Jump to content

User talk:Vintagekits

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zoe (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 28 January 2007 (Harrassment is not going to get me to do anything for you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments from unregistered users and Logica will be deleted!

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Vintagekits, welcome to Wikipedia!

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

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

You might like some of these links and tips:

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

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

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


Well done

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

MacManus

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


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

No probs the name change to Joe, he already has a re-direct for that name so you could use that page if necessary...Weggie 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sorry was working on another page! Had another look - the only other piece of information that I removed was the claim that he was a B-Special. I was going to check to see if this can be verified before I re-added. Which bits are you concerned with apart from this? Will be leaving the site until tomorrow night in about 10 mins...Weggie 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to revert it and input the minor editing remarks that you suggest and you verify the details in the book, have you got the book? Vintagekits 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Duddy

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

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

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

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

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


POV

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

Operation Flavius

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

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

Paddy Cunningham

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

Spanish Gibraltarians

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

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

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

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

Reverting a banned user

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

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

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

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

Damaen Kelly

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

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

Volunteer debate

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

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

Personal attack warning

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

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

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

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

What are you up to?

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

Jdorney 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jdorney 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Involvement of Tiocfaidh Ár Lá

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

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

Creating a category

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

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

Regards, jnestorius(talk) 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Countess Markiewicz.jpg

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

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

Volunteer shambles

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

Northern Ireland Flag

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

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

Firstly, it is not used by the rugby team. Secondly it is not the official flag and has no legal basis and therefore should not be used. For further info see here Vintagekits 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read the article you linked to again? It is the de facto flag of Northern Ireland and is even displayed in that very article as the flag of Northern Ireland in the "Flags of United Kingdom" section. Looking at your contributions on WP it seems this is far from the first time you've broken the reversion rules and it seems you're more interested in enforcing your own political agenda then of furthering the cause of WP with neutral information. If you're incapable of separating your own personal views from objective information maybe you should consider if WP is really the place for you? ExNihilo 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

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

Thanks Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me the three reverts as I dont think I have. Vintagekits 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't blocked you, therefore I am not sure why you get upset at me. It was just a friendly warning. I've been an admin for more than a year and fully aware of 3RR so kindly refrain from aggresive comments (such as the one left on my talk page) as I haven't been anything but polite to you. Thank you. Sebastian Kessel Talk
I would just like you to show me where I have broken the 3rr. I am not getting upset nor am I being aggresive but when someone accuses me of doing something then I would have the deceny to highlight the facts of the issue. As I said I have not broken the 3rr as some of what you may consider reverts were actually edits.--Vintagekits 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the comment "you have to read WP:3R fully" as aggressive. As I said, I haven't blocked you for it and the policy is clear that "undoing edits by another editor" are reverts. In any even, the page is blocked making this point useless. You aren't blocked and won't be if the page continues to be blocked. I am not even required to leave the friendly message, but I did anyway. I don't need to provide evidence or defend my actions, and I'm not planning to do so. I wish you a good day. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you cant back up your accusation and wont! interesting! Also you consider that a request that you read a wiki policy is aggressive - if you do then you are very sensitive and you are not assuming good faith--Vintagekits 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just take Sebastian's advice. You can't fight against everyone here and last very long. he is perfectly correct in what he says, SqueakBox 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof? Ever heard of it? Try using it--Vintagekits 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what you are talking about, but admins can block you and if you dont remain civil they doubtless will do so, SqueakBox 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They wont because they need a reason, I play within the rules so thats a ridiculous thing to say!--Vintagekits 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well good luck to you then, though according to Sebastian he already had a reason, SqueakBox 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise. This one about 3 lines down, SqueakBox 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I hope you can see I may dislike your Falklands views but I am not against you as an editor working to make this a better encyclopedia, SqueakBox 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only stating facts, sorry if you tyhought it was aggressive, it wasnt meant to be--Vintagekits 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malvinas war?

