User talk:Setanta747

Archived discussion pages:

• User talk:Setanta747/Archive1
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive2
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive3
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive4
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive5
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive6

Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, I was about to ask you about this particular photograph, only I have been needlessly blocked once again. In the unlikely event that you see this message, I'd like to know what the procedure is regarding photos that have been uploaded with the author's permission to use in Wikipedia.

I had went to the extreme of contacting the owner of the picture (two pictures in actual fact) and had gained his permission that the photograph could be used in Wikipedia with regard to the article about the subject. I promised to include a credit on the image page.

I had taken a leave of absence from Wikipedia, and wasn't able to respond to the 7-day limit. Thanks in advance. --Mal 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

Hiya Mal. I'm not quite sure on how to do the whole article rating thingy so was wondering would you be able to see about an article rating for this page Tobermore which i've done a hell of a lot of expanding from the simple stub it was. Mabuska 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mal seems to have left the building. I would rate it is as Start class or maybe verging on B class. You add the rating by placing the following template at the top of the talk page: {{WPNI|class=Start}}, or {{WPNI|class=B}}. Good job on expanding the article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion has been nominated for deletion

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Marillion has been nominated for deletion and is under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag userbox

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination), this userbox violates policies and guidelines, and so I have removed it (again). Please do not try to circumvent the MFD. --Coredesat 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit my userpage again. Thank you. --Mal 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to circumvent the MFD decision. You do not own your user page, see WP:USER and WP:OWN. If you continue to revert war, you may be blocked temporarily. --Coredesat 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising my userpage. Wikipedia is not censored. If you continue to vandalise my userpage, you may be blocked. If you have a problem with my userpage, feel free to discuss it instead of issuing threats. --Mal 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The userbox was deleted in MFD and consensus was that it was not acceptable in any form. Attempting to restore it is circumventing consensus, and restoring it again will cause you to violate WP:3RR. WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply here, WP:CONSENSUS does. --Coredesat 00:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting that I be censored. I refuse to be censored. I am not using a userbox and I took part in no debate regarding any userbox. Nobody informed me of the debate. Other userboxes have been deleted by consensus, and I have replaced them with code instead - you are not censoring those, nor making an issue there. Neither will you censor this. Again, I ask you: please stop meddling with my userpage. --Mal 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a 3RR violation. I suggest you listen to consensus and drop your uphill battle. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is my appeal table please? If you're going to waste peoples' time by blocking them, at least do it properly. --Mal 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins need not template users; that can be done at their discretion. If you want to be unblocked, use {{unblock|your reason here}}. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] Thank you. Would you mind letting me know the duration of the block as well? --Mal 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - I figured it out. 09:09, 14 October 2007 --Mal 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I protest most strongly at this nannying and censorship. This issue is, yet again, getting in the way of valuable editor contribution. The campaign to censor the flag of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia is ridiculous, and bolstered by administrators who feel they are only doing their job, based on 'consensus'. Let me tell you: there is consensus, and there is censorship. This is censorship - not only am I not allowed to place the flag of Northern Ireland on relevant articles, but now I am not allowed to voice my concern either. I have userboxes on my userpage which voice my concern over other Wikipedia issues, or which have been deleted. Why is this one being treated differently?

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. Your unblock request does not address this issue. — Sandstein 07:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As it has been pointed out to me that my bad boy behaviour was for reverting my user page three or more times under the WP:3RR rule, I would like to point out that this was in fact, therefore, an edit war: another user also reverted my userpage three times. In the interests of fair play, I'd like to see the other user blocked for the same duration, or my block lifted immediately. Thank you.

Decline reason:

"He did it too" is not grounds for unblocking. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nevertheless, my point still stands: Wikipedia is treating me unfairly. Either unblock me or block the other offending editor please. --Mal 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is doing no such thing. Consensus was clearly against the inclusion of the userbox on any userpage; you circumvented the explicit consensus, and indeed edit-warred over the userbox's inclusion, by recoding it back into your userpage multiple times. —[[Animum | talk]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Animum we have a situation whereby Wikipedia is at odds with itself: it respects consensus, yet it also respects non-censorship. I am being censored.

I will think of a compromise with regard to this matter but I repeat: I will not be censored (unless Wikipedia changes its policy on that particular matter). --Mal 09:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back.

