Jump to content

User talk:O Fenian

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

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)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. BigDuncTalk 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. BigDuncTalk 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on November 25 2008 to North Irish Horse

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Good call

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

Troubles

Please note: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

You have now made 2 reverts on this article in breech of the above sanctions.--Domer48'fenian' 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one revert, when I was blindly and stupidly reverted in breach of fair use image policy. The image still fails policy, but I will deal with it later. O Fenian (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shambles Square, Manchester

Just letting you know that I've reverted your edit to the above article, where you erroneously removed the term "terrorist", claiming it was POV. Nev1 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide reliable sources, or your edits will be reverted. Here's one refering to a "sickening terrorist attack in Manchester". Nev1 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources contradicting the above source? Nev1 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you remove the term "terrorist" from the article, I'm assuming you do have reliable sources. What are these? Nev1 (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Collins

I've made a new edit on the Collins article. Please clean it up as you please, but don't revert. The previous edit is misleading and portrays the idea that the army was made up on pro-treaty veterans rather than the fact that most of the new soldiers were not. And its also an old cover up of the fact that ex British veterans fought in Free State army, which caused much consternation among the Irregulars. NewIreland2009 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunmanway massacre

Hi, I've noticed your edits to subjects around 1920s in Ireland and I'd appreciate your opinion at Dunmanway Massacre article. There are a few issues around refs, layout and tone and we'd be grateful for some fresh eyes, if you have time. See the talk page for (extremely!) lengthy discussion of the issues.

Cheers Jdorney (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on The Troubles

You don't have to leap to the (incorrect) assumption that because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they disagree with the point you are making. Tone down your comments. You've reviewed my edit history so you can see that I've been in my own share of arguments, and one thing I've figured out is that Truth doesn't matter here, only verifiable sources. If you look closer at my edits, you'll actually see that most of my editing was based on ensuring that the sources backed up what was actually stated. That way, the facts represented in the articles cannot be disputed. Maybe I'd understand why you're digging your heels in, if I understood why you don't was to use the term "Britain"? It doesn't seem like a big point for you to make.... --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! —— nixeagleemail me 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletions Declined

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

The categories are now at:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ireland article and partition

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

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)[reply]

history of terrorism

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

== 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)[reply]

3RR

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Derry. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please also note that edit summaries such as the one in this edit aren't acceptable, please keep it civil. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Block

For continuing to pursue and edit war on Wikipedia articles I have had no choice to block you for 24 hours as a result. You have gotten into an edit war with a series of IPs (of one or more users.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, god forbid an editor dares to remove such ridiculous point of view as "It is well documented that the Roman Catholic church encouraged Catholics to have large families in order that the Nationalists could eventually outnumber and outvote the Unionists. This overpopulation in itself was the cause of much social hardship and resulted in a drop in living standards for the Nationalist population for which the Unionist Authorities have been wrongly blamed". The idiocy of your block speaks for itself. O Fenian (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Ben this is a bad block this kind of sterotyping OR is vandalism IMO and should be reverted O Fenian has tried with messages to the IP but it didn't work. BigDuncTalk 11:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is this isn't blatant vandalism that is being undone, but continued warring with IPs (of which I've blocked one.) It's more of edit warring than vandalism undoing. I'd be more inclined to remove the block if O Fenian didn't use statements like "The idiocy of your block speaks for itself," which I feel is speaking towards keeping the block for disruptive editing. Now O Fenian's edits are generally of a high quality, and I have no ill will towards him/her in any way, but this whole Derry editing is becoming an issue (not one caused by O Fenian.) Because of the involvement of disruptive changing IP editors in this I shall lift the block, but remember these aren't pure vandalism reverts, they are indeed edit disputes. If more multiple reverts as such are performed on articles in such a manner in the near future, I will have no option but to block again. Remember a 3RR block doesn't necessarily mean that I think undoing the edits in themselves were wrong, but the continued reversion is disruptive to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same editor as the "British Isles" Derry editor. Edits like this, this and this (see the bottom part especially) show it is someone from an entirely opposite point of view. My comment is due to the fact that you are not unfamiliar of Northern Ireland articles, and hopefully should realise that the statement I was removing is unsourced, highly point of view and is itself disruptive to the project. Which is more disruptive to the project? Edit warring to remove the statement, or allowing the statement (which is also highly offensive to the Roman Catholic Church) to stand? O Fenian (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but it's still an edit and content battle, not blatant removal of vandalism. Anyway I've unblocked you. Just, be careful with your edits and reverts. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

2-1

Hallò! Now it's 2-1. If one more person sustain Northern Ireland flag at Google Street View additions I will put it back. Tìoraidh! Greetings from Romania. TouLouse (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That account

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

Eoghan Quigg

Please refrain from removing any cited information from the page on Eoghan Quigg. Although you may not like the content, it is fact and you cannot let your personal like of an individual lead to the editing of their page to improve their image. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Both passages you removed had sources cited so please check in the future before removing content. Thank you. Ngage77 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding the review of his album by Peter Robinson has a reference the the Guardian website where the article was published. This should not be removed as this page does not contain any other information regarding the recption of his debut album. Please refrain from allowing your personal feelings leading you to remove this passage, your point of view does not matter regarding his album. Feel free to cite any other publicated reviews of his album. Thank you. Ngage77 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry macLochlainn

O Fenian you keep removing material about Gerry MacLochlainn. You claim that the material is not supported by proper references because you consider the Western Mail to be a tabloid newspaper. Can you please advise how this can be resolved because your constant removal of material from this page for no good reason without any means of appeal is very unreasonable. I went and sought these references and find that you now question the authority of the main daily newspaper in Wales - a paper that is accepted as a paper of record by all impartial observors. I have accepted what you claim about the Sun and removed that material. Now please explain or atleast enter dialogue to resolve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.127.183 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to do just that nut am getting no response. The Western Mail is a paper of note and whilst its archive is not available online all of these articles are readable in the paper's physical archives - which I have done. I have removed anything not included in the Western Mail articles although I feel that the Abergavenny Chronicle may be similarly offended and being dismissed by you. These reports were widespread in the Welsh media at that time although they are not available online at this time. They go back too far. What else can be done if this important aspect of his history is to be permitted. All of the material relating to his arrest and imprisonment is confirmed in the Western Mail articles that are referenced

Surely deeming a helpful edit as "incorrect" and threatening to label me as a vandal constitutes as harrassment?

It does not matter if I am "unwelcome" to post here, it doesn't mean I can't. Providing I don't attack another user - which I am not - I am free to contact you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:O_Fenian&oldid=286910139"