User talk:Trickyjack

Civility

I removed your vote from the Edward O'Brien AFD, as it clearly was intended as a provocative personal attack, rather than an actual vote. Please keep it civil if you want to vote again. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, as you are a Republican wikipedia admin, I respect your duty to push the republican agenda wherever you can. But be honest about it please, you removed my vote because it was for the deletion of an article on a provos "volunteer". Don't fucking insult me by suggesting otherwise. Trickyjack (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Stu that the tone was uncivil. Indeed, by the few number of contributions on your account, Trickyjack (talk · contribs), there are strong concerns that this is simply a throwaway account created to participate in bad faith, and stir the pot. Or in other words: If you would like to engage in constructive editing of the encyclopedia, please do. But if you continue with provocative acts, account access may be blocked. --El on ka 02:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do whatever you want. I understand BigDunc, another Republican, requested that you block me. Articles on the troubles are so dominated by one side, I never knew there could be such clear bias on wikipedia. I could name you editors with an edit history solely focused on pushing their anti British, pro terrorism POV, but would you care? No, just do whatever BigDunc and the other Republicans tell you to do. See if I care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickyjack (talk • contribs)

I think that BigDunc will be one of the first editors to tell you that I'm not exactly biased in his favor. ;) But the point isn't about political views here, it's about working on the project. In the past couple weeks, your account isn't working on articles. All you seem to be doing is jumping from talkpage to talkpage, complaining about bias. If you continue that behavior, your account access may be blocked. To avoid a block, the choice is quite simple: All you have to do is work on articles. If you're not sure what to work on, check WP:CLEANUP, or Category:Articles that need to be wikified. We definitely have lots of work that needs doing! --El on ka 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, firstly I'm not an admin. Secondly I'm definitely not a republican. Thirdly, you obviously voted in the AFD without actually reading it. I nominated the article, and was arguing for it's deletion. I removed your vote for the reasons given, nothing else. If you think there's a bias in any article, then your best course of action is to fix it, while complying with our policies. Spouting hateful shite on take pages as you're doing now will only earn you a fairly quick ban. I guess that's the easier approach though, isn't it? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it? Hah, this is an encyclopaedia that regards An Phoblacht as a valid source..Trickyjack (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community restrictions

The article Ulster Defence Association, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

O Fenian (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just broke the above rule at Provisional Irish Republican Army, please use the talk page for disputed edits per WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 revert per day? How did I break that rule? Trickyjack (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]