User talk:SW3 5DL: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:52, 21 May 2010

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Feel free to leave a message. You are also welcome to email me. Thanks for stopping by. These are for you, [1] I picked them myself. Malke 2010 06:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Animalibrí.gif "Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

This is SW3 5DL's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 2 days

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Hours of Operation

In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 05:58, 25 July 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.

Vandals

[2] [3].

Catholic

Malke, which group is it that want Collins not to be a Catholic?, excuse me, I can see there is some problem about it but I just don't totally get it. Is it the protestant irish nationalists? (was there such a thing) why would anyone want to deny his religion? If you know why anyone from ireland would dislike Collins being a catholic please explain. Anti catholics? Which religion/group are they? Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob, my guess would be editors who sympathize with the British position. Collins is something of a hero to the British and the Protestant right wingers in Ireland (and are remnants of the former Protestant ruling class) since he signed the treaty to end the Irish War of Independence that created the Irish Free State. Sinn Fein and the IRA, the left wingers and Catholic, were against it and viewed Collins as a traitor. The Civil War resulted. The IRA assassinated him. The treaty allowed the British to still subjugate the Irish. Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were ecstatic. Eamon de Valera and Sinn Fein were not. They wanted a Republic and to be rid of the British entirely. The British and the Irish Protestants are still big Collins' fans. Downplaying his Catholicism, in fact virtually eliminating the religious aspects of the conflict, is something the British do. It's PR. Malke 2010 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation Malke. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the IRA assassinated Collins is a very controversial one. There are others, many of them republicans, who still believe he was killed by a British agent because he showed too much potential as a leader for the Free State; and that Unionist "admiration" for him is just part of the propaganda coverup. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't afford to work at bookstore wages full time; I have a union job during the week so I can work part-time with books on weekends. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message

I have asked you not to leave messages on my talk page. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

This edit was not vandalism. Calling it vandalism was a wanton personal attack. Having warned you earlier about making further personal attacks, I've blocked you for 24 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are personal attacks/vandalism: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]Malke 2010 12:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since RJ has asked Malke not to leave messages on their talkpage, for RJ to leave a templated message for a regular contributor while disallowing communication on their own talkpage seems like baiting. Weakopedia (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. And not only that but Gwen Gale has had a personal email relationship with me in the recent past and she is angry at me for other reasons. In addition, in the past when I have brought personal attacks against me to her, she has ignored them saying that an admin is not obligated to act on a complaint. I did not vandalize anything. Republican Jacobite has removed my edits on the Michael Collins talk page. I was asked to show that the Anti-Catholicism existed in the early 20th century and I did that with quotes and links to newspaper articles. This block is entirely inappropriate and stems from Gwen Gale's personal anger and not anything I've done on Wikipedia. She is also aware of the personal attack by Republican Jacobite on me and she did nothing about it.Malke 2010 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block you for vandalism, I blocked you for making another personal attack. I don't support RJ's behaviour either. The block is only about your behaviour. As for your other repeated claims, you are mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a poor not needed block, there are issues on both sides of this dispute, User republican Jacabite... left similar templates on my talkpage, luckily I had the experiance to simply remove them and tell him not to continue posting such templates. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did that to you as well. Here is the diff on the personal attack he left on my talk page. Gwen Gale didn't see anything wrong with it. [12].Malke 2010 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, he's made inappropriate comments in edit summaries, and on the Michael Collins talk page he told me I needed to "get it into your thick head" that I was wrong.Malke 2010 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide details and diffs of the blocking Admins conflict of interest. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest conflict of interest is that she has had a personal email relationship and she is angry about something else. For diffs on an earlier dispute, I would have to get them from her talk page, around middle of March of this year. I will get you diffs from my talk page now. Please wait.Malke 2010 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, you are blocking me for the comments I made to Dayewalker. You called that 'scathing,' yet you ignored Republican Jacobite. If you can come back now and claim I've made another personal attack, can you again excuse Republican Jacobite? Has he been blocked?Malke 2010 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I blocked you for this edit summary after having told you many, many times that personal attacks aren't allowed here. I also warned you that there is no bargaining when it comes to PAs and that warnings to other editors may indeed be called for, but you cannot make personal attacks and if you want to edit here, you must stop making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked me for an edit summary on my talk page? You don't consider templating a regular a form of vandalism? What if I'd templated him? Have you seen what Republican Jacobite has left on this talk page and in his edit summaries? They can remove this. It was completely unjustified. If you look at this:[13][14]

