vintagekits 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag

Hi. I appreciate that you want to keep the vote looking plain and simple. However, my vote comes with a proviso. I'd like the text to remain in place. Thanks. --Mal 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, can you trim it down to "A - unless C becomes a reality. If D gets a majority, then B will have to be put in place." Because it conveys your message and is less wordy, I just fear that your post will encourage other to discuss. regards--Vintagekits 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

see what I mean--Vintagekits 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My incident at WP:AN/I

Even though my incident is solved, just be a bit more careful when adding new incidents to the bottom of the page, thanks. I was wondering where this went.  :( x42bn6 Talk 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Recent comment on flag debate

Moved as requested. Sorry about that. Martin 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs and thanks, its just that we are trying to find if there is a consensus and one bit of chat will just lead to this excersise being rendered useless.--Vintagekits 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, and I should have thought of it myself. All the best, Martin 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vkits; I am a bit puzzled as to how you decide which version of contested text (re infobox flag NI) gets to stay put while the issue is debated? Do votes count or not? If this vote can be ignored then surely I can ignore the vote on the RoI title that I find unacceptable and wrong? So let's call the article "Ireland" while we debate it? (Sarah777 00:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

No one is ignoring anything, we must give this time for everyone to have their say - how many of the sixteen or so people involved in the discussion have shown their preference so far?--Vintagekits 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. But in the meantime let's have the version Padraig put up a week ago (which was reverted immediately by Sony on the basis of.....remarkably little! (I have sworn off this type of issue but was dragged back into it....did you know that Ballyroan, County Laois has an Angela Delaney sculpture? It was paid for by the Ballyroan Waste Water One Percent for Art Scheme. Not many people know that. (Sarah777)

Bloody Sunday

As you are well aware, adding that the soldiers "murdered" people into the events of the day [28] is inflammatory and and bad wiki-ettiquete; you have argued strongly on several other pages [29] [30] that words which violate your interpretation of POV should not be allowed, and editors have generally worked to find a compromise. You have also stated that CAIN is an authorative source for which word should be used (BTW, your source is not CAIN, its the title of a report of unknown content in the CAIN bibliography) in the actual CAIN article the word murder is only used in a quote [31], which is already in the WP article. The main descriptive word in tha CAIN piece is "killed". I'm not going to change it because I have no desire for an edit war (although I'm sure someone else will), but I suggest you try to tone down inflammatory edits like this if you want to be taken more seriously, beacause behaviour like that seems a little hypocritical.--Jackyd101 02:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Come off it....are you saying the soldiers DIDN'T murder those people? (Sarah777 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Its completely irrelevant what I think. My point is that it is a POV that the soldiers murdered the people (a POV which is well representend and referenced in the article, but still only a POV as there were no murder convictions for the event), but to place a word like that in the main descriptive body of the text is both deliberately inflammatory and undermines Vintagekits' own efforts on other pages to remove words he views as POV. For example at the M62 coach bombing, which Vintagekits' himself helped to shape and discussed throughly, the word murder is never used and the word terrorism only in a sourced context in the reaction section.--Jackyd101 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your response highlights a very serious problem for En Wiki when dealing with all manner of rebellions and reactions to Western Imperialism (which goes well beyond NI issues). The issue is too big to discuss here, but it is the excessive weight given to Western Establishment legalism by the Wiki establishment, even when, as in occupation situations, such 'legality' is simply part of the propaganda war. For example; you seem to imply that without a (British) Court conviction, murder by British soldiers cannot be described as such. This sounds very like the US thinking in Iraq and various other places. Maybe we should NEVER use the word 'murder' as it is a loaded term? Or only qualified versions such as "X was convicted of murder"; Does that imply X killed anyone? "No, only that a Court controlled by a Government said he did". "Soldier Y was found innocent of murder"; Does that mean Y didn't kill someone? "No, only that a Court controlled by a Government said he was". (Sarah777 05:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Please study WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. However, you are correct that the effect of this is to give weight to the status quo, at least as represented by official bodies and major media outlets. If you're not happy with that, then you must change the policy, failing which it has to be applied. Tyrenius 05:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not too happy with that. But I do find that "polices must be applied" a moveable feast when it comes to specific items. So I will make my decisions on a case by case basis. I prefer TRUTH over POLICY every time. After all, what is the value of a Wiki that is just a compendium of Government lies?! (Sarah777 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Astrotrain. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats some serious work a chara.--Vintagekits 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to leave out the whole flag dispute because I basically don't have a clue about who's actually right and wrong in that situation, but there's plenty to be going on with isn't there? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An understatement if eer there was one.--Vintagekits 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked your emails? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Havent been able to access my email address for a while, sorry.--Vintagekits 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In consort? Oh the irony! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Check your email please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the first one, I'm tired and cocked up. The second one is right. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

No problem there - apart from the fact the comment is in the wrong place by the looks of it. In an RfC particularly there will be blunt views, as long as they are not unrestrained personal attacks in an abusive manner. Tyrenius 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

more of the usual accusations without diffs or proof. This editor seems to have catre blanche when it comes to this.--Vintagekits 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC is a special case. Lack of proof or diffs weakens any statement considerably. Not exactly carte blanche - he has been blocked before. Tyrenius 04:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Assertion of Notability

