User talk:O Fenian

Hello O Fenian, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Domer48 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

--Domer48 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Thank you for your edits to the Easter Rising article. It is often through mutiple small changes like this that an article is significantly improved in the longer term. It is no longer customary to link isolated years like 1913, and Irish Republic with a capital 'R' is usually reserved for the actual Republic proclaimed in 1916 and established in 1919, but I'm not going to bother reverting those, although somebody else might down the line. Otherwise your edit was excellent and most welcome. You might consider adding your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism. It's not the most active of projects at the moment but new blood is always welcome. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair warning

I'd like to make sure you're aware that Irish and Troubles related articles are under general sanctions here at Wikipedia. Articles such as the PIRA article are under a specific probation. I strongly suggest that you work on the talk page and get consensus before making any further changes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the person making the changes in the first place! O Fenian (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IP Heads Up

Just so you are aware this IP has a history of inserting contentious material as they have been doing it for quiet a while on the Kevin Barry article so be prepared for your edits to get reverted by another IP as they change and make the same edits. But good bit of research and supplying what the book actually states. BigDunc^Talk 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And another heads up

You might want to comment here an editor is trying to have content changed and as a result of this doing it this way is a proposed remedy to avoid trouble. BigDunc^Talk 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Derry etc

Generally speaking I'm not particularly bothered either way (and since it's the policy adopted by at least one major British newspaper, there is good precedent even outside Wikipedia, but when Londonderry is actually being used as part of a regimental title or similar, so referring to the city at one remove, I think we may well need to stick with Londonderry to be really accurate, please exercise a little judgement when looking into this issue. David Underdown (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were merely location, it would follow the unit title, however it's included immediately after the number, which makes it part of the unit name. This is standard practice, it indicates affiliation, rather than (necessarily) location. The substitution of Derry for Londonderry simply isn't accurate in this case. David Underdown (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Special protection area

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I moved the page to Special protection area, since it doesn't seem to be a proper noun, and thus should not be in all caps. If it is a proper noun, let me know and I'll move it to the all-caps version. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done If there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to ask. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call

[1] Thanks Anoderate1 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I made a mistake by misinterpreting what had happened. In this instance, removal was the best option. A slightly longer explanation is at the relevant place on WP:AN/I. My apologies.  DDStretch  (talk)

Ulster/LOL

Thanks for contacting me. I will revert myself - I didn't know that, and thank you! - Philippe 20:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NI Flag

Im sorry if there's been any confusion caused by the NIYF page. We're not using the symbol in the sense of a national flag, but rather to differentiate between the jurisdiction of this forum in the UK as opposed to other devolved nation youth groups like the Scottish Youth Parliament or Funky Dragon. I'm aware that the Ulster banner is no longer an official flag of northern Ireland and hasn't been for quite some time now. But I was finding it difficult to insert the union flag without a caption referring to the United Kingdom, which is represented by the UKYP and not ourselves. If you know of any solution to this problem it would be most helpful. --Marty721 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, it doesn't add any clarity to the infobox. So in the interest of neutrality I think the flag should be left out as you've suggested. The last thing we want to do is create controversy. Thanks for the advice --Marty721 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Kelvin

Fixed. Apologies for the first edit, I read it as 1924 (duh). Talkpage now though? The article does state he's Irish-born, so is there a major problem with the infobox? Could be tweaked as "Belfast, then in Ireland" or something like that? Black Kite 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reporting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai. You saved a short period(24 hours) of my time. Syjytg (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that was just getting stupid, they weren't even bothering to read anything.

go raibh míle maith agat

2 week protection

I went ahead and semi-protected this page for two weeks... should resolve most of the issues. :) Cheers! —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions Declined

I put a number of categories up for speedy deletion, as they are not used anymore:

• Category:Unassessed-Class Spirituality articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Green Bay Packers articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Trucks articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

The categories are now at:

• Category:Unassessed Spirituality articles
• Category:Unassessed Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Category:Unassessed Green Bay Packers articles
• Category:Unassessed Trucks articles
• Category:Unassessed Irish Republicanism-related articles

The reason they need deleting is that the {{cat class}} template links to the old one if both exist.

