User talk:Mooretwin

Hello Mooretwin, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! Alison ❤ 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Irish Premier League, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Irish Premier League was changed by Mooretwin (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-06-25T14:28:19+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to move a page by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Gail (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish Premiership

Hi there. As the others have pointed out, we already have a version of the above article at Irish Premier League. I've changed yours so it will direct to that page instead, so people will still find the right page by searching for "Irish Premiership". If you want to make changes to the article, though, you should edit the Irish Premier League one. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia - Alison ^❤ 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No. No. No. The Irish Premier League has been superseded by the Irish Premiership. It no longer exists and so the Irish Premier League page is redundant. It should point to the Irish Premiership page.

You have reverted 2 Admins on this matter it is better to go to the talk page of either User talk:Alison or User talk:SirFozzie and bring your concerns up with them. Your edits might be seen as disruptive and you could eventually be blocked, Happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 15:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain something as a new user, you may not know about. Due to GFDL concerns, we can't do a cut and paste move, the license which everyone posts here. the GFDL requires that previous contributors be credited properly for their work. So, when a page changes name, instead of copying and pasting the text from the old article into a new page, we do what's known as a page move. Look at the top of the the page. It should say things like "edit this page" "new Section" "history", etcetera.

The section I'm discussing here is "move". When you click it, it will bring you to a page where you can enter a new name for the page. I just did this, and moved the page to Irish Premiership. That brings over all the history of the article, and keeps us compatible with the license (if we just copied and pasted it over with a redirect, then the previous editors would NOT appear in the history, and we'd be in violation of the license. Hope this explains where we're coming from on this.

Also, as an American, despite the fact I'm a footy fan, the only prior experience I have with the Irish Premiership is via Football Manager 2008. Could you double check the lead I've entered and see how it looks? Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I tried to "move" but I couldn't see the move button on the top of the page, so I had to find another means of changing the title of the page. You seem to have rectified matters now, and your lead is accurate, and so I thank you, although I intend to add my "Trivia" section (perhaps not the best title) which is now lost.Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have retained some historical and other information on the "Irish Football League" page. I see why you have done this, but I think it would be better to have this on the main "IFA Premiership" page. There is a proper continuity from IFL, to IPL to IFAP, after all.Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable articles

The article Fermanagh & Western Football Association has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to move a page by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

C&P move

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Matthew_hk tc 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Matthew_hk tc 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making threats based on unspecified criticisms. I've no idea what you're talking about. I've posted on your talk page and you've ignored me. Please desist from this unreasonable behaviour. Mooretwin (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. BigDunc^Talk 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody else - Pureditor - is changing my edits without entering into discussion. I will not accept someone's edits unless he or she engages in discussion. Any future edits that I make, I will explain properly in discussion. You will see that I have taken on boards others' comments in the discussion section. I think that is fair.Mooretwin (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful. You'll find that an uninvolved admin will wade in and blindly block you regardless without properly looking at the detail. Once that happens appeals are a waste of time. Ranks close.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted on BigDunc's page that I am willing to engage in discussion with people, but will not accept unexplained reversions by people unwilling to discuss why they are doing it. I think that is fair.Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship

In Northern Ireland citizenship is a negative action. Everyone born in NI to at least one parent who was likewise is from birth an Irish and a British citizen, regardless of whether they use it or not. You can renounce one or other if you wish, but from birth you are both.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily - if one doesn't want to be regarded as a Southern Irish citizen, one is not necessarily regarded as one.Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Legally, what you wish to be regarded as is meaningless. I don't want to be regarded as an Irish citizen, but I am one under Irish law, likely the same with you (taken on assumption you were born in NI)Traditional unionist (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with TU on this, according to the GFA you have the right to be both or just one. BigDunc^Talk 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The GFA is just words, it doesn't mean anything. Irish law on the other hand has basically had this situation in place for 60 years.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Before 2001, under Southern Irish law, people from NI had to apply to become Southern citizens. Now, they may be regarded as such from birth, without the need to apply. There is, however, some room for manoeuvre in that it is not a wholesale assumption that everyone is a Southern citizen. The law is quite opaque and therefore it is accurate to say that people MAY BE regarded as citizens, rather than ARE regarded.Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where someone wouldn't be an Irish citizen? And this goes back much before 2001.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's little point in discussing this on my talk page. I will explain more fully on the main discussion page.Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually people even before 2001 weren't automatically Irish citizens. Another country cannot impose citizenship on citizens from another country. Automatically British yes, automatically irish no. Even the Irish government bodies agree on this one. Citizenship is extended to them for purposes that they can if they wish to be, but it's not an automatic citizenship. Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're correct - they had to apply before 2001 - but I think you're wrong to say that citizenship cannot be imposed on citizens from another country - what is your authority for this?

We had this discussion before Ben, I thought we concluded that indeed it was imposed extra territorialityTraditional unionist (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock

So I see you have been using a sock account, namely Special:Contributions/212.250.165.11. Did you use this to get around the 3rr rule? Either way you never declared that the accounts were connected so therefore an admin I'm sure will have to look into it.Pureditor 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, I've no idea what a "sock" account is, nor what you're talking about.Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Constitution of Ireland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic Athletic Association

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Domer48_'fenian' 18:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that, thanks. That's why I abide by the policy.Mooretwin (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidently not, as you added your own opinions and commentary again in this edit.

Sorry, Anonymous One, but all of that is factual, and backed up by citations. The previous version of the article, in omitting such material, was POV.Mooretwin (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gaelic Athletic Association . Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Domer48_'fenian' 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add commentary or my own personal analysis. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so on the relevant discussion page. Mooretwin (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Last waring to C&P move

• Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Irish First Division, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Please use Wikipedia:Requested Moves. Look at the move tag on the top page! Matthew_hk tc 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the Irish football pages and then accusing ME of vandalism when I repair them. Mooretwin (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, this is not the time for boilerplate warnings. This editor is having problems with cut-and-paste pagemoves and doesn't understand the ramifications of doing this. We've had this on another article. What they have done is not in any way "blatant vandalism" and in this circumstance, can we please work with them to solve the problem? They're doing their best to be constructive here - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see what I've done wrong here. I "moved" the page as previously instructed. I didn't cut and paste. Mooretwin (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