Biographies The following types of military figures are always notable: Recipients of a country's highest military decoration. People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat. [Weggie note - i.e. a general] Holders of top-level command positions (e.g. Chief of the General Staff). People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works. If a military figure does not meet any of the above, but has non-trivial mention in one or more published secondary works (family history and genealogies excluded), they are probably notable. (unsigned comment by Weggie)

This does not mean a general is automatically notable, if anything it shows that they are not.--Vintagekits 20:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kittybrewster

Rd. this exchange: if it is a comment on an edit in an article, then please put it on the article talk page. That is what article talk pages are for. Other editors are then able to participate. Kittybrewster has asked you not to post on his talk page, so you should not unless it is unavoidable. There is a tension between you, and he clearly finds it irritating. The next time you do something like this, I will regard it as deliberately provocative. Complaints about him - post to me, MrDarcy or a noticeboard. Article comments or questions, post on article talk page, and there's no need to personalise it by commenting on the editor: stick to the nature of the edit. If no one comments after at least 24 hours, then you can regard yourself as having some clearance for your viewpoint. I can't see any reason why you need now to post on his page. If there is one, let me know. Tyrenius 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty does not own his talk page, I had a direct question about this edit on an article, so it should be asked on their talk page. It comes as no surprise to be that you attack the editor who has had the wrong done to them instead of pretecting them. What is the point of only going to ask you to intervene if you never to anything. --Vintagekits 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I did do something. It just wasn't what you wanted me to do. If you have a question about an edit on an article, that is what the article talk page is for. This also allows other editors to participate. Hey, I've just said that a few lines earlier. I am not attacking you. I am advising and warning you. No one owns their user or talk page, but it is generally accepted that users do have some rights to conduct certain matters regarding them, one being to ask users to not post to them, unless it is unavoidable. You've been clearly asked not to post, so don't. It will just be provocative. I did protect the editor who had the wrong done to them. Tyrenius 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think that ignoring simply questions and archiving questions to avoid answering them is acceptable behaviour then I think your credability is taking a nose dive.--Vintagekits 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL, I find Tyrenius to act fairly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I( am cool a chara, however, Ty has struck up a nice little email relationship with Kitty recently and now appears to be blind to blatant uncivil behaviour that would see me recieving a block if I carried out the same behaviour. See here for further detail. And then dares to call my simple question "deliberately provocative" - I would say that archiving an unanswered direct question "deliberately provocative".--Vintagekits 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. Anyone can email anyone else. You seem to be implying that has affected my behaviour. You have not a clue what any email was about. I'm often emailed by editors and admins. But seeing as you are so curious, it was a simple technical enquiry. As far as your "see here" goes, I've already dealt with that. It was your continuing posts on Kitty's talk page. Users have a fair bit of latitude on their user and talk pages. You have completely distorted what I said. I did not say your simple question was deliberately provocative. I said if you continue to make such posts on his talk page in the future having been asked by him not to and advised by me not to, then it will indeed be provocative, unless there is a very good reason. Talking about an article is not a good reason. That's what article talk pages are for. I don't recall every blocking you. Tyrenius 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You can't endorse it as well though, so you'll need to remove that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Your edit.[32] Tyrenius 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The mildest of "attacks" and similar to what you ignored against me it the past days. I cant be arsed arguing with you over this as you have made up your mind. Astrotrain was deliberately provoking me by try to get the word British into the Celtic article - which he being a Scottish editor knows would wind up anyone with connections to Celtic. If you look at the edit history he has had that edit taken out before - you fell for it - well done. I need a break from this sess pit of POV anyway so thanks. I have just noticed that User:Mais oui!, has remove the term British - once again, nice of you to bite.--Vintagekits 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Celtic and that British reference

Vintagekits, I've reinserted 'first British...' in the Celtic FC, History of Celtic Fc and Lisbon Lions articles - see the reasos given here - Talk:Celtic_F.C.#First_British_.2F_Northern_European_Club_to_win_the_European_Cup. I don't agree that this "would wind up anyone with connections to Celtic" - see Celtic's own history page here - http://www.celticfc.net/aboutus/inbrief.aspx. Let me know what you think. Hippo43 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed in again, its a redundant statement. They statement is clarified and there is no need to add British. regards

That apology

Remember the apology I said you'd get if I said it turned out you weren't Bluegold? Well, unless you're exceedingly devious, and can type with both hands, and have two PCs, I think that there's pretty strong evidence that you aren't connected to Bluegold. So, I was quite wrong in claiming that you were a sockpuppet of Bluegold, and I withdraw the accusation. I hope you'll accept my apology. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem.--Vintagekits 12:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re tags.