I've put a number of similar categories up for deletion before and they've all been speedily deleted. Do I now have to put up at WP:CFD instead? As when I've done that before, I've been told they they could have just been done as a speedy. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware there were new categories as your summaries made no mention of them. O Fenian (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Constructive editing

Just thought I'd acknowledge our positive collaboration on some articles recently. Makes a nice change. Mooretwin (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is always more useful than edit warring to improve articles. O Fenian (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to Irish Republican Army. It was that which prompted me to protect the page (4 doses of vandalism in one day is too much), but somehow I forgot to do the revert myself. Thanks for picking up the pieces! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Physical force republicanism

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I've put that term in the intro and created a redirect. If necessary, the redirect can be changed to a more general page later. Superm401 - Talk 15:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland article and partition

See my suggestion at Talk:Ireland#Highly_Misleading_Description_of_Partition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Britain or UK at Easter Rising

Britain is not a political entity, the UK of both varieties is/was. Your recent revert, implying a wish for independence from a a geographical entity makes no sense. RashersTierney (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

history of terrorism

There's considerable debate at the moment would you care to weigh in? Sherzo (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

== Sorry about comment on discussion page - I did not realise that my contrib had just been moved to the bottom, not deleted. PRPCunningham (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ecuadorian Stalker

I have reopened the sockpuppetry case against this person. Please comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I had already asked an administrator familiar with him to intervene. O Fenian (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Buenos Aires

What did you mean here? It's easier for admins if you accompany allegations like this with a report to the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See the article history for the last few days of that and Irish people‎, the new versions are the same as the ones that the previous socks had. O Fenian (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Whose sock is it? I am happy to block based on what you say if you can provide this info. --John (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see this to see there's no difference between the new version and the last sock's version. O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Coffee Republic

Thanks. I meant to remove the section, I didn't realise it was older and that the IP user had only corrected a typo in it. Fences and windows (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That account

BTW posted to CU list so should be dealt with soon. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Image at Irish people

Any particular reason why the Mary Robinson image was removed? Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the image. The Commons bot removed the image as it had been deleted, I just removed the caption as the corresponding image was no longer there. O Fenian (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for unwarranted implication. RashersTierney (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edinburgh

Ay caramba! I was assuming good faith and trying not to hassle the newbie, so I let a whole load of questionable edits slip past. I don't have time right now, but over the weekend I'll go through the edits and work out what's worth keeping.

Far too much of my time on Wikipedia is spent dealing with sock puppets ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

No problem. I felt slightly concerned that I was "involved" at that point, but it's clearly nonsense. I'll take the checking if someone feels I've acted inappropriately.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hobson - born Belfast or Holywood?

Can you take this issue to the relevant talk page. We don't want a dispute on the question leading to blocks. RashersTierney (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Berber people

Hi O Fenian, I thought the article looked better with the two referenced quotes, may I know why you decided to remove them? Thanks. Lilaac (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits were made by a banned editor who is not welcome to edit Wikipedia, so his edits are removed. The quotes were particularly out of place in my opinion also. O Fenian (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please re-visit Berber people and check out the latest exploits of an IP editor whom you have identified as a sockpuppet of Historian19. --Zlerman (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic / Nationalist areas

Re the revert war in the article Official Irish Republican Army I would like to voice my opinion that an area cannot be Catholic, Protestant, Nationalist, Loyalist etc. It is the people of the area who may hold certain views, not the area itself. Also when dealing with the early Troubles in Northern Ireland it should be borne in mind that mixed areas were more prevalent and while some of the areas in question may have had a predominantly Roman Catholic make up this was not absolute, hence the area should not be described on the basis of the religious beliefs of a majority of its citizens Coolavokig (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that I was only removing the repeated incorrect addition of "nationalist and Catholic" I do not quite see your point? O Fenian (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought you were engaged in an edit war with another userCoolavokig (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar

Hi O Fenian,

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I Marek.69 award O Fenian with The Barnstar of Diligence, for continued and tireless work indentifying and reporting Sockpuppets.