[15] [16] [17][18][19][20]If you block me, you have to block him.Malke 2010 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me understand this: lots of editors write 'removing vandalism' in their edit summaries when they are removing something from their talk page. I believe Republican Jacobite has done the same. What is the special reason I can't do it, but he can?Malke 2010 20:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't vandalism. Calling it vandalism was a personal attack. If other editors have reverted non-vandalistic posts from their talk pages, they've strayed from policy. You cannot cite strays from policy by other editors as support for your own breaches of policy. As I've also said, there is nothing to bargain about, I don't support RJ's behaviour in this and a warning to RJ may be called for. However, please understand, this block has nothing to do with RJ, it has only to do with the need that you stop making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this edit summary by RJ, I think that his templated message of Malke may not be vandalism, but was probably close. Either way, I think that RJ is obviously capable of expressing his opinion, and was actively baiting, and blocking Malke for a borderline disagreement on their talkpage was probably avoidable. Weakopedia (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RJ may need dealing with too. However, there is nothing to bargain over here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come to bargain, just to state my opinion. On reflection, RJ removed Malkes comments from the MC talkpage, and then left a template message about it here, in spite of other possibly less antagonistic approaches - I think that was vandalism, or near enough to mean that Malkes choice of words in this onteration with RJ in no way constitute a personal attack and are not blockable. Weakopedia (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were trying to bargain at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RJs templated message reads, in part, The talk page exists only for the purpose of discussing article improvements, not as a sounding board for theories, rants, original research, paranoid ramblings, etc., so maybe Malke should have used the rationale 'personal attack' instead of 'vandalism', due to the 'paranoid ramblings' accusation, but either way Malke meant the same thing and I think your block was hasty. Weakopedia (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this edit summary is all right, [21] and twinkle was used, inappropriately. This is a simple request for Republican Jacobite to stop reverting my edits. He was vandalizing my talk page, again, and he was vandalzing my legitimate edits on the Michael Collins' talk page. But that's all right? I write in an edit summary what is legitimately the removal of vandalism and I'm blocked?Malke 2010 20:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's the edit summary for which I blocked you, it's not ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nope, that edit summary is not ok. I didn't say it was. I also said that warnings to other editors may be called for. Meanwhile, you must stop making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, please take care not to say anything that can be seen as further disruption. Please be aware that vandalism is something else and a specific thing on wikipedia, for exampel if someone was annoyingly adding templates to your talkpage and you thought they were wrong, they may well be but it is not vandalism to do it , it is something else, warring, battlefield mentality or so on, but not vandalism. You should read and understand that and you may then have a request for unblocking, you first need to understand the reason for your block, Wikipedia:vandalism You also have only 24 hours and you should consider your own personal respect, accept it and learn and keep away from them and look to articles where you can enjoy your experience here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify again, I didn't block Malke for vandalism, but for a personal attack, in calling something vandalism which was not. It's true Malke, that if you acknowledge the personal attack and agree to not make personal attacks any more, it is highly likely that you'll be unblocked, by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakopedia is exactly correct. The edit summaries by Republican Jacobite and the templating of my talk page were seen by me as personal attacks. And I wrote "removing vandalism" because that's what he'd been writing in his edit summaries when he removed my edits on his talk page, which, by the way, were not personal attacks.Malke 2010 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again, RJs templated message reads The talk page exists only for the purpose of discussing article improvements, not as a sounding board for .... paranoid ramblings, which if not vandalism is a personal attack. I don't think Malke should be penalized for mixing the two up in an edit summary. Weakopedia (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid ramblings? Do you agree that is another personal attack?Malke 2010 20:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, you have been unblocked, which is worthy of thanks and please use the advice and issue to learn and understand your failings. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, I am glad this block has been lifted, but this could have all been avoided by just using neutral wording. Gwen is right that, quite apart from the quality of editing, the quality of dialogue needs to improve all round. Weakopedia (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, I didn't post personal attacks to Republican Jacobite. All he got was a warning. She has no intention of doing anything to him. This has nothing to do with him. Malke 2010 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, in reading your posts after the block, I believe you still misunderstand the personal attacks policy and made a mistake, rather than a willful attack, so I'm unblocking you. No matter what the disagreement, or what other editors may have said to you, you cannot answer with personal attacks on other editors or call their edits vandalism, which has a very narrow meaning here. If you need help keeping within the bounds of NPA, please ask an experiernced editor, an admin, or me. Meanwhile, stay away from User:RepublicanJacobite's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are personal attacks: [22][23][24]

[25][26][27][28][29] Malke 2010 21:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few of those are personal attacks and as you know, I've also warned RJ to stop making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all personal attacks. Everyone. You must have missed the one where I should "get it through your thick head."Malke 2010 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends in high places

[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]Malke 2010 12:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diffs

Personal attack:[38] Request for removal of personal attack[39] refactoring which clearly keeps the offensive words [40] [41] Request again: [42] Talk page request: [43][44][45][46]