Thanks for that Vintagekits. I have a lot of ref'ed information nearly ready for this page. Regards--Domer48 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New pages

Make sure you add {{WP:IR}} to the talk pages of anything new you create please, that way they get added to the project category. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--Vintagekits 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivor Bell Part 2

I've given it a good going over. I've removed the socialist and anarchist parts pending a source as they are contradictory, plus they didn't look right where they were once I moved Irish Republican into the lead. Let me know what you think. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, also I think he was an Anarchist firstly--Vintagekits 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll check my books over the next couple of days, when it can be sourced I'll put it back in...if I can figure out where the best place is anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge photo

• In response to the following edit description regarding a photograph of Sir Norman Stronge, "will be looking into the fair use of this image - where was it obtained from. I have another picture of him but I am not sure it could ever be used on here", you show yourself to be offensive, crass, and lacking in a common sense of taste and decency. --Counter-revolutionary 14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)::what are you talking about, I have a photo of him from An P showing him in "all his regal garb" - however, it is copyrighted so cannot be used on here. I consider this another direct personal attack for you, for which you will be reported.--Vintagekits 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Righto. If you have a picture of Sir Norman, "in regal garb", perhaps you could contact the copyright owner in an attempt to gain permission. I presume you know who owns the copyright as you know it's copyrighted. --Counter-revolutionary 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please let's not try and cause problems when there aren't any, a little of of assuming good faith wouldn't go amiss. The picture is likely to be permissible under fair use, especially if it shows him in his garb and he is deceased so a free version cannot be created. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I now agree.--Counter-revolutionary 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that your idea of an apology for that digusting outbrust - I am getting pretty sick of this to be honest!--Vintagekits 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment, directly before this, was an attempt at resolution. I have striked through the initial statement.--Counter-revolutionary 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no apology however!--Vintagekits 11:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The note on my talk page regarding this did not make any reference to an apology, I have retracted the statement.--Counter-revolutionary 11:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you just struck the comment out because you want to avoid and block and not because you were bang out of order!?--Vintagekits 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have retracted the comment, it would be good to move on.--Counter-revolutionary 11:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oho, do stop sniping. The comment has been retracted - end of subject. Vk might now like to answe rONiH's point about the photograph. What is the source? - Kittybrewster 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sniping and consider that a breach of WP:CIVIL if not a breach of WP:NPA - you have made massive deal about not wanting me to go on your talk page and I been asked by Tyrenius to stay off your talk page to keep the peace but you still consider that you have carte blanche to come on MY talk and have a go at me AND on a subject that has nothing to do you with. If you dont want me on your talk page then you should stay off mine, I will be also reporting you for the breach of policy and provoking me by coming on my talk page.--Vintagekits 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine; you go ahead and report me in the usual way. My concern here is not to attribute fault, blame, revenge or punishmet but to bring everybody back to the central issue which is of consequence - namely improving the Norman Stronge article. - Kittybrewster 12:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Righto, I apologise. I was not aware Wikipedia was a moral playground but, in the interests of allowing constructive comment to resume, and given I have already retracted my comment, that is what I shall say as close.

Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen

I have added three references, from three different and independent sources, that demonstrate Sir Bernard's notability. Also, I believe that all Lord Mayors of London are intrinsicaly notable.--Newport 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe they are, its any honorary title, the Mayor of London is automatically notable but not the Lord Mayor of London. Waley-Cohen MAY achieve notability through his other work, I would add the details of the orb into the article as its a poor article at the moment. regards--Vintagekits 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My block for 3RR??

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think you will find that I have not broken the 3RR, I have ONE edit and THREE reverts - its is Kitty that has broken the 3rr. I tried on numerous occasions to discuss this with Kitty and infact stopped reverting his edits as he was not listening to me. Can you please check the edit history again and you will see that I had ONE edit - they were not all reverts - Yamla - can you please look at the timeline I have provided below for the details of how I did stop the edit war and tried to discuss. thank you

Decline reason:

You misunderstand 3RR, it is not a license to perform three reverts without being blocked. While I probably would not have blocked you for this, I can find no evidence that you stopped and tried to discuss this matter. As such, it would be inappropriate for me to unblock you at this time. — Yamla 05:11, 11 March 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.

How can Kitty break the 3RR and get a warning but I dont and get a block!] Please explain - this is absurd - I am totally baffled!--Vintagekits 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Am advising the blocking administrator of the unblock request. Newyorkbrad 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, also now a "new" editor have accused me of [spamming here and I am not even able to reply and stand up for myself because of this!--Vintagekits 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Kitty has also broken 3RR here. If you look at Kittys talk page you will see my attempts to resolve this - my messeges where ignored - this is bang out of order.--Vintagekits 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, please read the Three-revert rule: it is not a licence to perform three reverts. I might have issued only a warning if it was not for the wide extent of your reverts and your previous history of blocks for breaches of WP:CIVIL etc, and in this case you appear to have been engaged in a spate of tendentious editing. Your point about notability of baronets could have been discussed rather than spreading NN tags across many articles, and should have been discussed once challenged.

Your addition of NN tags to a series of Barons (including John Lubbock, 3rd Baron Avebury and Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander) is baffling: some cursory discussion would have established that those people all had seats in the House of Lords, because they were Barons. (Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom all had seats in the House of Lords until 1999).

I should, perhaps, have listed disruptive and tendentious editing as further reasons for the block, but was concerned to to stop the edit warring ASAP, so kept it short.