In recognition of the work you've done in the Historian19 sockpuppet case. :-)

Best Regards Marek.69 ^talk

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: My adminship

Oops! I'm sorry, I guess I didn't check carefully enough, Its just that when it said it had the space for 100,000 I guess I went into edit overdrive and added without thinking The C of E (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice sockbust

Smelled of unwashed socks from the beginning, but well done on settling the matter, RashersTierney (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Good sock busting again, just to lazy myself to dig up the diffs but knew from start, we need more editors like you to prevent wiki being abused. BigDuncTalk 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced myself that De Unionist and Maiden City where the same user, different patterns and styles. Totally different articles they edited, and with different edits. Not convinced. Maiden City was obsessed with changing Derry to Londonderry, De Unionist didn't push on this line. Plus Maiden never did the terrorist editing. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider the articles "totally different", they were in the same general area. As the first sockpuppet report focused on the IP and account editing the same small set of articles, I do not believe that branching out to new articles in the same area lends to a presumption of innocence, it is equally an attempt to avoid being spotted straight away do you not agree? Lending weight to the idea that they are one and the same is this edit by The Maiden City's static IP, the first in over a month and happening under a day after the block, convenient timing don't you think? There are other behavioural factors which I did not list on the recent sockpuppet report, as I believe it will be easier to identify his inevitable next sockpuppet if I did not post everything that made me suspect the last sockpuppet. O Fenian (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As the initial indef blocker of Maiden City I still don't see the patterns in their edits. Yes De Unionist has been disruptive in his edits, but I have seen nothing to lead me to believe they are one and the same user. If someone look at your edits, Big Dunc's, and the edits of many other editors you could always accuse sockpuppetry due to editing the same areas. Obviously you are not, but the point still stands. Troublesome yes, sock I don't see it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider the edit today, the first in over a month, from The Maiden City's known static IP to be suspicious, coming right after the block? Do you not see the same soapboxing, particularly in regard to Martin McGuinness? Do you not see the whole "pro-Republican bias" rants that both accounts had in common? Do you not see the whole "it's BigDunc and O Fenian who are harassing me" attitude that both accounts had in common? O Fenian (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

CT could you not request a checkuser being the blocking admin of The Maiden City and seeing as you have doubts. Also the use of wikilinks on talk pages is another similar trait. BigDunc^Talk 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not worth a checkuser on such small editing users. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this anyway, as he was the kind of user that was going straight towards an indef block anyway, I'd told him I'd do so if he did it again. Not entirely convinced he was a sock, but still a disruptive editor none the less. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the constant ranting and raving about other editors on his talk page while blocked remind you of someone in particular too? O Fenian (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does. BigDunc^Talk 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL

See our sock friend is throwing a tantrum on their page car crash television at its best, can't wait for the next installement. BigDunc^Talk 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reblocked and removed his ability to edit his own talk page. He's cut off now. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Taz

He just won't desist. Discussion started at admin's noticeboard. Your input there would be appreciated. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Historian19

Heh, you're a sock puppet of Historian19 and Marek69, apparently.

Bit of a tangent, but would you happen to recall if Historian19 used US-spelling or Commonwealth-spelling? I reverted an edit earlier that applied US-spelling to Northern Ireland and I'm now pondering...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The stalking of me to Bandon, the edit to Oslo (a frequent Historian19 target, with remarkable similarities between the latest version and the last sockpuppet version) and the frivolous sockpuppet reports mean if it is not him then it is someone doing a very good impersonation. O Fenian (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I have very limited experience with Historian19, so the sock should be embarrassed I spotted it so easily. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's James Tucton. Note that Marek69 is at the forefront of every SPI that was filed; James Tucton specifically targets him and files scurrilous SPIs, claiming to have irrefutable proof or that the IPs match (notwithstanding Marek69 is an accountcreator, IINM). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, O Fenian. You have new messages at Jéské Couriano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your opinion

Hi O Fenian, would you mind casting your eyes on these edits to Lisbon

Looks suspiciously like our old friend, but I'm not sure(?) A second opinion would be appreciated :-)

Cheers -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely possible. In addition to the images there's a text dump from Santa Maria de Belém into the Lisbon article which is something he does quite often. Identically named account also created at Commons which is usual as well. However due to the possibility of it actually being a Portuguese editor I would recommend a checkuser looks at the case rather than the usual "it's him, let's just block him" way it is done normally. There is actually an identically named account on panoramio with many uploads seemingly just of Portugal, one I quickly checked was uploaded in December last year so it could be a genuine editor. O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it could be a genuine editor, so I will keep an eye on the account for a while. We don't want to accuse an innocent newcomer, after all. Although some of his edits (and summaries) [2], [3] aren't quite so innocent. Thanks for you're help. - Marek.69 ^talk 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Unblocked

