User talk:Fynire

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dunmanway Massacre. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Tomás Mac Curtain. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say, Domer, that the source is unreliable. The addition could only be controversial if it was wrong which you do not say. Find a contrary source and then we can look into it.--Fynire (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Martin McGartland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BigDunc 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made points to O Fenian who does not respond. Then you come along and revert in a pack action. So make your point discursively instead of threatening.Fynire (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a threat I am informing you of the consequences of edit warring nothing more. BigDunc 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you enter discussion? You are edit warring not me.

I have made a comment on the talk page. BigDunc 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Dolours Price, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

You have been told enough times: [8] [9] [10] [11].--Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that you are always being blocked I think you are a little optimistic Domer,

but threaten away if it makes you feel big. Perhaps you could find the time to explain what is wrong/original about the pieces I have added. Did the bomb at the Old Bailey fail? It went off. Maybe it didn't kill enough people?Fynire (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Report

I've raised your conduct here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Which article? --Fynire (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Which article I asked and you did not answer except to threaten blocking? --Fynire (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 1 week

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

You are editing contrarily to the provisions of the restrictions of ArbCom/The Troubles, and my action will be noted there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fynire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You do not give sufficient reason for the block for me to respond. The list of crimes presented by Domer is irrelevant and inaccurate. My so-called IP hopping was caused by BT.

Decline reason:

Nonetheless, you still violated restrictions set forth by the Arbitration Committee with regards to edit-warring on articles pertaining to The Troubles, regardless of which IPs you were using. MuZemike 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Fynire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

MuZemike - the block was put on by LessHeard vanU so I would have expected him to reply with his reasons. None the less I think it right that you say which particular edits were in violation. Please note that my accusers are, by constantly reverting with no reason given or bureaucratic reasons, edit-warring too. The Tag Team of Domer, O Fenian and Big Dunc take it in turns to revert so they rarely build up three reversions.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=MuZemike - the block was put on by LessHeard vanU so I would have expected him to reply with his reasons. None the less I think it right that you say which particular edits were in violation. Please note that my accusers are, by constantly reverting with no reason given or bureaucratic reasons, edit-warring too. The Tag Team of Domer, O Fenian and Big Dunc take it in turns to revert so they rarely build up three reversions. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=MuZemike - the block was put on by LessHeard vanU so I would have expected him to reply with his reasons. None the less I think it right that you say which particular edits were in violation. Please note that my accusers are, by constantly reverting with no reason given or bureaucratic reasons, edit-warring too. The Tag Team of Domer, O Fenian and Big Dunc take it in turns to revert so they rarely build up three reversions. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=MuZemike - the block was put on by LessHeard vanU so I would have expected him to reply with his reasons. None the less I think it right that you say which particular edits were in violation. Please note that my accusers are, by constantly reverting with no reason given or bureaucratic reasons, edit-warring too. The Tag Team of Domer, O Fenian and Big Dunc take it in turns to revert so they rarely build up three reversions. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.