Nice to see a friendly name back on wiki. There aren't enough. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to admit that I can't remember you.. but that's not saying much, as my memory is pretty crap these days! :) --Mal 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well .. it was a short-lived return: I've been blocked again, and this time also censored. --Mal 01:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How pathetic. Well, please don't let it discourage you. It might be worth trying to be a fencer rather than a warrior in future, and not giving them opportunity to block you.

I'm quite recent to wikipedia, and only really started editing after you seemed to have stopped (sort of June 2007). That's when I got wrapped up in this 'debate'. Baptism by fire? I was in awe of your patience with the issue, my lack of which got me blocked twice. Ah well. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I got pounced on by an editor who is particularly prolific when it comes to removing the flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia. I'm surprised they find any time to actually contribute anything useful to the 'Pedia tbh - obviously removing the flag and stalking users' contributions is more disruptive than anything else.

I had loads of plans to use some spare time I've found myself with, to pour lots of effort into improving Wikipedia. I stopped editing because I was so pissed off with the pettiness of certain users here, one of which has now been indefinitely blocked, so far as I can tell. That user had actually gone to the extreme of recruiting people from other websites to aid him in his petty campaign. It's ridiculous, and bordering on the scandalous. More importantly, it stops decent editors from contributing.

Much more of this extremist and insulting behaviour and I will probably give up editing Wikipedia all together.

These days it appears that one needs (to be) a solicitor in order to make any edits here. --Mal 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's quite obvious that I'm contribution-stalked myself. Now that a bit more interest has been developed in this, well, quite important issue hopefully it will be resolved. Though maybe I'm giving wikipedia too much credit there?

The user has been indefinitely blocked. But what does that mean? He's been unblocked by a very sympathetic-to-his-cause admin so that he is able to contribute to the 'arbcom'. But he still seems to have managed to make other edits, like on Talk:United Kingdom. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't given yet another chance.

The solicitor comment was complete class by the way, and sadly very true. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flags issue on UK article

Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom#Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, --John 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a revert war taking place on the UK article. I just added some information I noticed was incomplete. Thanks for the heads up about it though. :) --Mal 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Joe Doyle Actor/Musician

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Joe Doyle Actor/Musician is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Template:Northern Irish cities was created to avoid protection on Template:Northern Ireland cities and was subject to an Tfd where it was decided to make Template:Northern Irish cities a redirect, so don't interfere with that decision.--Padraig 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I created a cfd long ago, which settled the problem you have with the proper noun "Northern Irish". Please don't interfere with that decision.

Do not tell me what to do either. --Mal 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How about I tell you, so. Please stop edit-warring on the flags issue. This is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. Would you like to join the ever-growing list of flag-warriors over there? Your recreated-deleted template has now been speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and a redirect has been put in its place, redirecting to the proper template (which, incidentally, has been protected by another admin for the very type of edit-war that you have indulged in) - Alison ^❤ 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How about you learn some respect also Alison: you DO NOT tell me what to do. As an administrator (as I believe you are), you ought to surely know this. I hope I have taught you a valuable lesson here: in future, please improve your tone with me.

I was not "edit-warring" - you will find that Padraig has been kind enough to edit-stalk me and, as a result, is the one who has engaged in edit-warring. --Mal 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you break the rules, I and others are perfectly within our rights to TELL you to not indulge in that sort of behaviour. The reason I'm here at all was as a result of a complaint which was made against you. Please become more familiar with WP:AGF, WP:3RR and WP:NPA before you reply. Oh, and a certain default respect is afforded to all, needless to say. However, in certain cases that can get eroded based on a person's subsequent behaviour, but I suspect you already know this - Alison ^❤ 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point I have made to you Alison, and therefore you have learned nothing as a consequence. I am familiar with all the guidelines you linked to above, none of which are relevant to our discussion.

I would remind you (again) to please watch your tone with me. See WP:CIVIL.

There are two things you have said to me which I feel need expanding. Please explain your following statements in more detail:

1. Would you like to join the ever-growing list of flag-warriors over there?
2. However, in certain cases that can get eroded based on a person's subsequent behaviour, but I suspect you already know this

Also, please detail the complaint that was made against me, and point me to where I can find said complaint.