The reason I did not implement a block on Kittybrewster is that Kittyb was a) not trying to spread the dispute as you were doing, and b) does not have your long history of blocks. As per my warning to User:Kittybrewster, I accept that another admin may make a different call on that case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I am not trying to spread the dispute - I did not break the 3RR and Kitty did so your handling of this is VERY strange to say the least.
2. Not all Barons get a seat in the House of Lords if you read the Baron artcile you will see that. And the articles that I added tags to had NO MENTION of them being in the House of Lords so therefore zero proof of notability and therefore I added the prod tags.
3. I stopped reverting Kittys reverts at 00.41 because Kitty was not responding to MY ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THIS - see his talk page for proof and my edit summaries for timings - so this proves that I tried to discuss the tags and that I refused to be drawn into an edit war and shows that Kitty was the editor that refused to act reasonably and discuss (also see my edit summaries) and when it was clear the Kitty would not discuss the issue that I stopped reverting.
4. Kitty kept reverting and I STOPPED not the other way around - see his edit history for proof. # how is Kitty not spreading the dispute by removing the prods without attempting to discuss or to improve any of the articles.
5. I do not have a long history of blocks and have never been blocked for 3RR and infact Kitty has a block for breach of WP:NPA ON ME so that might give a reasonable admin cause to suspect why his editing against me was so disruptive towards me. The Prod tags are not an attack on articles they are to improve them, I would gladly remove them if and when notablity is shown - if I was being disruptive I would have AfD'ed the article but I didnt.
6. if you look at the discussion above on Mr. Cohen - that editor contacted me to discuss the prod on that page and I helped to add to the article and prove notability - that proves my good faith. I even explained on your talk page why the tags were added.

There is NO logic to this decision, I have numbered each of my points for ease of discussion. If you have made a mistake I would really appricate if you would just admit it and revert the block--Vintagekits 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ^{Superscript text}

Vintagekits, I'll try one last reply tonight:

1. Please read WP:3RR, especially where it says "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive."
   Your behaviour was clearly disruptive.
2. No, until 1999 all Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom had a seat in the Lords. If you doubt that, discuss it, but don't engage in edit warring and mass tagging to make a point.
3. Kittybrewster's reverts offered a reason, and at that point you should have ought to dicuss the reasons. Instead you wrote "Pleae read up on what the notability tags are for before continually removing them without improving the article. By simply removing the tags you are forcing me to AfD the articles."
   Nobody was "forcing" you to AFD anything; you chose to mass tag rather than discuss the point of disagreement, and your msg to Kittyb did not respond in substance to your musunderstanding about Barons.
4. the history of the articles shows edit warring, and if you think that the message on his talk page as an attempt to resolve the substantive dispute, then please think again. You simply did not try to address Kittyb's point about automatic notability of Barons, and the article on Barons which you have linked to above offers nothing to back your case.
5. Your block log does show a history of blocks.
6. Please read Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts: "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith."

In summary, you have been edit warring, restored tags inappropriately, and until the block it appears that you made no attempt to discuss the substantive issues. As you'll see on my talk page, I tink that you may have a point about the notability of baronets; but now that you know it is contentious, please discuss it and try to resolve it rather than mass tagging and edit warring.

I know that this sort of situation is frustrating and even upsetting, but please remember that a block is not an opportunity to take time out and come back to discuss things when you feel less aggrieved. I look forward to seeing you talk these issues through when your block has expired. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont go to bed yet - I am good to reply to this now.--Vintagekits 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. You are choosing to ignore that I discussed the edits I made, you are choosing to ignore that the 3RR is not usually invoked unless the editor make FOUR reverts, you and choosing to ignore that I did not do this, you are choosing to ignore that Kittybrewster actually broke the 3rr TWICE tonight you are choosing to ignore the fact that I left messeges on Kittys talk page to try and discuss the issue, you are choosing to ignore that Kittybrewster has already been blocked for NPA on me so therefore has a grudge towards but - but are are also choosing to pick out that it doesnt have to be four revert - this angle IS NEVER taken on someone in my position who has never broken the 3RR before and also discussed his edits. AT EVERY TURN YOU ARE ASSUMING BAD FAITH ON MY BEHALF AND ASSUMING GOOD FAITH ON KITTYS AND INVOKING OBSCURE RULES - why is this especially when I was the one trying to resolve this?
2. READ Baron and you will see that NOT ALL BARONS AUTOMATICALLY GET INTO THE HOUSE OF LORDS - additionally there is no mention of those articles that they were in the house of lords - I am not a mind reader so therefore must assume that they are not in the house of lords if an article doesnt say they are.
3. Kitty did not EXPLAIN his edits and it is a normal course of events that if an editor removes nn prod tags without showing notability or improving the article that the article goes to AfD - that is what I meant by " you are forcing me to AfD the articles".
4. Read about Barons from a Scottish liniage and you will see that they do NOT AUTOMATICALLY GAIN A SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS and nor to Barons after 1999.
5. I am not denying I have had blocks - I have had three - but one was for three hours and another was overturned and NONE were for 3RR.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT I DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS IT WHEN HERE is the PROOF and is timed at 00.32 and the block was at 01.18 (funnily enought Kitty stopped editing 3 minutes after my block - he must have been laughing his way off to bed!)- there is NO LOGIC behind any of your arguements. And I stopped reverting at 00.41 but Kitty continued to revert for another half and hour - NO LOGIC.