O Fenian, I have unblocked you because my review concludes that the admin was in serious error in sanctioning you further after what I also perceive to be an ill advised warning - however, I would prefer that my soon to be interesting wiki life is not further complicated by any ill considered action or post on your behalf in the matter which gave raise to these events. I would be grateful if you further restrained yourself if commenting at ANI where I will be giving notice of my reasoning (after noting my actions to Toddst1). Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have left some comments here, I have nothing more to say at this time about these incidents, probably for the next 24 hours to allow sufficient cooling off time. O Fenian (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Is it worth me asking if you would dial down the fucking swearing while we are at it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It never hurts to ask. I try not to swear at people more just in general comments, but I will see what I can do. Obviously it would be better to tackle the disease itself not a symptom, but that might take a while. O Fenian (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A few kind words

Obviously this is a subject that's intrinsically important. It's worth caring about and you care; concern and dedication are good things. The challenge is to direct that energy into positive uses.

Two years ago an editor approached me for help; he had a block log an arm long (seven edit warring blocks). He was working in an important but controversial area. We communicated. Tentatively at first; then more closely. Not only has he never been blocked since then, but he's become one of Wikipedia's most prolific featured content contributors. He has since become a sysop at four different WMF sites, is an OTRS volunteer, and was recently reelected as an arbitrator at Wikinews. He still edits that same controversial topic, and has written two-thirds of its featured articles and good articles.

What he told me about his blocks was this: he treated them exactly as blocks are intended to be--breathing room. He'd go out, get fresh air, do other things. Then return relaxed and refreshed.

I don't mentor anymore, but if you'd like to seek a mentor I'd be glad to communicate with both you and the mentor. Best wishes, Durova³⁰⁵ 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your intent, your sales pitch is well off. When someone is faced with corrupt abuse of power, giving an example of a dissident who has embraced such a corrupt system is not a selling point. O Fenian (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that editor was being wikihounded by a senior administrator. It took a great deal of patience and tact to manage that situation appropriately. Less than a day after I posted an evidence report on that other person the fellow resigned his ops, and has since been indefinitely blocked for socking in violation of an arbitration decision. Durova³⁰⁶ 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum

Sorry for minor intrusion on your User Page. As I said, I like the photo and the sentiment. But is Alexander getting on or off the train? RashersTierney (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. Apparently it is when he returns to Russia. O Fenian (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember the documentary now. He really was a rock meeting a hard place. RashersTierney (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Derry

Well the reasoning of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) doesn't really apply there, but OK, fine. Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well why should just that one be changed? Considering the article even talks about the use of "Derry/Londonderry", I do not see why it needs to be introduced for one particular use of just "Derry", when there are many others in the article that are fine as they are. O Fenian (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Commented on the substance at Talk:Irish general election, 1918. Also please don't use words like "moronic" in a section heading. See WP:Talk#New topics and headings on talk pages and WP:NPA etc. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's referring to the protection, not the editor. However when an admin who has a bad block on me overturned, reverts my edit to another article on spurious grounds, then protects the same editor's preferred version on this article (claiming it is partisan, when actually it is policy based - the repeated addition of OR and refusal to provide quotes to show otherwise), some might smell a rat. O Fenian (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is common on Wikipedia to smell rats on contentious topics. It's widely accepted that you nonetheless don't talk about smelling rats unless it's part of doing something about the rats (eg calling pest control, if you'll excuse the metaphor). Focus on content, and don't make unhelpful asides. And as noted elsewhere, protection policy requires protecting the most recent version unless there is a prima facie problem like vandalism or copyvio (see WP:PREFER). Rd232 ^talk 11:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I will consider following your advice, when the same advice is given to the editor who claims it was a "partisan edit war" without examining the full facts of the situation. Or better still, just tell him to leave me alone. O Fenian (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the advice regardless of what others do. The moral high ground has great tactical advantages, if nothing else. And if everyone goes there, peace breaks out. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Should have figured you'd do nothing, waste of time bothering. How about replying to these points then? O Fenian (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you expect me to do? I don't think you mean Todd, and there's little I can do about an IP that hops about with that sort of behaviour which is problematic but not vandalism, and in any case it's not my job to punish past misbehaviour, but rather to get everyone to work contructively and follow policy. Let me know if you have new problems. PS I'm not replying to your 1918 election points, since they seem conclusive. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I did mean Todd. And could you possibly at least say that on the election talk page, otherwise someone will come along and just see me versus the IP and decline to make the edit, so it would be nice to get some independent agreement that the edit should be made? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well great evidence is required to take action against an admin for anything but obviously egregious misbehaviour. And your recent block etc may make it hard to look at things dispassionately. Let bygones be bygones, try to WP:AGF however hard it seems, and try and move on. Let me know if you have problems. Rd232 ^talk 11:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the same good faith I was afforded by being accused of involvement in a partisan edit war? There was nothing partisan about it! And this is as predictable as I expected.. O Fenian (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well if following policy is predictable, hooray. However I'm beginning to understand your frustration with the IP. But remember the mantra: moral highground, moral highground, moral highground. Rd232 ^talk 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That pattern has been going on for months, hence my creation of my very much unfinished page to document the problems caused to make dealing with them easier in future. I believe this occasion is very much the final straw, with the unsourced conclusion being repeatedly added, before eventually claiming it was sourced by one source, then withdrawing that claim and saying it is another source, when the second source contradicts the conclusion anyway, at least in relation to the constituency results being used to draw the original conclusion. O Fenian (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} King Öomie 13:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Domer