IFA

I've filed a report for an administrator to take a look at.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and done the move/redirs, so everything should be just fine now :) - Alison ^❤ 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these articles are still not right. I had rewritten both to update them, make them accurate and provide more information. What we have now is the old articles under the new names. We need the new articles under the new names. I can't find the updated version in the article history. Mooretwin (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin - I've just undeleted a whole boatload of your old edits to both those articles. Can you dig through your contributions, as you should now be able to find those edits you made, so you can re-merge them into the current article. Hope this works okay for you :) - Alison ^❤ 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Alison - much appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Since you got here, you've dealt with a lot of rules, weirdness and technical stuff. It's enough to put many people off, but you're still here and working harder than ever. The work you've done to-date on NI football has been excellent & I just wanted to know that ... well, it's appreciated :) Alison ❤ 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Constitution of Ireland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You've already had a warning about 3rr. Please stop reverting and discuss changes that you are making on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached.Pureditor 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd do well to follow your own advice.Mooretwin (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually both of you need to immediately stop the edit-war as you're both at your 3RR limit. Next one gets blocked, so please bring this issue to the talk page - Alison ^❤ 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to do so. Pureditor seems only prepared to do so once he has made the last edit! Mooretwin (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed that. He's now blocked for a short period. Either way, you guys need to figure it out on the talk page. I'm seeing mostly agreement with your version, and DJ is now involved, so it looks like progress is being made. Can you guys wait until he's unblocked, though, before making any changes? - Alison ^❤ 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Northern Ireland. 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 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pureditor was undoing edits. I was restoring them! Jeez. Mooretwin (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Its the same thing. Be careful and engage in the discussion on the matter at IMOS. Cheers.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You were edit warring, pure and simple. Please try and engage such edits in a discussion rather than disruption to the article. I know you're aware of the 3RR rules so please try and play nice, and play safe. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. If someone edits without discussing and then someone reverts to the original text, it is hardly just to chastise the person who reverted because they didn't engage in discussion. I mean, come on! Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're reverting clear vandalism any number of edits is fine, if you're reverting alterations to articles then it's an edit discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a lot wrong with 3RR and blocking policy. One day I'll get around to opening a discussion on that. Until it's changed though, rules is rules.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles

Thanks for reverting that vandalism! How were you able to get access to the history page? I could not even find it! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI Questions at WIkipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)

This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-edit

I had to do a revert to Newtownabbey to remove spurious information (read vandalism). Unfortunately two of your last edits to this article were affected, so if you wouldn't mind re-checking the article to replace your edits. Thanks.Hohenloh (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR breach on Gaelic Athletic Association

Hi, despite receiving a prior warning, please revert your recent edit as you have breached 3RR on Gaelic Athletic Association. In addition, despite several requests, you have not opened any discussions on the Talk page (take a look at WP:BRD). --HighKing (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who wants to change the article: it's you. So the onus is on you to start a discussion if you wish. And you also breached 3RR! All I have done is removed unverified claims from the article. I even modified it to take into account your own unverified claim. Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Making inaccurate claims doesn't help. I have not breached 3RR, but you have. That said, I don't really want anyone to get blocked over this. And although the GAA website does not appear to mention anything about a "Catholic" parish, it does use the term "parish" and defines it as "A parish for the purpose of this rule shall be, subject to County boundaries, the district under the jurisdiction of a Parish Prient or Administrator". So the Synod definition is also unreferenced. I'm inclined to agree with your reversions, given the reference to "Parish Priest". What other meaning could it have... OK? --HighKing (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this straight. First, you made three reversions in 24 hours, and so did I. But you DIDN'T breach 3RR, yet I did?? ... Right. Second, I removed an unverified claim about a "Synod definition", which you restored. Yet you agree that I was right to remove it! Third, the restored version was verified, you claimed it was not, yet now you acknowledge that it is ... What a preposterous exchange this has been! Mooretwin (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You made 4 reversions. At 13:28 you reverted the anon IP address, and at 16:04, 16:17, and 22:17, you reverted me, all within 24 hours.

On the matter of the edits, you appear to be ignoring what I actually said and appear to not fully grasp the importance of references rather than opinion and interpretation. You restored an unreferenced claim. Both claims are unreferenced. I challenged your restoration and asked you to take it to Talk (as per WP:BRD and you started an edit war by ignoring the request and reverting. You then breached WP:3RR, ignoring several other requests to take it to Talk (where this conversation *should* be happening). This isn't about right and wrong - WP doesn't care about right/wrong or truth - it cares about verifiable information. And had you followed WP:BRD that's what I would have asked - same thing I'm asking for now - please provide a reference for the phrase "Roman Catholic". If you feel you want to move this discussion to the GAA page, feel free - it's probably best there anyway.. --HighKing (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't restore an unreferenced claim. The claim was referenced. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for "Roman Catholic" that I missed. Apologies - can you please point it out? --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start an edit war. I merely removed unverified claims. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion is normally considered an edit war, especially when requested to start a discussion. --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the article. If you want to change it, start a discussion. Why would I start a discussion about not making any changes? Mooretwin (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a reference is all. The discussion is normally required when challenged, not for every edit. I'll remove the Roman Catholic reference for now, until a reference can be found, OK? --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on - you RESTORED an unreferenced statement, and now you're claiming that all you did was ask for a reference?? The Roman Catholic reference stays as it is verified in the note. Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the reference? --HighKing (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did: it was me who put it there some time ago.Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain your claim that "I asked for a reference is all", when you restored unreferenced text? Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Moved discussion to Talk GAA Page --HighKing (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please revert your latest revert to avoid being reported for a 3RR breach. I made the change to remove the reference to Roman Catholic as I believed we had agreed it. If not, I will also revert my edit until agreement is reached. Fair? --HighKing (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Northern Ireland

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who wants to change the article! The onus to discuss must be on the person wishing to change the article. Completely unjust to threaten the person reverting to the settled version. Mooretwin (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No you're involved in an editing war, the rule still applies to you. You're not reverting vandalism, you're having an editing dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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.

All I have been doing is attempting to stop OTHERS from editing agreed text without seeking consensus first. That is within the spirit of Wikipedia. It is unjust that I am punished for this, while those ignoring Wikipedia policy are able to succeed in making controversial edits while I am banned. You don't need haughtily to tell me discuss controversial changes first - THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING OTHERS TO DO. Mooretwin (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your at it again.Ovlem (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

USC

Thanks for the time you took on the USC page. Did you find the synthesis ok or do you think I need to go back and do more work? The Thunderer (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a good, readable piece of work. Mooretwin (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel it needs more information as to the type of weaponry used and actual operations they were engaged in but I was concerned about observations from other editors that it might be POV. The Thunderer (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Ireland

Hi, Looking at the ROI talk page it is 100% agreed on to use the pipelinking of ROI to show Ireland and to display the correct name of the country except say when discussing NI and the state in the same sentence. Your edits regarding the Irish flag and Olympic Councils are against this as there is no ambiguity in those circumstances. Could you please accept the status quo and refrain from these incorrect edits? ThanksIP213.202.189.10 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's agreed. It was just put forward as a suggestion - by me. The Thunderer (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Thunderer's right. There is no such agreement as you suggest. Where "Ireland" is used, especially as it relates to NI, there needs to be disambiguation - this is accepted - "Republic of Ireland" is the obvious disambiguator. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added further comments on the talk page. I'm starting to think that my suggestion may have been a poisoned chalice, but we'll see. The Thunderer (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR Block

You know the 3RR rules, and you have continued edit warring and reverting. As a result I am blocking you again for 48 hours for continued disruptive editing, edit warring and breach of the three revert rule. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at 48 hours. 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.

Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous injustice, yet again. The edit-warriors are rewarded and the person restoring the consensus version is punished. This is ludicrous. If justice is to be served, in the event of a dispute, the settled version of the article must remain until consensus is reached. On this article, those seeking change without consensus have been allowed to change the page. It is disgraceful that you accuse me of "disruptive" editing, when all I have attempted to do is to revert article to its settled version and direct those who disagree with it on to the Talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 6 warnings on this page solely for 3RR breaches. Just because you disagree with a version doesn't mean you can keep reverting it to the version you like. People can edit articles on Wikipedia, it is the point, but now those articles have been locked down due to edit warring over them. It is not okay to continuously revert to a version you prefer when other editors change it, that is disruptive editing. Reverting vandalism is one thing, but these are not vandalism they are content disputes. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is unjust because the person seeking in good faith to maintain the status quo (until such time as consensus for change is reached) is treated as equally guilty/disruptive as the person seeking to impose his or her disputed edits. Of course people can edit articles, and most of the time these edits are accepted as they result in improvement, but when disputes arise as a result of someone seeking to impose a change which is not agreed upon, then the principle should be that the article is reverted to its pre-dispute status until the dispute is resolved. This seems so obviously sensible and just that I can't believe it is not an accepted principle. Mooretwin (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see that an anonymous editor (IP213.202.189.10) doesn't appear to have been blocked for breaching 3RR. If you edit anonymously, does this mean that you can breach Wiki rules with impunity? Mooretwin (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Too many times well meaning editors are punished for edit warring when all they're doing is restoring the concensus point in an article against determined opposition by tag teamers. This defeats the purpose of the guidelines and frustrates earnest contributors. I don't think Mooretwin can be blamed here and respectfully suggest he be unblocked. The Thunderer (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for an unblock using the unblock template detailed in the block notice above. Another Admin will at that point review it and if they feel the block was unjust then it will be lifted. I believe there is an aspect of edit warring going on here, though yes there are others involved as well. However I will of course stand by any decision by another admin. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I too have been tag teamed on other Irish articles. It's a method employed to get non-consenus material past the observant. The fact remains that this editor defended the consensus whilst taking part in a discussion on said concensus. It would be a simple matter to check if the tag team were involved in that discussion too but the outcome would be the same whether or not they were. If they were then they should know not to change consensus material while it's under discussion. If they weren't then Mooretwin should have invited them to discuss the options, which I note he did. Either way Mooretwin shouldn't be blocked for defending policy, in effect defending the article from vandalism. The Thunderer (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because something has existed for a while means it's consensus or status quo, that's not always the case. Canterbury Tail talk 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not falling into any trap. The concensus for Republic of Ireland is just that - Republic of Ireland. Discussion has been underway for some time to change it to Ireland but no new concensus has been agreed here. Therefore this editor has been defending concensus and has been blocked for it.The Thunderer (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Thunderer. This highlights a weakness - as I have noted above - in the 3RR policy, which potentially punishes good-faith editors along with (or, in this case, instead of) the disruptive editors. Mooretwin (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have drawn Canterbury Tail's attention to the ongoing discussion. In the meantime I suggest you make an official request to be unblocked. Be sure to detail the concensus discussion and point out how you were tag teamed. No reasonable admin will let you remain blocked once the facts are known. Just be patient for a while though. The Thunderer (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I hope you don't mind but I've changed your wording in the notice slightly to refclect the fact that you were upholding concensus on naming convention. The Thunderer (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although it appears to have been in vain. Mooretwin (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an injustice and will be recognised as such by somebody, eventually. The Thunderer (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Put the unblock request in again and ask for somebody familiar with Irish issues to review it mate. The Thunderer (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wish to appeal being blocked for contravening 3RR in the History of Ireland article. The conduct for which I am being punished involved reverting edits which were disputed and had not been discussed, and advising editors to take their requests for change to the Talk page. These reverts were against current naming conventions at Republic of Ireland and in light of the ongoing discussions on concensus it is unjust that I have been punished for upholding convention, while a tag-team of other editors, who were unwilling to engage in discussion, has not been. Mooretwin (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, but the purpose of the 3RR rule is to stop edit warring. The circumstance you describe is not one of the rare exceptions to the 3RR rule. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 2 September 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wish to a review of the decision in respect of my appeal against being blocked for contravening 3RR in the History of Ireland article. I would like somebody familiar with the Irish issues to deal with this appeal. The conduct for which I am being punished involved reverting edits which were disputed and had not been discussed, and advising editors to take their requests for change to the Talk page. These reverts were against current naming conventions and community concensus at Republic of Ireland and in light of the exceptions at WP:3RR it is unjust that I have been punished for upholding convention, while a tag-team of other editors, who were unwilling to engage in discussion, has not been.

Decline reason:

solid block. Clearly 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (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.

I will respect your request to have an editor familiar with Irish issues review the block, but my own review of your edits and the block itself confirms that you do appear to have violated the 3RR policy. Your intentions were good, no question there - unfortunately, they do not factor into the block. The 3RR policy takes the view that the edit war itself - two or more editors going back and forth on an article - is more disruptive than temporarily having the article posted as the "wrong" version. In this context, unfortunately, it resulted in your block. As for the content, it matters not one bit what the subject is; you could have been editing Shoe for all it matters. Edit-warring is edit-warring, so far as the policy is concerned. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And thus the policy is an unjust one. It seems that tag-teams and anonymous editors can succeed - by edit-war of attrition - in getting their own way, while bona fide editors are punished. Mooretwin (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still a problem when you revert-war to enforce consensus edits. Let the others who also support you make some! If necessary, ask for intervention at WP:RFP or WP:ANI, and if there are certain users engaged in nationalistic POV-pushing, it may be worth starting an WP:RFC or even a WP:RFAR about them. Many other nationalistic edit-warring issues have ended in discretionary sanctions, and the banning or blocking of problematic editors. That's what to do in light of this kind of behavior. Having consensus is not an exception to the WP:3RR. The kind of behavior I'm suggesting is what separates article owning from consensus building. Mangojuice^talk 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but this is a case of community consensus and as such is a clearly defined exception at WP:3RR. Mooretwin should be advised and unblocked IMHO.The Thunderer (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Read WP:3RR#Exceptions. And even in those exceptional cases, repeated reverting is still not a good solution to the problem, compared to blocking and/or page protection. Mangojuice^talk 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done and note 'Reverting in order to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote. This is an issue of community consensus as described. Perhaps Mooretwin was over enthusiatic and failed in the respect that he didn't seek administrator intervention but it can be seen he was trying his best. May I respectfully suggest an admonishment, some instruction on bringing in admins in future and a lifting of the block? The Thunderer (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Gdansk vote? It refers specifically and only to the naming of Gdansk/Danzig. Mangojuice^talk 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the wording "falls within the scope of" is intended as a guideline for similar disputes. It's maybe taking Mooretwin a little longer than others to grasp the concept of third party intervention. This could be an ideal opportunity to educate him and show some sort of understanding of this very complex issue. I've fallen victim to similar gaming in the past and know just how it feels which is why I'm trying so hard to assist here. The Thunderer (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You just want an exception so badly you are trying to jam one in where it doesn't fit. No, the scope of the Gdansk vote is very clearly delineated at Talk:Gdansk/Vote: the naming of Gdansk/Danzig in articles that refer to it. Mangojuice^talk

I honestly took it to mean that "within the scope" meant that it applied to other articles where there was a naming convention and community consensus. I'm appealing on behalf of this poster and doing my best to get him free from chokey is all. The Thunderer (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifeline

Mooretwin, you may be about to be given a break. Be very careful how you read what's put to you and be damned courteous about it. I've done my best for you, if you foul up again there won't be a second chance.The Thunderer (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I think there's more to discuss here. Mooretwin, I'd like for you to read our guide to appealing blocks if you have a chance. One of the things we look for in an unblock request is an assurance that, if you are unblocked, you will not go back to editing in the manner that got you blocked in the first place. I appreciate that you were attempting to enforce consensus, and that you were acting in good faith, but I'm concerned that you had multiple warnings and did not heed them. Whether you disagree with the 3RR policy or not, you (and all editors) are still bound by it. So, I guess my question would boil down to this: If unblocked, what are your intentions? How do you plan to proceed, both in general and specifically on the articles under dispute? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I broke 3RR - my gripe is really that the four reverts which I made were reasonable, whereas the edits I was changing were unreasonable. It's correct that I have been warned several times before - generally for the exact same situation - reverting articles pending consensus for change. Consequently, I continue to perceive the 3RR as unfair - that will not change - but I will certainly endeavour to be more patient in future: leaving an edit to which I object for a couple of days will not be the end of the world! I think, to date, I have also demonstrated my willingness to seek consensus by participating in numerous discussions on Talk pages, and I will continue to do this. I hope, however, that you recognise my honesty when I tell you that I will continue to strive for clarity in terminology, and if I end up breaking 3RR again, I will take my punishment like a man. Likewise, if you feel you cannot overturn my block, I will accept your decision and sit out my suspension. Mooretwin (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I've pinged the blocking admin asking them to review. In the meantime, I've seen a lot of editors who are blocked for 3RR, and one proposal that works well to avoid future problems is called a 1RR restriction. Basically, you'd agree to limit yourself to a One-Revert-Rule for the articles where the dispute occured - in this case, I'd place it on Irish articles and related topics. Once you've reverted, you would agree to seek consensus (or outside opinions) right then, rather than reverting twice more. Is that something that would work for you, if only as a way to prevent future blocks? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In some circumstances I would unblock you, but the fact is I blocked you for 3RR on the exact same thing just a few days ago. This isn't the first time, and you've been 3RR warned on similar topics on many occassions, it's not something new to you. It seems to me nothing changed between then and now. I feel this block isn't just as a punishment, but a time to think and come back a stronger editor. There are many editors on Wikipedia for who a 3RR block has made them come back stronger and trouble free who have made great contributions afterwards. If another admin wishes to unblock you then I won't say anything against it, but I'm afraid I cannot bring myself to given these circumstances. Don't take this as personal, and don't take it as I'm singling you out for anything or disagree with the edits, but they were causing article disruption and a great deal of edit warring was going on whether you were the cause or not. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mooretwin (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ovlem (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe use

Too busy in real life to drag out sources for you, but I was lectured at length by an 'old school' geography master when I dared to use an apostrophe for Shaws Bridge. The apostrophe aparently has only slipped into usage in todays 'lazy' apostrophe usage culture. Also you moved Pegasus mistakenly using the apostrophe, the emphasis is Pegasus Ladies not 'Ladies' Hockey Club'. Leave a reply and I will respond in greater deatil when I return in a couple of months time. Cheers and good luck.Weejack48 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's referred to as a "Grocer's Apostrophe"? The Thunderer (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A "grocer's apostrophe" is a grammatically-incorrect apostrophe, e.g. "apple's 50p each". This case is a quirk which ostensibly - in grammatical terms - should have an apostrophe, but it has obviously either been lost over time, or is a name whose form precedes the introduction of apostrophes. I guess like Andersonstown originally would have been Anderson's Town. Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of the alternative interpretation of Pegasus Ladies Hockey Club. It makes sense, I think, although it does seems odd - if they were Pegasus Women rather than Pegasus Ladies, would they really call the club "Pegasus Women Hockey Club", I wonder! Grateful for any further info. Mooretwin (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that an apostrophe in this case means "of the". So if it's a lady only hockey club then it's a ladies hockey club. If you were going to use an apostrophe it would be ladies' (of the ladies). Good to see you out of chokey btw.The Thunderer (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Of the" would still attract an apostrophe. As I suggested - you would never have Pegasus Women Hockey Club. If Wee Jack is correct there is no apostrophe because it is Pegasus Ladies Hockey Club rather than Pegasus Ladies' Hockey Club.Mooretwin (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SF

Apologies for revert, I completely misread the 'compare versions' and thought that you were denying the historical reality rather than asserting it. As you may have noticed, I reinstated your edit. --Red King (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Mooretwin (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ThatsGrand sockpuppetry case

I don't know if you know about this case against ThatsGrand. As you feature in it quite a lot (and I compiled it on my talk page, which I doubt you have watchlisted), it occurred to me that I should perhaps inform you as a courtesy notice. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt Mooretwin (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Better still, you might be interested in this checkuser case, which I just completed. I know you guys are waiting on the results - Alison ^❤ 09:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

3 RR Warning

You appear to be involved in an edit war on the Sinn Fein article. If you are not familiar read WP:3RR thanks. BigDunc^Talk 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

78.16's from Dublin

Just to warn you - the 78.16 from Dublin arguing these issue are unquestionably Wikipéire (pureditor/olvem,ThatsGrand etc). He's back at flags too. Keep in touch if you spot him. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Mooretwin (talk)

UDR

Thanks for the tidy up. Much appreciated. The Thunderer (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries.Mooretwin (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Sinn Féin. 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.

Tiptoety ^talk 19:42, 10 September 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I content this on the simple ground that I didn't break the 3RR Rule.

Decline reason:

The three-revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. You have been reverting consistently on that article; edit-warring as a technique is generally not permitted. So it doesn't matter that there was an extra ten hours or so in there; the reverts you had done were enough to warrant a block. It is an open question whether or not a week was appropriate. — Werdna • talk 11:17, 11 September 2008 (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.

I've never yet been shocked by an electric fence I didn't touch.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was careful not to break 3RR, and my edits were all improvements and related to discussion about the article - trying to be constructive, as I believe I usually am. (You'll see that the end-result of the discussion and "edit war" (as you perceive it) appears to be a consensus.) But this smacks of unfairness, as I see that Domer48, who was also reverting the article regularly during the same period, has not been banned at all, never mind for 1 week. Poor show. Mooretwin (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tedious editing

Consider this your only waring. Any further edit warring (as you have been doing at such pages as Flag of Ireland and Irish nationality law) will result in a rather long block. Also, I want to make myself clear that while you may have not violated WP:3RR, you can still be blocked for edit warring and tedious editing. Like always if you have a disagreement with a user, take it to the talk page, or file a request for mediation, but whatever you do: do not continually revert. Tiptoety ^talk 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It takes two or more to "edit war". Do those who post anonymously get away with it? It seems so.Mooretwin (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it does take two to edit war, and you are one of those two. Tiptoety ^talk 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm right about the first part, but I see you fail to respond to the second part. I assume that those posting anonymously are free to continue to edit, whereas I am effectively banned from editing. Mooretwin (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where I ever "banned" you from editing, I just warned you that continuing to edit war would result in a block, please do not start wiki-lawyering. Tiptoety ^talk 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I see - yet again - you failed to respond to my question. I'll ask it again: Do anonymous editors go unpunished for edit-warring?

2. I said I was "effectively banned". You've threatened me with a ban if I "edit war", which means every edit that I make puts me at risk of being deemed to be part of an "edit war" and therefore resulting in a ban. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

The Sinn Féin article is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. I am not sure if you are familiar 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. In short it states that a WP:1RR policy is in place and as such editors can only revert once per week, thanks. BigDunc^Talk 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the guidelines? Mooretwin (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nationality of people from UK

There's a few notices throughout that talk page, including "the following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it" and "all discussion on this essay currently continuing on the original Manual of Style (biographies) talk page".

Although I disagreed with it, new issues should be raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) or you could be bold and fix the error, if you have evidence that it better serves the interests of Wikipedia. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But please don't forget to cite your sources. Unsourced material may be removed at any time, and I wouldn't want you to be disappointed. (I'm not removing it however!). --Jza84 |  Talk  10:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but surely the statement that I removed lacked a source? I was not the author of the remaining text. Mooretwin (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's best practice to cite your sources though, especially for facts that are likely to be difficult to swallow (so to speak) for users with alternative perspectives. Knowing what that material is based on is likely to stop others meddling with it in the future. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. Since I was simply removing unsourced (and incorrect) text, I didn't think there was any need to source the remaining text, of which I was not the author, and which I do not dispute. Are you advising me to provide references for the remaining text, in any case?

I think that would help. I don't disagree with it, but I've no doubt others might/will in the future. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Northern Ireland

[1]

I'm concerned that there is POV in your edit. The constitution is known on wikipedia and elsewhere as Constitution of Ireland end of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedscouser (talk • contribs) 12:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

UUP/Unionist

Hi - would you mind not piping Ulster Unionist Party to "Unionist" where there could be any confusion. There were also independent Unionists elected to the Parliament, and other Unionist groups such as the Commonwealth Labour Party and the Progressive Unionists also stood in some seats. Similarly, although Nationalist is not a bad situation for Nationalist Party (Northern Ireland) in some situations, in the articles on constituencies, where they often stood against other nationalist candidates, it can be confusing. Warofdreams talk 09:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Ulster Unionist Party" was not used at the time of those elections. It is a recent name. Candidates were described either as "Unionist" or belonging to the "Unionist Party". Independent unionists would have been "Independent Unionist", so I see no confusion between the two. Similarly "Progressive Unionist" is clearly distinct from "Unionist".

The best way to deal with it is to use the lower case "unionist" when describing unionists generally, reserving "Unionist" for the party label. Same applies with "nationalist" and "Nationalist". This is established practice in much of the literature. Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Ulster Unionist Party" was in common use from at least the 1950s; This search shows lots of reliable publications issued before 1965 describing the party using the name. "Unionist Party" is OK, although not as clear to the casual reader. "Unionist" appears vague; while you may be using it in this specific sense, there is no way for the casual reader to know this. This is a common problem with using conventions well-known in specific literature - they either require explanation in each article, or should be avoided. Warofdreams talk 13:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By your own admission, then, the term "Ulster Unionist Party" wasn't used for the majority of the life of the Parliament. I think no harm is done because (a) the use of the capital makes it clear that it is a proper name, referring to a party; (b) the name links to "Ulster Unionist Party", and (c) the actual election results refer to "Ulster Unionist Party". Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. The term was used, it was just less common - see this search for works issued from 1925 to 1945. As I have explained, your usage is not clear. As the name links to "Ulster Unionist Party", and the results refer to the UUP, piping the title is pointless and confusing. Warofdreams talk 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is confusing. The term "Unionist" refers to the party: "unionist" refers generally to someone in support of the Union. Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unionism" with a capital "U" is quite common in referring to someone in support of the Union; how will a reader know that you are using it in a more specific sense? That is how it is confusing. "Ulster Unionist Party" is unambiguous and accurate; "Unionist Party" is pretty clear and is also accurate - why use a term which is more liable to confuse? Warofdreams talk 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"unionism" with a small "u" is now established practice in texts on Northern Ireland when referring in the general sense. There's no risk of confusion for the reader given the three reasons noted above. Using "Unionist" reads much better in the text, than having to spell out the full name of a party that wasn't even in common usage during the life of the Parliament. Mooretwin (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge risk of confusion. (b) and (c) will just add to the confusion. (a), as I have explained, will not be clear to casual readers. Using something clear always reads better than writing something which requires a reader to know which convention a particular editor has decided upon. I could settle for "Unionist Party", although I would prefer the full name, as that is what the majority of readers will be familiar with. Warofdreams talk 15:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no confusion. "Labour candidate", "Liberal candidate" and "Conservative candidate" are regularly used in place of "Labour Party candidate", "Liberal Party candidate" and "Conservative Party candidate", with no confusion. Why not "Unionist candidate" and "Nationalist candidate"? Mooretwin (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland and have asked for more input, as changing the convention to use "Unionist" would have significant consequences. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Mooretwin (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Coagh article

Could you please explain this edit? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "placed in order of national prominence". Gaelic games are the most popular sports in Ireland as a whole and in the six counties.Derry Boi (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In terms of attendance at matches, but I think football is the biggest in terms of participation (certainly in NI, and I think also in the island as a whole). But that's beside the point. Coagh United FC is a prominent team, playing in the second tier of football at national level in NI (IFA Championship. This is quite remarkable, given the size of the village. I suspect that the local GAA team does not achieve equivalent prominence - unless it is one of the top 20 or so clubs in Ulster? Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So its beside the point, why did you use it in the edit summary?Derry Boi (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't. My edit summary referred to the national prominence of the club, not of football as a whole. Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mooretwin. Coagh United is the main sporting entity in Coagh. Ogra Colmcille isn't even in Coagh! Its in Drummullan and different settlement. Does Coagh even have a Gaelic association club? You may as well say Ballinderry GAC is in Coagh. Its not the first such edit by DerryBoi, they did the same in the Coleraine article putting personal preference above national prominance. Mabuska (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere is covered by a GAA club. Coagh for GAA purposes is in the catchment area of Ógra Colmcille. It is not part of Ballinderry. Who's "they"?Derry Boi (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Ireland: missing number