You have made a wrong decision here and please be big enough to admit it and especially as you just warned Kitty - why just warn Kitty and block me when it was Kitty that would not enter into a discussion and DID actually break 3RR TWICE - I am so close to swearing and getting a long ban because of this disgrace which I will NEVER forget or forgive.

Show my ONE thing that I did that Kitty didnt, show me one time that Kitty tried to improve an article and prove notability, show me one time that Kitty tried to discuss the issue.

The prods I added were in good faith, only User:Newport tried to discuss the prod with me, on [[Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen and I helped him prove notability, I left messeges on Kittys talk page to discuss the tags - KITTY IGNORED my messeges and would not discuss. --Vintagekits 02:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Baron page - a baron is "being the lowest rank in the peerage". "In Scotland, the rank of baron is a rank related to feudal nobility of Scotland and refers to a holder of a feudal barony, a feudal superiority over a proper territorial entity erected into a free barony by a Crown Charter, and not a rank of Peerage." - therefore they do not automatically get a seat in the House of Lords, i even informed Kitty of this on a number of occasions as you can see here - enough said - but you will probably choose to ignore this also. --Vintagekits 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am so peed off about this that I am still up - I am still astounded by the wharped logic that you have used to come to your decision and your blindly ignoring of Kitty breaches and my attempts to discuss the issue on his tyalk page - I am dismayed, outraged and (I had just typed out a long paragrapgh with swear words and abuse towards you but I have now deleted it and hope you come you your senses and will look a fresh on this subject.) Here is the timeline of events today.

1. 14:31, 9 March 2007 - Couter rev (who is a friend and close counterpart of Kitty breach a personal attack on me here
2. 11:57, 10 March 2007 - Although Kitty has been told to stay off each others talk page unless totally needed Kitty leaves this comment reading Couters comment - which was totally uncalled for and had nothing to do with Kitty and he had no business butting in. See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=114047280&oldid=114046765 here]
3. 12:03, 10 March 2007 - I informed Kitty here that I considered that a breach of policy and that he shouldnt page on my talk page without good reason.
4. 18:25, 10 March 2007 - I was then drawn to the actions of User:O'Donoghue (who I have a massive suspicions is a sockpuppet of New Identity by this edit here. I then went through his edits as history edit pattern and history bearing a strong corallation to that of User:New identity and User:Inthegloaming.
5. 18:26, 10 March 2007 - Found a number of articles that he had created that should no proof of notability, see here, here, here, here all with highly dubious claims to notability.
6. 18:54, 10 March 2007 to 19:24, 10 March 2007 and 20:23, 10 March 2007 to 21:29, 10 March 2007 - I then here went through a category with a load of people with no obvious claims to notability.
7. 23:50, 10 March 2007 - Kitty systematically remove ALL of the tags without improving or adding to any of the articles.
8. 00:17, 11 March 2007 - I began re adding the tag, as I have been asked to stay off his talk page I initially tried to get my messege through in the talk summary as can be seen here
9. 00:32, 11 March 2007 - My first attempt to discuss the issue with Kitty was here
10. 00:35, 11 March 2007 - I got no reply from Kitty and he continued to revert or change to expand but I tried to discuss again here
11. 00:42, 11 March 2007 - I got no reply from Kitty and Kitty kept on reverting the tags so I stopped reverting as it was turning into an edit war and becoming childish.
12. 00:44, 11 March 2007 - This is where I gave up on the revertions as there was no communication coming back.
13. 00:45, 11 March 2007 - you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kittybrewster see from Kittys edit history that from here on in he kept reverting and has the "top" edit on the articles.
14. 01:18, 11 March 2007 - you blocked my despite the fact I had stopped editing.
15. 01:21, 11 March 2007 - Kitty has his job done, stops editing and goes to bed.