Hi, O Fenian, seeing as you have a longstanding constructive relationship with Domer, a word from you (if you think it appropriate) might be helpful. The discussions at Talk:Dunmanway Massacre and Talk:Peter Hart are not proceeding very constructively, and I am determined that constructive, substantive discussion is something that can be achieved. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to look tomorrow or the day after. O Fenian (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, shit has kind of hit the fan while you were away. See the blowup at WP:AN#Question. Still if there's anything that you think you can say to him that might be helpful... Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC are a self-proclaimed marxist group

But nothing of what they actually do could be considered marxist. Unlike you, I live in Colombia, please inform yourself before editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.9.225.50 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Collins

Hi O Fenian, In May/June 2009, an anon editor added information on Michael Collins' distant ancestors in the 12th century. After a discussion on the talk page, this info was removed. The editor is back, now registered as User:DinDraithou and is adding the same information again. As you commented on this issue before, I'm informing you of the current debate on Michael Collins' talk page. Snappy (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re.Papist Hunter

It's always fun to be accused of bias by someone who hates your country. --King Öomie 12:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oriel House, Westland Row‎

Could you take a look at this. Don't want to get involved in an edit war with a newbie that could yet be an excellent editor. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the mess they have made of Fianna Éireann, I can only wish you good luck. O Fenian (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 Disruptive editor ANI request

I've made an ANI request regarding this editor. If you could leave some feedback, and perhaps offer some examples of distruptive editting, I would be much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:71.189.193.214 made three edits this morning, one of which was then edited directly by Irvine22 on PIRA. I see you fixed the Glasgow one. Not sure if this constitutes a sock or not? --Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it has been discussed here. I wonder what will be done about his latest bout of disruption whre he blindly reverts edits made by everyone he is in dispute with? O Fenian (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

SAM Song

Hi,

Just to let you know that I've restored this to the 5k version from around May - this was blanked by an IP and never caught. Can you have another look over it? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WoI edits

Hi just on Clune Clancy & McKee thing, without checking on the sources yet, does anyone dispute that the three were executed and not 'shot while trying to escape'?

Jdorney (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Makes sense I suppose. But, for example, Hopkinson says, "All three were interrogated, tortured and killed On Sunday night in Dublin Castle by British Agents led by the notoriously sadistic Captain Hardy. The British authorities claimed in time honoured fashion that the prisoners were shot while trying to escape".

Coogan says, "Clune, Clancy and McKee were left in the guardroom beside the canteen, where MacNamara reported the Auxiliaries were 'drunk and thirsting for vengeance'. Later than night, all three were 'shot while trying to escape' Nelligan and the other friendly detectives reported to Collins that all three had been tortured and while their bodes were beign loaded onto a lorry, the officer resposnible had battered their faces with a torch."

My reading of that is that they were beat and and then shot out of hand in revenge for Bloody Sunday.