Finally, I intend to make corrections as necessary to the article and affected articles mentioned above, as I consider befits consistency. The CfD I created was quite decisive, and established that "Northern Irish" is the correct nomenclature. The affected article (the one I noticed was inconsistent) points to a template with the correct naming convention, as ratified by the CfD. Any beneficial suggestions to aid me in this would be most appreciated. --Mal 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Flags

Read this:

• The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom

The English, Scottish and Welsh Flags are National Flags, but none for Northern Ireland except the Union Flag.--Padraig 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at this:

That's the flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the former flag of Northern Ireland (defunct since 1973). GoodDay 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was also used as the flag of the former government of Northern Ireland. During and since, it has been used to represent Northern Ireland and is therefore the flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats right support everything thats British, until the British Government says something you don't like, then ignore it.--Padraig 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Padraig?!? Please leave my personal opinions, or rather what you think they might be, out of this discussion. Do not leave a message like this on my talk page again please. --Mal 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

C3K Trains

I really apologise for asking this out of the blue, but if possible, do you think at some point you could add an image or two of the C3K trains used by Northern Ireland Railways? I ask because no one seems to be the least bit interested in uploading some free use pictures, and every time I try uploading one it is classed as non-fair use. I would do this myself, only I live in London, so obviously getting pictures of trains in Belfast is slightly difficult!! I'm asking you because I've noticed you've made the odd edit to the NIR page, and that you live in Belfast. It's a massive bugbear of mine that all the train operators in the UK and Ireland have pictures of their rolling stock except NIR. I'm most grateful. Thanks for your time. Hammersfan, 29/10/07, 21.54 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hammer thanks for asking. I'd be happy to do this within the next month or so actually. I'll take a look at the other pics to get an idea of what's expected. Keep me posted - I'd certainly like to know if anyone, within the next few weeks, has already uploaded pics of the trains. --Setanta 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

Setanta, Padraig, VK: I have protected the above article to prevent another edit-war. Given the ArbCom ruling, this really would not be a a good idea. Use the talk page, please. ELIMINATORJR 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh look - yet another article protected by Wikipedia in a pro-Republican agenda state!! --Setanta 00:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What "ArbCom" ruling? --Setanta 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you read what I've just put on the article's talk page, and consider withdrawing that statement. The ArbCom ruling on The Troubles is here. ELIMINATORJR 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Belfast synagogue

Hi Setanta. My only concern about naming wasn't about the word "synagogue" per se but to shift from a generic to the official name of the congregation. Is it called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation" or something like that? Usually, articles on synagogues use the community's official name. It's so great you live in Belfast, you can find this out for us easily. Or we can just rely on this website: JCR-UK. Listen, I'll move the article and you can revert etc if I've made a mistake, ok? I was going to do it before; seeing the website now makes me think it's correct. Be well and thanks so much for encouraging us so nicely. HG | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, FWIW I think IZAK misread you. It seemed clear to me you meant that Jews in NI is a small topic. Thanks for moving things along, keep up the good work, etc. Kaisershatner 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I did Kasiershatner. :) Thanks.

HG, the following info from that website convinces me that the move was a prudent one - I had understood the congregation of the Great Victoria Street synagogue to be called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation", and I was right. But the previous address of the 'Belfast Synagogue' was Gt Victoria St.

Previous addresses: Annesley Street, Carlisle Crescent, Belfast  from 31 August 1904
(foundation stone laid 26 February 1904).
Prior thereto - Great Victoria Street from 1872 (foundation stone laid 7 July 1871).

I have absolutely no reason to oppose the move. Good call. :) --Setanta 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You're right. Maybe it's ok to say "the only", I was thinking (tired?) that it meant the only that's ever been (since there have been others). However, when I write, I try not to reference the current time, since the articles will last and we may not be around to note changes. But I leave it up to you. Also -- to which building does that description apply (eg circular)? Maybe you'll find out when you visit the old ones.... Have fun, Take care, HG | Talk 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the circular one (with the Star of David motif on the top) describes the current building. There was a link to it as viewed from above on Google Maps I think.. hang on... (keyboard seems to be acting up - Ill post the link here later) --Setanta 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Quiz

You might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Warning

I invite your attention to the following edit. [1]. SirFozzie 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are QUITE aware of the whole situation, there was recently an Arbitration case based off articles about Northern Ireland and The Troubles, amongst other things. ArbCom is the highest level of authority on Wikipedia (well, of coourse, besides Jimbo Wales). One of the remedies passed by the Arbitration Committee is that editors who get involved with edit wars on articles like the one you are on currently, can be placed on a probationary status (where you are limited to 1 Revert per WEEK on the contentious articles). Since you and Padraig were not named parties in the ArbCom committee, I had to specifically notify you that there is the possibility that if you continue your actions, that you can be placed on probation, and blocked if you violate that probation (once placed). Let me give you A link to the Arbitration Committee's finished case so you can see what I'm saying is true. SirFozzie 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)