Now that is an exactly timeline of what has happened.--Vintagekits 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject here, VK was not adding prod tags he was adding {{nn}} tags which are not subject to the same rules as prod tags. nn tags do no propose an article for deletion, they merely suggest that an editor believes an article does not meet notability guidelines, and that other editors should improve them. Removal of those tags without improving the article or explaining why the person already meets notability guidelines isn't particularly helpful. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all encyclopaedias have huge entries on every subject. Some just have a few lines. Vintagekits is a serious disruptive and very rude influence on Wikipedia. Those of us who are attempting to compile a decent encylopaedia according to the Founder's wishes feel harrassed, threatened, and oppressed by his frenetic attacks and arrogance all of which he dresses up under Wikipedia rules. It is unacceptable. David Lauder 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note the above editor is one of a set of 5 of so editors including User:Kittybrewster, User:Astrotrain and User:Couter-revolutionary who to all intents and purposes act as one or as one admin called act in "lock step". Full details of this abuse of AfD's and canvasssing have been outlined here additonally on top of that since I put together those details another example has occured here just today. This will give an insite into the works of this group and also note that this group have five often "throw around accusations" but are rearly good at providing diffs or mislead admins in order to get me blocked. here, here, here, here, here and here. regards--Vintagekits 10:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theories are meaningless. No-one is acting in a "set". Do you honestly think it is impossible for more than one person to share a similar genuine concern? The crucial thing is that none of the people in the "set" you refer to are insulting others with an array of silly accusations or attacking articles under the guise of working within the multitude of Wikipedia rules. You seem to take a superior attitude towards others. They're always wrong, You're always right. Well, you're wrong. David Lauder 10:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Blatant canvassing and acting as one has been point out by others (including admin) and proven as has acting in favour of "what you like" instead of what wiki policy is - you say that I hide behind wiki policy, I dont, I use wiki policy to influence my editing which is what an editor is supposed to do. Anyone who cares to dig deeper into this will make their own conclusions - I encourage their interest.--Vintagekits 10:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

THE SHOCK OF ALL SHOCKS!!!!! I HAVE JUST SPOTTED THAT THE ADMIN WHO BLOCKED ME IS PART OF THE BARONET PROJECT - and guess who else is a also a member of the project, yes you guessed it, User:Kittybrewster - it is all slotting into place now why I (who didnt breach 3RR) was blocked yet User:Kittybrewster who did breach 3RR TWICE here and here was only given a warning - this is I believe because of the bias that BrownHairedGirl has towards User:Kittybrewster. I was stunned by the initial decision and as you can see above have profusely agrued my case because I thought the decision was absurd and illogical but I didnt realise the conflict of interest that BHG had until now and I must say it explains a lot. Surely this is a conflict of interest and shows that as both BrownHairedGirl and User:Kittybrewster, who are two of the ten or so editors signed up to the Baronet have a relationship and this decision was made out of bias not policy. Also because this disupte was over the subject of Baronets then BrownHairedGirl should have stay out of this and let another admin deal with it and further explains the absurd decision to ingore all the evidence I have put forward as to why it was Kitty who breached the policy and refused to discuss the issue has been ignored. Can I have another admin step in and take a fresh view of this. I would like another admin to look at this issue because I do not believe it was fair (as viewed that is backed up by another admin here) nor I believe BrownHairedGirl has acted in good faith or even handedly.--Vintagekits 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hardly think there is a Team Baronetcy conspiracy against you.--Counter-revolutionary 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• The facts show otherwise - explain then why Kitty broke the 3RR twice I never broke it but I get a block and Kitty gets a warning!--Vintagekits 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(Moved below by admin as it somehow broke the tag)

Decline reason:

I agree with the various admin replies above. Just... relax, forget about the other user's actions and don't editwar again. There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. — Sandstein 21:03, 11 March 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.

Block by an admin with a blatant conflict of interest for 3RR when I did not break 3RR an editor who the blocking admin is related to via the Baronet Project who actually did break 3RR and refused to communicate only got a warning. The blocking admin is a member of the BARONET PROJECT the other editor involved, User:Kittybrewster is a also a member of the project. I believe this is why I (who didnt breach 3RR) was blocked yet User:Kittybrewster who did breach 3RR TWICE here and here was only given a warning - this is I believe because of the bias that BrownHairedGirl has towards User:Kittybrewster and therefore against me. I was stunned by the initial decision and as you can see above have profusely agrued my case because I thought the decision was absurd and illogical but I didnt realise the conflict of interest that BHG had until now and I must say it explains a lot. Surely this is a conflict of interest and shows that as both BrownHairedGirl and User:Kittybrewster, who are two of the ten or so editors signed up to the Baronet have a relationship and this decision was made out of bias not policy. Also because this disupte was over the subject of Baronets then BrownHairedGirl should have stay out of this and let another admin deal with it and further explains the absurd decision to ingore all the evidence I have put forward as to why it was Kitty who breached the policy and refused to discuss the issue has been ignored. Can I have another admin step in and take a fresh view of this. I would like another admin to look at this issue because I do not believe it was fair (as viewed that is backed up by another admin here) nor I believe BrownHairedGirl has acted in good faith or even handedly

Reply to Yamla

Please see timeline for details of me stopping the edit war and my unanswered attempts to discuss the issue with Kitty.--Vintagekits 05:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ONiH

If you look here I put together some details and references with regards the Loughall ambush - you might want to lift that into the East Tyrone article.--Vintagekits 10:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look later, I'm busy sorting out the Northern Bank robbery article right now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Barons in the House of Lords

The following comment by Vintagekits is copied from the discussion above:

From the Baron page - a baron is "being the lowest rank in the peerage". "In Scotland, the rank of baron is a rank related to feudal nobility of Scotland and refers to a holder of a feudal barony, a feudal superiority over a proper territorial entity erected into a free barony by a Crown Charter, and not a rank of Peerage." - therefore they do not automatically get a seat in the House of Lords, i even informed Kitty of this on a number of occasions as you can see here - enough said - but you will probably choose to ignore this also. --Vintagekits 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, you obviously didn't read my comment above, where I wrote:

Your addition of NN tags to a series of Barons (including John Lubbock, 3rd Baron Avebury and Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander) is baffling: some cursory discussion would have established that those people all had seats in the House of Lords, because they were Barons. (Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom all had seats in the House of Lords until 1999).