Anyway, you're right we should just give both sides I suppose. Jdorney (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

wiki country flags anf dyslexia support

I can see you were correct about the flag used on the UK Dsyslexia support artcile but that was the flag from Wikipedia:Inline templates linking country articles so may be you should inform them of the correct flag to use for Northern Ireland. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Hi OFenian, you may be interested in ongoing revamp of Ulster Special Constabulary. 16:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

McGrath

"According to Henry McDonald and Jim Cucask, McGrath was providing information on fellow loyalists being blackmailed to provide information on fellow loyalists by British intelligence, who were aware of his paedophilia but took no action regarding it"

Hi, is this what you meant to write? I wasn't sure, so I didn't change it. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Something like that, I believe I must have been trying to rearrange the sentence to make it slightly more grammatical and neglected to delete the duplication. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. When you get a chance, could you take a look at my amended wording for the criminality paragraph at the PIRA page? Cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I will look later tonight. O Fenian (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fynire

No, I don't think I am suggesting that. I'm suggesting that if the Fynire account had the same person behind it as the IPs it would soon have been very, very obvious indeed. No ifs, buts or maybes, no checkuser magic pixie dust, just bloody obvious. Leopards don't change their spots, and people who upload chunks of text as an IP do the same as a username. I am a strong believer in giving people as much rope as is necessary, and even a bit more if it settles things beyond all doubt. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So how about looking at the histories of this page, this page and lastly this page (IP edits signed with four tildes prior to 25 August)? There are more pages of a similar nature if you would like. I will admit my initial report was not as obvious as those histories show, and as I am doing now I would have been happy to provide sufficient evidence to convince anyone who is unsure. Do you need any more convincing, as I can if really needed? O Fenian (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you cannot follow it all through from the two stated IPs of 86.164.137.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 81.158.172.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Both IPs edit Killings at Coolacrease for starters. Have you seen the history of the article and looked for IPs making similar edits or edits with a four tilde edit summary? I will deal only with the most relevant ones

• 81.156.37.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). That IP also edited John McKeague and the history of that article is the same as the ones above, and the difference between the IPs version and Fynire's is non-existent apart from an independent change made to the lead.
• 86.163.79.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). That IP also edited Dunmanway Massacre, to make an edit reverted to by 86.147.52.238. So shall we see what articles that IP edited?

• 86.147.52.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Dolours Price which ties the IP into multiple others in the history of that article, and Fynire carried on the same edit war. Two of the IPs in the history of that article are 86.147.53.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.161.16.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), both of which are involved in a dispute about whether Roger Casement should be categorised as gay. A dispute which was carried on by Fynire! O Fenian (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

More evidence to follow, there is no point in me wasting ages when you may have seen enough already. Just ask me to stop when you have. O Fenian (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And the history of the IPs and Fynire is not one of permanent text dumper, so the lack of other edits by Fynire being identified as copyright violations is not a demonstration of them being different. They violate copyright on a sporadic basis. O Fenian (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough. Some of people sign edit summaries all of the time, but a lot fewer sign them some of the time. So even if it isn't conclusive - editing quirks rarely are - it certainly adds a lot of weight to your identification. The problem with these behavioural things is that lots of people learn by watching. So there's always the off chance that it's not what it looks like. I think you'd have quite enough there to convince the suspicious minds that hang out at WP:SSP and similar places. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was busy typing up some more, but will do no more now. My evidence does not hinge on the four tildes in an edit summary, I could easily just ignore those completely and stick to Fynire carrying on the exact same disputes across multiple articles as an IP editor using an account created a week and a bit after the IP editor was banned from editing anonymously. Since he has now denied editing using those IPs for a second time, I will file the sockpuppet report in full in order to satisfy anyone that he did edit using those IPs, and show that after making dishonest claims such as those he cannot be trusted in any way. Also note User talk:Rd232/archive5#Registering as opposed to using IP number, where the IP editor talks about the ban on editing as an IP and the Coalisland edit detailed at the top of User talk:86.164.137.11. This was 48 hours before Fynire's account was created, are we honestly expected in the face of all this evidence to conclude that despite Fynire carrying on the same disputes on the same articles that he is not the same editor? O Fenian (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#its a crime jim but not as we know it

I've replied in full now, sorry for the delay. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Niels Johansen

Can you give some background here please? --John (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness dispute

I would like to invite you to participate in a discussion over whether to use "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" or "Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" in the infobox on Martin McGuinness, because that article's editing history shows you to be a major contributor. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Martin McGuinness#"deputy" vs "Deputy". HonouraryMix (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

