User talk:Fynire

Dunmanway Massacre

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)

It would appear to be [12]. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 6 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'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:

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 reason:

I have several points. First, using an unblock template, such as this one, to request unblocking invites any administrator to review your case, after which they may accept or decline on the merits. The blocking admin typically does not review an unblock request, unless another reviewing admin asks them to take a second look at it - this is specifically to bring uninvolved admins into the situation, to get fresh eyes. On point, I see that you changed the number of dead in the Dunmanway Massacre from 10 to 13 here, and were reverted. Under the terms of the Arbitration Committee's decision (at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement), articles relating to The Troubles (which would include Dunmanway Massacre) are restricted to one revert per week. So, this is where you discuss the matter on the talk page (which I see that you attempted), get outside opinions, or otherwise cooperate with other editors to see where consensus lies. Instead, you reverted here a second time, and again here. Even if you were right, a question on which I make no judgement, you did violate the arbcom restriction and were blocked as a result. The block was properly logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. In short, the block is valid and I see no reason to overturn at this time. The conduct of other editors is not material to your conduct, and doesn't factor. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 6 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.

• Comment I see you still haven't grasped the fact why you were blocked and listing other editors who you say are not breaking any rules is pointless . BigDunc 11:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blaming BT for the IP hopping, is nonsence if one reviews this discussion here and also here. Were BT also responcible for your disruptive edits? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop getting paranoid O Fenian (or was it Big Dunc) the edits you complain about are not my doing. BT re-allocate the same IP number to others. But because you work as a team each need only revert once to get me in trouble. --Fynire (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

British Telecom IPs stay the same unless the modem/router or connection is rebooted. You have been caught on this with it being pointed out to you on the discussions above. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case O Fenian (and BT recycles the IP numbers). See the response to Domer's plea to have me blocked: "Could Admin's please address this, as it has been going on from at least January. Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Technically there's nothing to be done, short of semi-protecting all the articles involved. The editor is using a BT Broadband dynamic account, which are impossible to rangeblock (as you can see from the massive range of IP addresses). If there are particular articles that are problematic, WP:RFPP would be the place to request semi-protection. Black Kite 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"

The 'Troubles' rules say you can only revert once if on probation but I was not on probation as Domer was SO THE BLOCK IS INVALID. --Fynire (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your not using a dynamic account, so cop on! You can use an IP for three days, but as soon as you get blocked it changes? Yeh right. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of account I am using Domer but Black Kite seems to understand that BT creates multiple numbers. Anyway since I registered I haven't been using IP numbers despite your paranoid accusations. --Fynire (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh right!--Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fynire your talking crap, your deliberately rebooting your modem to get a new IP to evade the blocks. You can also look at the list of IPs and look for ones you used for a few days at a time, then compare that to when you were blocked and your getting a new IP every few hours. It's too much of a coincidence that your IPs just happened to get reassigned so quickly when your blocked, yet other times they stayed the same for at least a day or two.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this alleged mass socking editor (Fynire) not banned? Either he's banned or his name is cleared. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Domer. It isn't real vandalism. Your paranoia is out of control. I can't be accused of being every single Irish person using an IP number. And you know my style - some of these IP plainly do not follow my attempts to neutralise (and broaden) Irish articles that are so often one-sided Republican propaganda. As an enthusiastic POV warrior you know better than most. Raring to go when block lifted. --Fynire (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fynire, I strongly recommend you 'don't' use IPs anymore & use only your registered account. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IP change again by its self?--Domer48_'fenian' 14:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser time. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert the Newry-related amendment to Barrack Buster, Domer, without giving a reason? It seems perfectly all right to me and you ignored the amendment by the same IP user (not me by the way) to Bay of Pigs which also seems perfectly reasonable? And by the way, Domer, how does one change one's IP number. I assume they were decided by your provider?--86.168.90.42 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just added the latest IP to the list, and I'll just ignore the troll above. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not delete

Specifically, attempting to advance your own published theory in an article may be a conflict of interest. O Fenian (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

With all the suspicions being made on usage of multiple IPs. Why has there not been a CU done on Fynire? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay: What's a CU? And I have edited the PEI article. Remember O Fenian et al operate as a tag team on reversions and blocking threats.

A CU is a 'Check-User' for whether an editors has used un-announced 'register accounts' or has been editing while blocked or signed out (using IPs). If we're to meet on public pages, I need assurances that I can trust you. PS: don't forget to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodday: CU seems to be permissible only in extremely serious cases. I came to an agreement with administrator RD252 ?? to register with all previous (unwarranted) complaints about IP hopping then to be taken off the table. Once I registered I have only used Fynire. I can give no other assurances and don't see why I need to. O Fenian et al use any and every bureaucratic device to wear down their 'opponents'. However you can see an example in the Peter Hart article where they were seen off. --Fynire (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me I needed to add balance to that article. As for the rest of your rant, I suggest you save it for next time you try and recruit meatpuppets by whinging to a paper. My point about conflict of interest stands, and it also includes another article which is considerably closer to home. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply remain 'logged in' when editing Wikipedia. That's all we ask, nothing further. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks on a Troubles-related article. 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. Elonka 00:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

These comments and edit summaries were disruptive, especially considering that they were already in powderkeg Troubles-related articles.[13][14][15] If you are going to edit in these areas, you need to take special care to edit in a civil and collegial manner, and to keep comments strictly focused on the articles, not on other editors. --Elonka 00:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Elonka - The three comments that you felt justified my blocking were not that severe in the context of the aggressive editing by those I and others usually face in Troubles articles. However I was probably intemperate where I accused O Fenian of 'spouting crap'. (Not that he hasn't frequently been unpleasant to me and worse.) In the instance where I said Sarah777's tactic was 'spiteful' because she abruptly changed the Dunmanway article's title after her use of the word 'massacre' was reverted I was wrong in that description. The sequence of events was that on 28 October at 01.25 she reverted an edit to re-introduce to the article her own use of the word 'massacre'(of Catholics in 1920s Belfast as a possible cause for the Dunmanway massacre of Protestants) in place of ‘killings’. One minute later at 01.26 she retitled the whole article by removing the word ‘massacre’. This was not a spiteful tactic but something else, so I apologise for using that word. The third instance was trivial (and related to the second) in that I simply pointed out that Domer who accused me of a personal attack (i.e. on Sarah) was thin skinned and ‘not averse to personal attacks’ himself. His block log is evidence. I feel that in this context, blocking me for relatively minor remarks and leaving the aggression of so many others alone is inappropriate. However I will refrain from strong responses.}} --Fynire (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, block lifted, welcome back! I checked for autoblocks and didn't see any, but if you still have any trouble editing, just post here and we'll take a look. --Elonka 07:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hello there, Fynire.Irvine22 (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And good day to you Irvine who ever you are. More work on Dunmanway has been done. --Fynire (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I saw that. More is needed. Irvine22 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Breach of 1RR

You have been reported at WP:AE. O Fenian (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey (re Dunmanway murders)

Best to (also) leave your comments and concerns with User:Angusmclellan so he can advise you how to register them properly and not play into the hands of your opponents. You can and should leave your opinion at the bottom of Talk:McMahon Murders and Arnon Street Massacre, which have been namemove requested by me, so that your opinion will count. I will probably be accused by certain individuals of canvassing, but I am responding to the message you left on my talk page.

I know from experience that if you don't cross every "t" and dot every "i" .... Obviously User:Sarah777's actions were, as usual, outrageous, so how come no one else noticed till I did today, more than a month later? Vigilance is needed. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Fynire. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I have blocked you indefinitely. You have exhausted the community's patience in dealing with your copyright violations, and you have shown no sign of a willingness to reform. To appeal you block, you may add {{unblock|your reason here}} below this post. NW (Talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review your extreme decision taking into account only my actions - that is Fynire's actions - anything else is open to dispute as I am not all those editors I am accused of being. I am being bullied by O fenian and Big Dunc as part of their controlling operation on Irish articles which you may not understand. See Dunmanway article for one. Without researching the issue at length at this point, I understood brief quotation from other authors - a sentence or two did not violate copyright.