Hello. You edited History of Ireland, but there's a number escaped because it says "...between January and May 200,...". I'd fix it if I had a clue what the right year was, but I don't, so I can't. Help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this - I'll rectify it. Mooretwin (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work on the UDR article. Can I just perhaps pass on a wee bit of info which you may find useful? when referring to "the Regiment" you need to capitalise the R. If referring to "a regiment" you return to lower case. It's the same when referring to Regimental or regimental. I can't remember the proper grammatical term for it but that's the correct way to do it. Thunderer (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to capitalise: but equally it's not incorrect to capitalise. I'll leave it be. Mooretwin (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is only necessary when referring to "the Regiment". Thunderer (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that is what you are saying. My view, however, is that it is unnecessary. Since it is not incorrect, however, I will not change any references to "the Regiment". Mooretwin (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland / Ireland

I believe that most of the edit warring is occurring because you appear to be going around editing a lot of articles to introduce the term "Republic of Ireland" into many articles, and other editors are then changing it to Ireland, or vice versa, etc. You know that there is a WP:IDTF task force on this issue at present, so it is unhelpful to attempt to preempt the results of the task force, and in light of this, your edits are disruptive. In much the same way that myself and user:TharkunColl have desisted in changing any articles with the term British Isles, I suggest that you desist from changing articles with "Republic of Ireland". Or do you feel that you'd prefer an admin or ArbCom to give you advice on this? --HighKing (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The edit-warring is largely coming from the likes of Domer. I have responded to attempts to censor the phrase. Even when I have been constructive, and conceded use of alternatives (e.g .the Olympic Council of Ireland) article, the nationalist tag-teams come along and bully me out of the way. Hence my frustration and request for intervention.

Regarding the Shamrock article, an anonymous editor changed the text and I restored it.

Regarding the British-Irish Council article, the need for disambiguation is obvious. Republic of Ireland is the obvious choice. Change it to "Ireland (state)" if you like, but disambiguation is necessary. Mooretwin (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to post a message to SirFozzie's Talk page - he was the one that was involved in the British Isles ruling. If he goes along with the suggestion, then at least we can get some stability until the task force completes. --HighKing (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Football

Yup MT - you need to add a template to the article's talk page. I've added the Solitude ground to the Project now with this edit. You can see the different options available on the template page: Template:Football. It's the same with articles relating to Northern Ireland, using {{WPNI|class=|importance=}} etc. The footy project has some guides for style here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Manual of style, for each type of article. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Omagh bombing

As the Category:Terrorism in Northern Ireland is a sub category of Terrorism in the United Kingdom there's no need to have both in there, and WP:CAT points out you should use the narrowest category. Regards, --Blowdart | ^talk 11:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just coming to say the same thing. BigDunc^Talk 11:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So I gather from your edit comments. Not a problem. Mooretwin (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to just revert and not leave a more detailed message :) --Blowdart | ^talk 11:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for blatant edit-warring

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Blatant edit-warring on Template:Football in the Republic of Ireland. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous. I attempt, in good faith, to correct an article. A banned sock-puppet starts an edit war. I get banned. The sock-puppet continues. Not much justice on WP. Ironically, I didn't even know I was involved in an edit war. I just thought that I was unable to fix the template, and kept making different attempts. Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me where it has been established that this IP address has been extensively used by the sockpuppeteer you name, and the block may be re-considered. Just making allegations with no evidence is not a good move, and it certainly looks like edit-warring to me from the edit history attempts. Given that you have been warned about this kind of behaviour before, you should have known a better way of tackling this (asked an administrator to deal with it from what you take to be the initial disruption, and issued formal warnings by means of templates on the anon editor's talk page would have been good actions to have done.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire does not list the ip address 213.202.143.233, and so I do not see why you (Mooretwin) think it is certain that this ip address is a sockpuppet of Wikipéire. That is why more than just an allegation is needed to mitigate your edit warring here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to step in - reverts on that one issue and false claims on consensus. It certainly smells of him, but of course there's no way to prove it now he hides behind an anonymous IP. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't prove it (I don't know how), but I think it's obvious to those who have encountered him before, that this is yet another sock account for Wikipeire.

In any case, let me remind you that I was not even aware that I was edit-warring. I was attempting to edit a template. I had never done so before, and was getting confused between "categories" and "templates". I didn't realise that the anonymous alleged-sock was editing at the exact same time, and every time I tried to make a change it simply appeared to me that it hadn't worked. Only belatedly did I realise that the anonymous alleged-sock was at his work.

And, finally, unlike for the state, there is not even any question as to the name used for the ROI football team. My changes were uncontroversial and correct. I don't see why a good-faith editor such as myself should be punished because of the actions of a disruptive Anon.

I should also say that I am conscious of having been involved in "edit wars" in the past - usually reverting undiscussed edits to their original state, which I do not believe should be classified as edit-warring - but I think it's fair to say that I learned my lesson and tend to take my changes to the Talk page now when there is a danger of an edit war beginning. Mooretwin (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why were you using edit summaries like Please allow the correct name to stay - stop edit-warring and Undit sockpuppet revert. Ireland is not correct name. Basic stuff. If you felt you were just making mistakes. BigDunc^Talk 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because eventually I realised that the sock was at his work. Mooretwin (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly could be a sock and you should report it to check user but they will probably say it is not for fishing unless you can build a case on the IP. BigDunc^Talk 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

←Okay. For starters I agree with the basis for this block, Mooretwin did edit war and as such deserved a block on those grounds (seeing as there is nothing yet to confirm the IP is banned user Wikipéire). But, I am not sure a block was the correct course of action here. If in fact the IP is a banned user evading their ban, then the reverts were perfectly fine and seeing as it appears (from contributions) that the IP is Wikipéire, a CheckUser request may have been the right way to go first. Meaning Mooretwin, next time instead of edit warring with a user whom you feel is a banned user, request a CheckUser. I have asked for a CheckUser to review this case, and will unblocked with time served if it comes back confirmed (with the permission of the blocking admin of course). While I feel a block may have been appropriate at the time, I see no reason for Mooretwin to remain blocked if he was editing under 3RR/edit warring exemptions as he thought. Tiptoety ^talk 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser has confirmed Mooretwin's assumption. I will be unblocking once I hear from the blocking admin. Tiptoety ^talk 19:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the blocking admin had no way of knowing of the sock, but subsequent evidence has proven Mooretwin's suspicion correct, I think an unblock of time-served is the proper cause here. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I have unblocked Mooretwin, given that a checkuser has confirmed that the anon ip address was being user by a banned editor. My comments about evidence as opposed to mere allegations apply, and in future, I recommend, as Tiptoey does, that a checkuser request be put in immediately any problematic edits are suspected. I also maintain that my suggestion to get an administrator involved early on rather than engage in what appears to be edit-warring is a good course of action.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DDStretch. I agree 100% though, that next time outside (administrative) input needs to be sought. Edit warring should is never the correct course of action. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, at first I wasn't aware that an edit war was taking place, although even if I had, I wouldn't have known about the "Check user" facility. But now I do. Thanks for looking into this. Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still blocked. I get this message: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. Your ability to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse from the other person. The other user was blocked by Ddstretch for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Mooretwin" Mooretwin (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an autoblock, which I don't know much about, and I thought that removing the block I imposed would suffice. It does happen in other cases, I recall. Sorry about this, I'll ask about it at a suitable place, and hopefully, it will be sorted out.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can you try to follow the instructions given here, as a 2-pronged approach may help you get back to editing more quickly.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried that, but it's not possible. The instructions say to "copy the unblock-ip|... code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section". But there are no "IP blocked?" or "What do I do now?" sections. Mooretwin (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x 2)I think this is what is known as "collateral damage" as I can't find your i.d. on the list of autoblocked users. That means that vandalism by a different IP address which resulted in a block from me, but which was in the same range as the one your use, is the probable cause of the autoblock. The autoblock is imposed by Mediawiki, and I don't really have any control over that. If you can follow the instructions I gave before (and also review WP:Autoblock if required), it may definitely help here. I think you may have to do some editing to get those links you need to use shown.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think that should have done it. Let me know, and I'll let WP:AN know, where I placed a request for help. Sorry about the delay here.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Working now, thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I have tagged the three ip-socks with a tag (which puts the ip into a category so we can build up a picture of this gent). On the other wider matters, I have responded at DDStretch's talk page to keep things in one place. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikipéire

Just FYI, I have moved the case to the correct username. I had one of these WTF moments when checking the users ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

Oh no. Is Wikipiere back again? then again, did he ever leave. That's 67 socks & counting. Wowsers, talk about weird fetishes. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pipeing

Hello Mooretwin. Irrespective of that fact you are edit-warring with a banned editor, the piping of Republic of Ireland / Ireland is a well established, reasonable, and common way of dealing with this complex naming issue. Removing such pipes that have been in place for over 9 months as "unnecessary" is, itself, unnecessary. Its also bordering on disruptive, since you are well aware of the disputes over this. Please stop removing pipes unless there is a consensus to do so. Rockpocket 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In articles where there is potential for ambiguity - especially when "Ireland" is in the title, it is entirely reasonable - indeed, necessary - to clarify in the intro that the article actually refers to the Republic, and not to the whole island. DIsguising the fact that something links to the ROI article is unnecessary. Rather than disguising the link, it's sensible to make it clear. Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While the involvement of a banned editor here is certainly a problem, this does not give you the prerogative to continue to change ROI-pipe-Ireland to ROI across the entire project. The matter is not a simple as you suggest above since Ireland is piped, following the link is sufficient to dispel any ambiguity. As you also know, there is an ongoing, central discussion of how to deal with this issue. Unilaterally (or with the support of editors in their first edit) making the change from article to article undermines the good faith efforts to reach a consensus. Common sense is to reach a compromise that will result in stability across all articles. You were blocked just days ago for edit warring on exactly the same issue. I suggest you learn from that, because if you continue in this vein, ignoring the central discussion and ploughing on with your own agenda, I will invoke ArbCom remedies to restrict you. Rockpocket 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the "piping solution" to which you refer doesn't apply to the article that I edited. Second, the piping certainly doesn't dispel the ambiguity, because it assumes that readers will click the link. Why not just let it stand, unambiguously and without a deliberate disguise? Common sense, please. Third, the blocked of a few days ago was lifted because reverting the edits of a banned sock is not edit-warring. Fourth, I will continue to revert such edits, as should all other editors. Fifth, if other good-faith editors are involved, I will discuss, as I always do. So less of your threats, please. Stop harassing me, or I will report you. Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me also add that I understand how frustrating it is to be up against a banned editor, who has no qualms about gaming the system to get what they want. I have no time for that editor, and will gladly help to WP:RBI whenever I spot his edits. But its important to separate the issue from the person. The fact is, it is not only that banned editor who supports the piped solution. Therefore you going around changing it on an article-by-article basis is no different from what he did - you are forcing your interpretation on the article. This issue is going to rumble on, and editors who are willing to edit war to push their own interpretations will end up restricted. Trust me, I've been around for long enough, and have seen it time and again. And the patience of the admin community is tiring on this subject. The only way this will be resolved peacefully and with any permanence is to come up with some sort of consensus that can then be applied consistently. If you care about this issue, then please engage in that discussion. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As above, the "piped solution" doesn't apply in the article under discussion. Second, I will continue to revert edits made by banned socks. Third, I will continue to engage in discussion with legitimate editors, as I always do. Less of your high-and-mighty tone, please. Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rockpocket. I see no reason why the pipeing should be removed on a stable consensus version of an article and before the taksforce has reported. Snappy56 (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the word is "piping". Second, I see no reason why the piping exists at all in the article under question, pending the task force. Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent & Copied from Sarah's Talk Page)This issue was already discussed with Mooretwin on his Talk page here. An agreement was reached on removing/inserting the term "British Isles", pushed through by SirFozzie, so I left this message on SirFozzie's Talk page here to suggest the introduction on a similar ban on the Ireland/RoI issue until the task force completes. Due to cirsumstances at the time, SirFozzie didn't get involved, but since this issue has raised it's head again, I suggest that a similar moratorium is introduced. I'd also add that I don't believe that Mooretwin is the one at fault here, but is trying to maintain the status quo. If a similar moratorium was placed on Ireland/RoI, then Mooretwin would have a structure to revert and report without edit warring. --HighKing (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Sarah's page, this could be a good idea - although these kind of things have to be supported, as they cannot really be fully enforced without censorship. I understand Mooretwin's frustrations, as I personally worry that not enough people are seeing the issue as quite as serious as it is, but there is no point getting tetchy, especially to admin - it is highly unlikely to work out well!

We all need to accept that however sensible a particular approach might seem to them, if others are this unhappy with the options then there is a serious problem. I find both the piping and use of ROI seriously inadequate given the ambiguity of the Ireland article. The whole issue has prevented me editing in a number of ways. To me that is as serious as it gets, especially with all the silly resentments that inevitably rise up due to the constant awkwardness. These resentments are not a 'fact of life' at all, and can be cut out of all but a few contentious articles if we fashioned something sensible regarding Irish naming that we can all accept. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I beginning to think that you are purposefully obfuscating the real issue here, Mooretwin, because I know you are not ignorant of it and I believe you are smart enough to appreciate the logic. But I'll try and explain it anyway. The point is the the ROI article is only entitled so because the real name of the state "Ireland" is also shared by the entire island. Therefore, when have articles under a disambiguated title (e.g. Justice Department (animal rights) we don't use the title in other articles, instead we pipe it to the name as it would be if it not shared by something else (e.g. Justice Department). This is the logic behind the piping. And it is not necessarily misleading unless you are unaware of what "Ireland" can refer to (and even if you are, the link should provide the answer).

Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't work. Indeed it allows me to demonstrate why disguising a link with piping doesn't work because, if the article in question was relevant to more than one justice department it would, in fact, be necessary to disambiguate in the text, otherwise it wouldn't be clear to which justice department one was referring. Mooretwin (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

... And the logic goes, this is why the link is there. You click on the link and it becomes entirely clear which of the two Justice departments is being referred too, irrespective of context. Rockpocket 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm not saying I agree with this, or that its the best solution. But it is nevertheless a valid position and one with a significant level of support. And just because you disagree, does not mean that its a good idea to ignore it and change articles to your preferred solution. So, again, let me reiterate: before de-piping ROI/Ireland unilaterally on your own initiative on an article-by-article basis, please engage in the centralized discussion and help form a consensus there. It is becoming disruptive. So if the piping or de-piping back and forth continues without good faith efforts to resolve it in that manner, then I will put forward, via the Arb enforcement board, a proposal to restrict those from doing so at the cost of sanctions. It would be much better if those with an interest instead got together and came to some sort of consensus themselves, however. Its up to you whether you choose to engage voluntarily or risk the outcome of an AE request (and as Matt says, the tolerance among admins is at an all time low on this subject). But this is the only way to reach a resolution that has any stability, and it can work (see the stroke city nomenclature resolution, for example). Rockpocket 03:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your high-minded attitude and your threats. You don't appear to have read anything that I have said in response to you. You accused me previously of "continuing to change ROI-pipe-Ireland to ROI across the entire project". I have not done so and do not do so. Yet this accusation appears to be the root of your threats against me. I edited an article in which confusion might arise by the use of "Ireland", and to which the IMOS policy did not apply, and then engaged in discussion when my edit was reverted. I make no apology for that, and see no need to. Mooretwin (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't appreciate my involvement here, but as an administrator its not unusual to hear that response. I obviously don't appreciate your attitude with regards to this issue either, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem, regarding the "project wide" scope, is that the reason you give for removing pipes could apply to every single Ireland related article. Almost every reference to the ROI could result in confusion with the island depending on your POV. This is why there needs to be a central discussion. I'm please to hear that you don't intend to replace the use in every single article, but whatever subset you do intend to edit the problem still remains: your POV is not shared by everyone.

I'm only making a "threat" in as much as any other administrative warning is a threat: If the disruption continues, then action will be taken to stop it. If you don't wish to get involved in a central discussion, then obviously we can't make you. But we can take step to stop you - or anyone else - from undermining its goal. I don't see the point in discussing this further. We have both made our positions clear, the ball in now in your court to decide what will happen next. Rockpocket 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could describe the extent of this "disruption" of which you accuse me? Other than the Amhran article, to what others do you refer? As for getting involved in a central discussion, I have already been heavily involved in this discussion, and I don't appreciate the suggestion that I refuse to participate in discussions aimed at resolving disputes. Finally, I repeat that the edit I made was outside the scope of the IMOS "ruling" and, at the time that I made the edit, there had been no guidance provided that editors should desist from all Ireland edits until after the task force had completed. Mooretwin (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Notability"

Hey MT. You're into your footie a bit, yeah? I was wondering if you considered Shea Campbell to be a 'notable' footballer. Apparently the article was deleted at the beginning of November, citing "Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league" by User:Tone. I don't recall seeing any notice on it, nor is there any discussion on the still-existing talk page.

Besides the fact that Linfield is considered at least a 'semi-pro' club, and Campbell has (as I understand it) a reasonable reputation and honours, the article doesn't actually fail WP:ATHLETE. Quote:

• Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
• Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.[9]

I don't think you have to be a Bluesman (and I've no idea if you are or not!) to recognise that Linfield are certainly at the highest level in Northern Ireland with regard to football. Personally, I'm an anti-deletionist - Wikipedia has plenty of space, and it's not going to run out any time soon - I prefer a more common-sensical approach. Certainly, according to the guideline, Campbell obviously passes in any case, even if he had only ever played for Ballymena United. Besides which, 'notability' is a relative thing.

I haven't got the time to arse about with Wikipedia red tape ballix at the minute, but I did notice that an article on Campbell was missing and knew that you'd edited some footie articles in the past at least.. so you might be interested. There are two ways to approach 'un-deleting' an article, as far as I'm aware: one is to be bold and just go for it (I think the article was a pretty crap stub anyway, from what Google seems to indicate); the other is to go through the motions with some undelete tag or re-nominate the article for deletion (specifying that it should be undeleted)... I can't remember exactly.

Anyway, if you could be arsed, good luck. If not, no worries. :) --Setanta 11:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Shea Campbell is notable in the sense that he has played national-league football in Northern Ireland. I think I'm right in saying that other such players have articles, so I see no reason to delete Shea Campbell. Mooretwin (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I randomly searched for Colin Nixon, as an example of an Irish League player (who hasn't played internationally), and I see that he has an article. No reason why Campbell shouldn't. Mooretwin (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Campbell is also notable because he has played for (at least) five different IL clubs: Ballymena, Linfield, Armagh, Dungannon and Cliftonville. Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to restore the article. Mooretwin (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-created it there now. Feel free to fill it up with info if and when you can (sometimes you have to be quick though - some people are very quick to delete .. especially an article that has previously been deleted). --Setanta 16:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I opened similar discussions here and here and consensus was that WP:BIO trumps WP:ATHLETE so once they meet the notability requirements then athlete shouldn't come into it. BigDunc^Talk 17:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've filled out his page with as much info as I know, but I'm afraid it's lacking in detail. Mooretwin (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should ask an admin if they'd restore the article with a proper undelete (though I'm not confident the old article will have much more information than is currently in it now). The information from the current version can be stored somewhere temporarily and then merged with the undeleted version.

BigDunc, to be honest I tend towards the non-deletionist side of things to start with: Wikipedia guidelines I remember reading a couple of years ago suggest that space is not a concern for editors. If an article is to be deleted for non-notability, I'd prefer to consider that article, individually, using common sense. Guidelines are just that - guides. --Setanta 18:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversial move

Hi,

I noticed you were edit warring and it appeared to be because of a page move which as I could see didn't have consensus. I have no problem with your potential move but as I said appeared to be controversial so please do a RM in talk if you'd like to move it. Thanks.Yman88 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unaware of this. Which article? Mooretwin (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force

I'm afraid I had to undo your latest edit to the above as you signed your comment with another user's signature! I think I know what you were trying to do, but I'm afraid you'll have to re-post it (using your own sig this time please!). Cheers, waggers (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see that things have calmed down, since I've left those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mooretwin, I'm not anti-RoI. I'm pro-Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal Ulster Constabulary

--Domer48_'fenian' 15:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)