User talk:TheOldJacobite

If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, post here. Template:Archive box collapsible

External links

I really don't understand your "but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Johnny Cash, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes". I have been a JRC-fan since 1958, and have a special love for his Sun recordings. I have worked a lot with this listing of his recordings, and my site got nothing to do with promotional purposes - it's purely info for fans of various artists presented on the site. It seems like this type of info are popular among readers, as the visiting stats show for the little time the link was up and working. My other listings are VERY popular.Castironarm (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk:Corporals_killings". Thank you. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What a joke. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Corporals killings". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Corporals killings, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

William S. Burroughs

Hello RepublicanJacobite,

I wanted to apologize about changing the top part of the article about William S. Burroughs. I thought the wording could have been done a little differently to make the summary better, it was not my intention to be disruptive. I didn't see your first message about it not being constructive, and I didn't know how to respond to other users at the time, which I know is embarrassing. I know it's been nearly three years since this happened and you probably forgot about it, but I still would like to clear this up. I'm sorry it took this long to respond to you, and I hope you can forgive me. If not, then that's understandable, but if something like this happens again, I will contact you to clear up any problems.

See you later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Fence (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Real Genius

TheOldJacobite, hey man got reading through your comments on my real genius edits. reading the citation policy of wikipedia, i tend to agree with you. However, i want to validate what ES has documented. I am reaching out to the author and others to confirm and validate. Hopefully, that should resolve things. -cheers Greyteo (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Memento in-universe

Regarding this [1] are you sure that it's more in-universe? Starting with (as you changed it) "A backwards sequence is shown." could be taken as a film-within-a-film (I know it's not), which is a cinema technique used in a lot of films. Expressly identifying the viewer or that the work as the film expressly moves it out-of-universe. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of "The film starts..." we can say "The first scene of the film is shown in reverse." or "The viewer is shown..." We just need some keyword that asserts that this is the media that starts in reverse, and not a show-within-a-show. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

90.200.85.84

Would you have a look at this please (worth a look at my two edits). I would report to AIV myself but I want a second opinion first (feel free to report if you agree). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)These edits are by a person who lives in Burton-on-Trent. They consistently violate the MoS and have never replied to comment, request, or warnings on their talk pages. The admin that usually blocks them is busy moving at the moment but I will let him know about this new IP. Their is the occasional edit that seems innocuous that you could leave in if you want but it you can also revert everything as their IP hopping and other disruptive edits cause no end of hassles for other editors. Thanks to you and OldJacobite for your vigilance in this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to MarnetteD for the rundown. He got it exactly right. His edits are always a mixed bag, with a few of them actually being helpful, some being blatant violations of MoS and consensus, others just being nonsensical (as, in this case, changing "in the UK" to "at the UK"). But, the larger point, I think, is that this is an IP sock of a blocked user. As such, all his edits should be reverted on sight. I have been reverting him all day. As Marnette said, he has stubbornly refused to use edit summaries or to engage in any discussion. He is, in a word, disruptive. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Could you let me know who you think this is a sockpuppet of? Don't want to block them without going through a checkuser just in case this supposed pattern keeps recurring. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely this guy, but I suspect that he has used numerous other IPs, and that this is actually an IP sock of another long-term abusive editor. I just have not determined who... ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can checkuser on that :( Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly construed across all namespaces for a period of 3 months. This topic ban may be appealed at AE, and every six months thereafter. Per WP:AC/DS#Appeal you may appeal this ban the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or directly to the Arbitration Committee--Cailil ^talk 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)