Both those Barons were and are categorised under Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. The caveats about Scottish Barons therefore do not apply.

It's quite understandable that you may not have been aware of the distinction between Scottish Barons and Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. However, you did not discuss the problem; you started edit warring, and insisted that the articles include further evidence of notability, when none was needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can you say that I did not try to discuss - just ignore this and just ignore this - Kitty ignored it so why dont you aswell eh!--Vintagekits 11:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You select what you want to see and ignore the blatant fact just to hide your disgraceful decision to block someone who didnt breach 3RR and just warn someone who did (TWICE) - there is no asertion or proof in those articles that these two Barons sat in the House of Lords - just ingore that as you did everything - I did discuss the issue with Kitty - I got no response - why are you ignoring this? NO PROOF THE WERE IN THE LORDS THEREFORE NO PROOF OF AUTOMATIC NOTABILITY - but just ignore that eh because facing facts would mean that you would have to admit you were wrong and we couldnt have that could we! Just ignore the absuse I have suffered and base your whole arguement about a block for 3RR around the fact that two articles had Cats inserted without proof - this disgusts me and I will never forget your behaviour here. I know you are never going to revert the block because you would rather not lose face. Its a disgrace to wiki and an abuse of you admin powers.--Vintagekits 11:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Baron of the United Kingdom"; that is the evidence they were in the Lords.--Counter-revolutionary 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• No it is not! Scottish Barons dont automatically get a seat and SHOCK of shocks - Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander - he lived in Mugdock Castle - where is that SCOTLAND!!! But just ignore that because it doesnt suit your outlandish assumptions.--Vintagekits 11:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you are under the misguided impression the Couter rev is a impartial observer - see here for the abuse he dished out yesterday.--Vintagekits 11:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also note this recent post here which suggest again that not even all English Barons get a seat in the house of lords and that they need to be accepted if they apply. But just ignore that because your whole claim for 3RR is based around the bogus assumption that one of the articles has a category of "peerage" - without any reference or mention of it in the article. Can you ignore this NOW?--Vintagekits 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deindent to stop it getting too complicated. I think you may be mistaking two concepts, those of "Scottish Peers" and "Peers from Scotland". From 1707 until 1963, Peers in the Peerage of Scotland did not automatically get a seat in the House of Lords; they had to vote at the start of each Parliament for Representative Peers. In 1963 that law was changed and all members of the Peerage of Scotland were permitted a seat. The Peerage of Scotland consisted of those Peerages created before 1707.

Lord Fraser of Allander received a Peerage in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and therefore automatically qualified for a seat in the House of Lords; even if the provision to create Peers in the Peerage of Scotland had existed, he would still have had his seat. Incidentally, Scots Baronies are not Peerages at all but titles of honour deriving from land ownership; the equivalent rank to Baron in the Scots Peerage is the Lord of Parliament.

Perhaps, Vintagekits, it would be better to open a centralised debate on the notability of Peers? It is clear that individual tagging of articles is not going to help gain a consensus. Sam Blacketer 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do all Barons automatically get the seat in the Lords or to they have to apply and be accepted. Additonally there is no mention in the Lord Fraser of Allander that he sat in the House of Lords - if this is his only claim to notability then why isnt this added. I am supposed to assumed that a Scottish Baron (who dont all gain a seat) has got a seat - that is what the nn tags is for - for someone to come along and prove notability. Anyway this is a joke and getting highly technical and BHG knows she has made a mistake and just refuses to accept and dances from one positon to another and refuses to face facts because she doesnt want to lose face. It's a disgrace.--Vintagekits 12:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, anyone who is eligible for the House of Lords has to formally apply for a Writ of Summons (in each Parliament). Until 1999, all Barons in the Peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom had seats and would be granted a Writ of Summons when they applied. Lord Fraser of Allander was not a Scottish Baron. He was not even a Lord of Parliament in the Peerage of Scotland. He was a Baron in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. He was Chairman and Managing Director of House of Fraser Ltd. He did take his seat in the House of Lords, but only made his maiden speech on 28 July, 1966 in a debate on the economic situation. Sam Blacketer 12:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right so they have to apply and dont just get the seat, if they dont apply for some reason then they dont get the seat right? Additonally if the information that you have outlined was in the article then I would have removed the tags - removing these tags without adding to article or proving notability is the disruptive behaviour in my opinion and not the adding of the tags.--Vintagekits 12:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The grant of a Writ of Summons is not an additional test; if someone is a Peer with a seat in the House, they are entitled to it as of right. It's just that they have to write in to get one. I have also since discovered that there is some biographical information about Lord Fraser in the article on House of Fraser. Personally I would say that anyone on whom a Peerage has been conferred is definitely notable because the Peerage itself is a title of honour that denotes notability, even if that notability is not explained in the article. Sam Blacketer 12:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wold agee that someone in the House of Lords or the owner of HOUse of Fraser is automatically notable - however, this was not stated in the article--Vintagekits 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if a mistake was made, and I don't know what went on so I'm not sure, it would be best to let it go. It's not as if a block can be un=done. Besides, it's not that disgusting, it's not, for instance, like she killed an 86 year old man!--Counter-revolutionary 12:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock can be undone - and I consider you posting here in that fashion while I am blocked a taunt, especially after the abuse you posted here yesterday.--Vintagekits 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't intended. I thought your block was finished. --Counter-revolutionary 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to above

Vintagekits, if you want to seek review of my actions, you are of course quite entitled to do so, through the usual channels.

The substance of this is quite simple. You have two concerns about notability: a) whether Baronets are automatically notable, and b) whether Barons are automatically notable. Whether you are right or wrong, both are entirely legitimate concerns. The problem is how you have gone about addressing those concerns.

As per my reply on my talk, I think that the notability Baronets is unclear, and needs further discussion. However, you have insisted that this must be addressed by expanding each article, rather than by discussing the principle. If you are right, and there is no automatic presumption of notability, then expansion is the appropriate solution; but if you are wrong, then mass-tagging with {{prod}} or {{nn}} tags is clearly unjustified.

As I and others have pointed out above, the Barons were all categorised as Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which makes them automatically eligible to sit in the House of Lords, and therefore notable under the terms of WP:BIO. No further evidence of notability is needed. You were unaware of this, but I accept that's an easily triggered misunderstanding.

However, that's where the problem arises. It should have been quite obvious to you early on in the exchange that there were two different views on the principle of automatic notability, which is something that ought to be discussed as a principle, rather than by mass-tagging. However, not only did you do the mass-tagging, you then engaged in edit-warring when the tags were removed, and did not discuss the issue. (You have repeatedly pointed to this comment and this one as evidence of an attempt at discussion, but you haven't responded to my repeated point that your comments were only about procedure, not about the substantive issues. Far from being an attempt to discuss the differing views on notability of nobility, your comments read as an order to provide more evidence of it, which was already a circular discussion.)

I do wonder whether this is a spill-over of the bitter dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet. I don't know how that AFD will be resolved, and it has contained a lot of heat and fury and far too much personal recrimination, but if you have unresolved notability concerns, then take the articles to AFD.

You noted above that I am part of WikiProject Baronetcies. Quite true; I joined it because most of my edits involve MPs, of whom a small but significant number are baronets, and I want to work with others in maintaining standards of accuracy and consistency in articles on baronets. That doesn't mean that I think that all Baronets are automatically notable, as I noted in this comment last night. The more I look at the substance of this, the more I personally think that many baronets are clearly not notable ... but splatting NN or PROD tags and edit warring over them achieves nothing except disruption. --21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I could go through each of your points and show you the glaring ommisions that you have once again choosen to ignore - but for now all I wouold like to know is why was I treated differently then Kitty. You stated that it was because I had a long history of blocks - infact I had only one more block than Kitty and that was a 3 hour time out and Kitty had a block for NPA on ME which shows "previous" so why was Kitty given a warning for 3RR when she actually broke 3RR whereas I got blocked.--Vintagekits 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice

In light of recent events, I think you could do with staying away from the Barons/Baronets articles. Firstly it's just hassle you don't need, and secondly the more time you spend "editing" those the less time you have for editing other articles. I feel like it's just me and you that are really trying to improve the articles we have and create new articles, so I could do with the help really. What do you reckon? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying and I would like to but there is a basic hypocrisy at the root of this argument and it needs to be sorted - some editors from the Baronet Project are basing notability solely on a listing in Who's Who (UK), which at times is little more than a telephone directory, without any other news or media coverage of any sort whereas they argue that other bio's which they are ideologically opposed to are not notable despite substantial media coverage. --Vintagekits 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please be advised that a Wikipedia:Requests for Comment has been made regarding your behavior on Wikipedia (see [33])O'Donoghue 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I have seen it but thank you for your message El chulito. It seem pretty long on accusations and short on proof, with a heavy reliance on using quotes out of context without providing diffs. I actually have laughed out loud reading some of it but maybe it will become more cohesive and coherent soon. regards--Vintagekits 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe there is an RFc against you as the Kitty rfc isnt in the wikipedia space (to the best of my knowledge), SqueakBox 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(from my talk)It doesnt violate anything in wikipedia policies as a part of Kitty's user space, to the best of my knowledge, and if you think there is anything in her user space that violates policies go to WP:ANI. If it were outside her user space it would be different. The best thing to do in this situation is to remain as calm as possible as that is the only way you'll get sympathy etc. Regards, SqueakBox 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well do chill out, I am certainly not into hounding you and it isnt yyet in the wikipedia space, SqueakBox 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour

has been appalling towards others and yet you persist. I, and others, do not understand what motivates you. The rules regarding sources on Wikipedia are clear: if you are going to quote something you must provide the citation at the point of quote. Otherwise the references for the geenrality of the articles are given int he appropriate place. You are behaving like a spoilt child. David Lauder 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)