Is this 'collection' intended to be intimidating because it is beginning to feel that way. RashersTierney (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talkpage etiquette

If a user asks you not to post on his talkpage then stop posting on his talkpage, if you have any further issue then report them to other locations, continuing to post on a users talkpage when requested not to is considered harassing and a block-able offense. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.Malke 2010 17:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Closure

(discussion moved from User talk:Toddst1)

Why did you close the thread. The other editors have not had the chance to comment yet.Malke 2010 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was close and not include. You were the only one holding a tendentious point of view. I stopped short of blocking you, despite previous warnings about WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the editors had posted yet. You can't claim an editor has a tendentious point of view because they disagree with your friends. There were several other editors who have not come by to post yet. And I was in the process of putting together citations. The thread should not be closed yetMalke 2010 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks on that thread like O Fenian (talk · contribs) are not friends of mine by any stretch of the imagination. I've had enough of your delusional accusations against others. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, that is a personal attack. And if I've angered you, I am sorry. But you've been on me since I posted the AN/I yesterday which was a valid complaint against RepublicanJacobite. You just shut it down and you would not provide me with diffs. Now you come along and shut down the RfC. Please show me where I've been tendentious and creating a battleground. You are very upset and without diffs, I can't see where I deserve this block. Malke 2010 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This block has been coming like a fast train, when asked to back off and drop the stick by an administrator it is good advice, continuing along the same path as you have been doing since Gwen gave you another chance and unblocked you in good faith yesterday was only going to end in this way. You have beem relentless at multiple locations refusing to listen to anyone in a tendentious and disruptive way, sorry, have a holiday and come back refreshed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued disruptive editing, WP:Battle and WP:TE. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what is 'continued disruptive editing.' With diffs, please. Thank you.Malke 2010 21:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above and the others, including warnings from me that you've now removed. Be sure to leave this comment for the duration of this block as it is relevant to anyone reviewing this block. Good day. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, If I may make a suggestion, try to take a deep breath and calm down for a sec. Get off of the computer for say 30 minutes and then come back and request for an unblock in a calm manner. If you need me, (I have your page watched) you can always type here or just e-mail me ;)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi White Shadows. Here's is a diff of what he's talking about regarding his 'warning.' [47].Malke 2010 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone watching this page, I've asked for a review of this block at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteShadows, go over to AN/I and tell SGGH I sent him an email. Thanks.Malke 2010 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A helping hand

Hello Malke. I've spotted the thread raised at ANI and I think I might be able to offer myself as a sounding board for any advice you might want, and talk a couple of things over with you. There are some ways of doing things on Wikipedia which are different to, say, an academic debate at a school or University, but for Wikipedia these things have to be abided by. It is also easy to get your back put up by, and put other peoples backs up by, certain editing ways.

I've done my share of work on Irish history, and am familiar with Collins and his fellows. If we talk and together sound out a couple of issues, we may come to an arrangement whereby your block gets shortened or even cut out. There will be a couple of things that you'll have to do different, but there will also be things we can come to an agreement on mutually. We can do it by email or on Wikipedia, but you might rather not having it all displayed on your talk page. What do you think? Regards, SGGH ^ping! 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. I saw your posts on the AN/I and I've already sent you an email. Thanks.Malke 2010 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:50, 21 May 2010 edit SGGH (talk \| contribs) 49,689 edits →‎A helping hand: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:52, 21 May 2010 edit undo SW3 5DL (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 21,544 edits →‎A helping hand: reply to SGGH Next edit →
Line 172:		Line 172:

	I've done my share of work on Irish history, and am familiar with Collins and his fellows. If we talk and together sound out a couple of issues, we may come to an arrangement whereby your block gets shortened or even cut out. There will be a couple of things that you'll ''have'' to do different, but there will also be things we can come to an agreement on mutually. We can do it by email or on Wikipedia, but you might rather not having it all displayed on your talk page. What do you think? Regards, [[User:SGGH\|SGGH]] <sup>[[User_talk:SGGH\|ping!]]</sup> 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)		I've done my share of work on Irish history, and am familiar with Collins and his fellows. If we talk and together sound out a couple of issues, we may come to an arrangement whereby your block gets shortened or even cut out. There will be a couple of things that you'll ''have'' to do different, but there will also be things we can come to an agreement on mutually. We can do it by email or on Wikipedia, but you might rather not having it all displayed on your talk page. What do you think? Regards, [[User:SGGH\|SGGH]] <sup>[[User_talk:SGGH\|ping!]]</sup> 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

			I think it's a good idea. I saw your posts on the AN/I and I've already sent you an email. Thanks.[[User talk:Malke 2010\|<font color="green">Malke</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010\|<font color="#0000FF">2010</font>]] 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)