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

If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise.--Vintagekits 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced material is absolutely subject to deletion if it doesn't fit NPOV and notability, in this case it fits neither. Marking yourself out as POV pushing trouble-maker is, I am sure, not whjat you want, so please dont even threaten to make false vandalsim claims, any good faith edit cannot be considered vandalsims and to acuse 2 editors of bad faith when you know this isnt true will just bring trouble onto ypour own head. The admin would have reverted any vandalsim before locking the page and there can no discussions about the validity of real vandalism on an article's talk page. Your POV comment is a clear indication that you know I have not committed vandalsim, so take this as a warning, SqueakBox 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminding me what you are warning me of again? Telling the truth, adding referenced material or requiring others to put forward a reason agrument to back up their POV--Vintagekits 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, threatening to or making false claims of vandalsim, SqueakBox 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Logica

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

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

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

Gerry McGeough

Dear Sir/Madam:

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

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

Cheers.

Plastic Paddy

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

lost virginity

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

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

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

Can I just point out that isn't vandalism - the sock has been proven to be illegit and indefinantly banned. As per our discussion with the admin, I will not place the tag on Vintage's page, but I still had the right to. Logoistic 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know - the really has it in for me! ah well!--Vintagekits 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Audiophile? Amateur radio? Those are the usages I'm most familiar with... Jefferson Anderson 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, its nothing to do with that, I might have a look into it however--Vintagekits 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Our relationship

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

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

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

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

Uncivil?

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

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

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

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

  • If you dont consider that that was uncivil, maybe I should report it and let others decide! I make NO bones about supporting Irish republicans, in fact I am very open about it, however, that does not preculde me from editing any articles.--Vintagekits 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've altered my comment to be, i hope, more civil, and i hope you agree. However i still don't think that comment was uncivil, just badly worded. I suppose i should also of used the word "objections to this article" rather than the words "opinion of this article". However your political/ideological opinion does give a very real possiblity of bias to an article on a rival ideology. If i offended i didn't mean to. Mabuska 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point i was making initially and still am is that the openness on your republican affiliation does give the possibility of bias against a loyalist article. Just as we would both assume a marking for deletion of an article dealing with an Irish republican matter by someone who is open about their loyalism is possibly biased. Mabuska 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And vice versa - I dont think that the article satisfies WP:N just like like i would consider a deletion for an article named Republicanism in Ballinascreen--Vintagekits 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vice versa would work if i was a loyalist :-P As stated in my progfile i consider myself a Northern Irish Socialist Nationalist which contradicts loyalism. Then why did i create an article on Tobermore Loyalism? Because i am from Tobermore and want all aspects of it chronicled. If there was any republican history in Tobermore i'd have added it to the article and named the article Loyalism and Republicanism in Tobermore. Mabuska 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Show Preview

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

Edit conflict

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

I dont understand. Which edit is missing?--Vintagekits 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is referring to my post. Logoistic 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet claim

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

An un registered user makes his first edit and that happens to be a revert of something that just happens to have been revert 4 times in the last ten minutes! Lol!!--Vintagekits 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is suspicious. But where is the good faith? Plus, it isn't proven, so you can't say it was a sockpuppet - "suspected" perhaps. Logoistic 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is why I posed a question--Vintagekits 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Get it right mate, I didnt say it was sock of yours!--Vintagekits 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err wrong page, Vintagem, if you think the anon is someone's sock get a user check and make the allegation in the right place, 3RR isnt it. I suggets you remove our comments from 3RR. i assume you are referring to me as nobody else would use a sock in this case, ie I cant edit any more because I would be breaking 3RR, none of the other anti Malvinas as a terme editors would, SqueakBox 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was posting about his 4 reverts within an hour - not the sock situation, regards--Vintagekits 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a) you should have warned him, hes a complete newbie (I have now done so) and (b) you need to format properly like I did or they wont take your complaint seriously, SqueakBox 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your 3 reverts too. You could run a user check on the latest editor or request partial protection or both, SqueakBox 01:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damaen Kelly Boxer

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

Point Taken

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

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

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

I think that WeniWidiWiki is a Scottish editor who has some problems with a certain player playing for the Ireland team. I was looking at the history of his edits, and he wasn't long putting some absolute point of view stuff onto the article. He used to call himself HroptR. The article is still pov-ridden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.159.149 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I thought as much a chara--Vintagekits 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Manchester bombing

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

Population & Stuff

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

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

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

Nationality of MON

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

Northern Ireland

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

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

Downdaroad

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

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

Sir Norman Stronge &c.

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

Sir Norman (as he should be referred to on Wiki.) was not "targetted", whatever upon earth that means, he was murdered and in reprisals to murderes had no connection to. A reader without prior knowledge may think he was implicated in those. Assassination is a factual word, whether you want it to be or not Wiki. guidelines allow it.--Couter-revolutionary 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assisnation and murder are both POV. The article is completely POV and biased. God only know how it has lasted this long!--Vintagekits 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When someone kills someone it is murder, when they are high-profile it is assassination. Why should this be PoV. You may not like the use of the term but it best illustrates what occured, it's not as if they passed away in their sleeps after some warm milk is it? The were murdered. --Couter-revolutionary 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you educate yourself further on the terminology as you dont seem to have a full grasp of it at the moment.--Vintagekits 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have weaknesses, but education isn't one of them. This is from wikipedia; "Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual". I think this applies here.--Couter-revolutionary 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you found that page - three lines further down - "Assassination itself, along with terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term." - end of story. An apology and I will forget about it!--Vintagekits 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be considered "loaded", whatever that means, but it doesn't mean that it can't as fact. I suppose JFK just died? No, he was very much assassinated and so was Sir Norman. An apology you shan't have.--Couter-revolutionary 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You dont have to wonder what it means - just click on loaded term and all shall be clear my dear boy--Vintagekits 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, how very kind. To describe, however, the violent assassination of an elderly former politician, with no provacation, as a death (one has images of a fall down the stairs) in the article of a third party clearly shows either your detachment from relaity or your bias.--Couter-revolutionary 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, this is an encyclopedia not site to wax lyrical about the Tynan Dallas, sorry, Dynasty--Vintagekits 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and nor is it a place to "wax lyrical" about appeasing a vicious murder from a republican perspective. I have made my position clear and am no longer willing to continue this discussion.--Couter-revolutionary 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now - dont get yourself into trouble - please note WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On another matter, and these are my parting comments to you, it is also against wiki. policy to follow a particular editors contributions altering them. It is this which you seem to be doing. I shouldn't like to have to have you written up.--Couter-revolutionary 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-Scots

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

Tommy Burns

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

And again. The reference you provided, [4] only mentions Tom Conti is of Irish descent. That doesn't seem to justify saying that he is a Roman Catholic. Ian Paisley is also of Irish descent, for example. Don't get me wrong by the way; it's good that you're adding references to these articles, just make sure the reference actually says what you are using it to verify. Cheers. --Guinnog 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop? I would really rather you answered the point about the difference between people of Irish descent and Catholics before you make any more edits like that. --Guinnog 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the reference for Gerard Butler--Vintagekits 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked it yet. Would you please address the questions above? --Guinnog 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working, I dont have you dance around to your timescales!--Vintagekits 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your work is against important Wikipedia principles like WP:V, it will be reverted, though not by me, as I don't revert-war. It would be better for you to go back and amend some of your (apparent) errors I pointed you to, than to make more edits. I know you are making good-faith edits there, but maybe you need to slow down and make fewer, better edits. --Guinnog 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

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

Irish

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

I've fixed some of your errors from yesterday as you did not do them when I asked you. Can we please be clear that:
1) Being of Irish descent is not the same as being a Roman Catholic
2) Blogs are not acceptable references, see WP:EL
As I said, you need to slow down and make better edits as it is a lot of work to check your edits and correct your errors. You should be able to do that yourself. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock accounts

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

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

Michael Dickson

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

Dickson is an Irish name now!?--Vintagekits 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I know. Why did you add him again to the category? --Guinnog 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're at it again. Will you please stop? --Guinnog 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what are you talking about?--Vintagekits 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you are making sloppy edits again. Irish is not the same as Catholic. Simply adding the categories without any explanation looks like WP:POINT. If you add the information to the article along with a verifiable reference then that is fine. Once again, slow down and do a better, more thorough job and that way your edits are more likely to persist. --Guinnog 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stop posting nonsense please--Vintagekits 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm choosing to ignore your rudeness for the moment. Take a look at KT Tunstall. This is what you should be doing; adding well-referenced information to the article, not just a category. Please slow down and do a better job. --Guinnog 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Willie Gallacher is another example. --Guinnog 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the Cat and a reference, that is sufficiant for now. also you are reverting articles where I have provided a reference for the Cat - such as John McAllion--Vintagekits 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John McAllion

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

He stated in parliment - "I was born and grew up in Glasgow, a member of an Irish Catholic family." - what more do you want?--Vintagekits 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to add the information to the article, not just the reference (which on its own is fairly meaningless). I want you to realise that the RC category is not for people who grew up in a Catholic family, but for practising Catholics. Does that make sense? --Guinnog 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Faint praise

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

Conversely, your work could be construed by some to have undertones of anti-Irish bigotry - but not I--Vintagekits 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad then that we understand each other. The difference is that I am trying to improve the articles I edit. As I said, I see some small progress in your editing, but it needs to get better still. --Guinnog 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dad, I just wanna make you pwoud!--Vintagekits 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I enjoyed that. In spite of what you may think, I am actually just trying to make he encyclopedia better, as I'm sure in your own way you are too. Don't you think the category we are arguing over looks better with only actual Irish-Scots in it, rather than a random selection of people with Wikipedia articles with Irish surnames? The funniest ones I took out were Terry McDermott (no Scottish connections whatsoever) and Michael Ancram (added mistakenly by you I think). --Guinnog 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, that was User:GSR05. --Guinnog 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were some funnies in there. However, I think you will admit that many if not most of those you took out are actually of Irish descent. Proving it is a different matter.--Vintagekits 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another bad edit I'm afraid. As I explained the RC categories are for people who profess to be practising Catholics. Merely having grown up in a Catholic family is not enough. Unfortunately too, in your haste to revert, you removed information from the article which I had added. This was a bad edit. I invite you to revert it yourself. --Guinnog 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does he say the he is no longer a practising Catholic?--Vintagekits 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. He doesn't say he is not a Muslim either, but we don't add that to the article. The onus of proof is on an editor wanting to add information (including categories). Please revert it as a sign of good faith. --Guinnog 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is nonsense, does he have to make a statement daily? The edit is good, I have proven he is Catholic and until you can come up with to show he is not then it stays!--Vintagekits 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

That is an incorrect interpretation of the pocily. If he states that he grew up a Catholic and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that has changed then it is safe to say that he still is a Catholic as once you are baptised into the Catholic church then you remain a member of that church.--Vintagekits 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's two people saying your interpretation is incorrect, so I suggest you seek a wider consensus before reinstating it. Tyrenius 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James McDade

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

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

I just noticed this

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

Stop using my talk page as your own personal forum

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

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

Gerard Mongtomery

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

Blocked for what, writing well referenced articles?? They are not my allegations they are the Daily Mails. --Vintagekits 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same claim doesn't wash. No, for recreating libelous claims without evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am only repeating them because they are true and you are ignoring them for some reason. Remember I am not the only editor who has used this article as a source/reference!--Vintagekits 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am ignoring them because you haven't provided them. The links you provide are not reliable sources, and fail our policy at WP:BLP. Have you read BLP? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe you deleted the other article without a prompt or even any debate! This is amazing!--Vintagekits 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat. Have you read BLP? Especially, Jimmy Wales has said:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the other articlres??--Vintagekits 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not reading what I am writing? I deleted them because they were not only poorly sourced, they were not sourced at all. As the quote above says, it should be removed, aggressively. Provide reliable references, and the articles can be recreated. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I access the history of those pages so I dont have to totally rewrite them from scratch as I dont think I have the stomach for that. Also you need to calm down and discuss these things as you are going way over board. Did you even ask EricR where he got that quote? Thats seems like it would have been the first thing a reasonible admin would have done.--Vintagekits 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provide reliable sources on the article Talk pages and I will undelete them. And I didn't need to ask Eric where he got the quote, as he didn't provide a link, despite multiple requests for one. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you only consider as source verifiable if its on the internet? That is not standard policy!--Vintagekits 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we only have the word of the bloggers and forumeers of the existence of the Daily Mail link, when the Daily Mail's own archives contain no mention of the people. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is stopping you getting a hardcopy of the article direct from the DM. I see that EricR has posted further details. Also as an act of good faith can you reinstate the other two articles so I can do a couple of hours work on them - and then you can judge them. regards--Vintagekits 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a hard copy? Perhaps you can provide a scan of it. Tyrenius 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain

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

Hi Mais, I am sure I read that you should let the originator know in the AfD policy page.--Vintagekits 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your greater knowledge!! I rarely read these things :) Often, in real life, as well as at Wikipedia, common sense should be our guide, not bloody rulebooks. It is often very useful to ask oneself: "what is reasonable"? I, personally, consider it reasonable to choose not to invest one's time in notifying people of AFDs. --Mais oui! 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McGartland at AfD

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

NPA

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

Which personal attack?--Vintagekits 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if you know just have it in for me because we disagreed over the Montgomery article but I was raising a serious issue - Asrotion has taken to mass deletion of my work all at once how am I supposed to defend them all at once? I feel like I am being bullied here.--Vintagekits 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have it in for you. I just think your understanding of BLP and reliable sources is wrong. If you look at my contributions, you'll see I've been issuing NPA warnings to several people today. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I just think that Astrotrain has been pretty crafty today, he knows if he puts things up for deletion all at the one time then there is less time to defend - it only takes seconds to nominate for AfD but it takes a good while to extand and defend articles.--Vintagekits 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why you've just done the same thing to me Vintage??Weggie 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I proddy a couple of people who are glorified local councillors - Astrotrain has nominated over 20 just today!--Vintagekits 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apology

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

For your information, I've requested that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold be reopened. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've rumbled me!--Vintagekits 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what it says: no, they won't check. You can ask Mr Gordon why, if you like, but I doubt you'll get an answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldnt they check? I wont them to (looking forward to see you groveling!!--Vintagekits 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's nobody going to see it where you left it. Try User talk:Jpgordon, but based on past "please disprove I'm a sockpuppet" attempts you've got two chances: fat and slim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reason could they have for not lookinh into the case?--Vintagekits 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did they knock me back? They may believe you are innocent as the driven snow. Or they may think I'm fishing. They might think there isn't enough evidence. They could think that evading a block is not a big enough deal to justify the effort and the invasion of privacy. If you meant why did they ignore your request, first off they never do checkusers for the subject and secondly someone had aleady taken it off the list when you left your message so they wouldn't have seen it. You may be in line for that apology all the same: Bluegold never posted when he'd been on the drink that I remember. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McGartland

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

References

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

Gerald Donaghy

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

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

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

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

Bastin8

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

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

WP:PUI

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

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

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

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

Terrorism Categorys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are very close to breaking WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway we have been through this all before--Vintagekits 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Close but no cigar. If I have offended you then I apologise and in any case I am withdraw from his debate, I don't have time to fight with you over every article about the IRA and will leave the issue for future editors to clear up. Just to note, the discussion you linked to and the Wikipedia guidelines indicate that the use of the word terrorism should be sourced. I agree with this totally. However, you have been removing the categories linking to terrorism. This is deliberately disingenuous as a category cannot be sourced no matter how well referenced the article is. Anyway, goodbye, I have already been drawn to far into this and would rather be working on articles, not debating semantics, so I'll leave you to it.--Jackyd101 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice I havent removed the category from each article only those in which civilians were not the specific target.--Vintagekits 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPG

Thanks for the comments.

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

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

Jdorney 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background

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

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

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

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

Anglo-Irish War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything you said there is incorrect.

Harrod's Bombing

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

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

Volunteer/Member

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

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

Paddy Quinn (Irish republican)

As far as the changes go:

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

What problems with the above do you have?

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

I do not tell you what to do but when you edit on wiki it is expected that you should abide by there rules, policies and procedures.--Vintagekits 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&oldid=103788262"