Just a note that it's helpful to alert the user on their page of the investigation -- a good template is {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~

That way we know they've been alerted and were given a chance to offer a defence. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Augustine, antipodes and science

You may be interested in this: Talk:Augustine of Hippo#Augustine, antipodes and science, about the Augustine quote that has been repeatedly added to the article Augustine of Hippo. Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish American Wiki Article

There is a discussion currently happening at the wiki Irish American article around Scots Irish content; the discussion needs more participation and editorial perspective--which you seem to have on similar topics. Please if you are interested/have any thoughts have a look there and share your thoughts as it affects both articles and really needs much more input than what is being offered by too few contributors. Thank you 67.83.75.57 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AE

In all honesty mate it will get ignored and then told that it is stale and no action needed, I'm sure you have seen it before. BigDunc 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

True, true. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For excellent follow-through resolving problems that were caused by a long term habitual copyright violator. Durova412 19:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please revisit

Please revisit Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_10#Category:Northern_Irish_tennis_players. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Saturn

If he does it again, don't revert him, just take him to WP:3RR and let the admins handle it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was planning to do not worry. O Fenian (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken him to WP:ANI instead, as this is not the first time he's pushed this POV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I will also ask you not to revert the page again. you've hit 3 reverts for the same edit on two different days now which isn't really on. If there's a revert that needs doing, leave it to someone else. I have no comment on the substance of the edits at hand. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

More than happy to agree to that, with the proviso that it only applies to reverting with regard to the incident under dispute? O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye. Still, I wouldn't revert the page at all for 24 hours because then you'll be over the 3RR limit (don't forget, 3RR applies to any revert on a page, not necessarily the same revert). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not planning to revert any other edits on it for over 24 hours anyway. O Fenian (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well in that case you'll be fine then :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask for short-term semi-protection, to prevent any IP's from "taking over", although that would be an obvious red flag if they did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need really - the page is in the status quo at the minute, and if IP's started hitting it then that could be investigated. No need to disrupt editing of the whole page (there seems to be some constructive IP edits) when it seems unlikely that either user will revert again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing I don't much care for is Saturn claiming on ANI that I was "mindlessly reverting" the article. First, my argument is not mindless. Second, I looked through the last 500 edits, going back to September, and I haven't edited it since sometime before then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

People say things in the heat of the moment and get confused about the facts. It's evident from looking over the article history that you haven't edited for a long time - evidence is what I look at, not what a user says whilst "under investigation" themselves. He's not a bad guy - he clearly just cares passionately about this issue. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've edited the talk page, but generally I try to avoid edit warring in articles, as once you've reverted twice, it could go on forever were it not for the 3-revert rule. As far as Saturn is concerned... if he falsely accuses me again, I've got a good mind to ring his doorbell and run away. >:( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

theirs no point in talking to a unionist, I just didn't wat to waste my time, (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

Northern Irish/British flags in MMA

I'm not tryin to stir shit up or anything with the flag changes. I just think England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland flags are a more accurate representation of nationality than the British one. Since your username is "O Fenian" I can tell you feel pretty strongly about Irish politics, etc.- 90.202.94.46

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Islamuslim

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For catching a seriously dangerous sockpuppet and reporting it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Islamuslim. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudos! RashersTierney (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sig problem

Hello. I think you had too many "~"s when you signed this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

He's back

Hi! I just found out a new sock puppet account of Islamuslim, please join us. Thank you. User_talk:Bearian#New_sock_of_Islamuslim Angelo De La Paz (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas enforcement request

You are correct in that the IP was not used to evade a block, but as I believe the IP editor is obviously Lihaas there has been a breach of the 1RR restriction which is what I am asking to be enforced. Is it really necessary for me to take the same evidence to SPI under the circumstances? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure that blocking is an appropriate action all the same. I've left a note at AE to say that any other admin is welcome to review and come to their own decision. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lihaas‎, hopefully it will be addressed quickly. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mizo edits

its great you used the talk facility and said it. as simple as that, i can see where youre coming from and a valid point. as quick as that weve got consensus.Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Re

Can you please fix the articles Sinn Féin‎, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Scottish nationalism, Celtic nationalism?--Fishshaw (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

for take of freedom of speech

Please tell me why i cannot make changes?

(Paddy 00:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC))