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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mooretwin - regarding recent additions to the CU case, you've added IP addresses to a closed case. I'm not sure that is appropriate because they've not been confirmed and no action will take place on those addresses (see the note at the top of that page). I don't have a lot of experience with this but it seems like nothing will be done with them. (Note that it was archived on 1 Dec.)  Frank  |  talk  11:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What should I do, then? The IP addresses need to be logged somewhere. Mooretwin (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure; perhaps someone who clerks for those cases would be able to answer.  Frank  |  talk  15:02, 5 December 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)

I see no guidelines. Mooretwin (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is under 1RR. You have now reverted twice in breech of this AE imposed sancetion. Please self revert, or you will be reported per AE sanctions. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 17:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted once. The first was an edit which retained all of your new text but simply moved it to a different section. Mooretwin (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No it was two reverts,

"On 4 April the RIC was disbanded and replaced by the new RUC. On 7 April the Special Powers Act came into force, and the Belfast government though prohibited from raising or controlling a military force appointed Major General Solly Flood as a military advisor. "

This information was reverted twice. Now self revert or you will be reported for a breech of AE sanctions. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute

I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

--Domer48_'fenian' 10:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise

Hiya Mooretwin. I've chosen to no longer be involved with the Ireland naming dispute (see my UserPage, for reasons). I'll watch the discussions, but won't be part of them. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if your participation might help draw things to a close? Mooretwin (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My participation won't help, I can't be trusted at those discussions. I wish to have the articles at Ireland, Ireland (island) & Ireland (state) or Ireland (country). But, I accept that there's no consensus for that & therefore, it's best to let the status-quo continue. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PS- Your attempts to end the disputes, are commendable. I wish ya good luck, in your task. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PPS- Do yourselves all a favour & ignore the IPs at those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll support it (but I'm still avoiding the discussions). GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The status quo in one of no consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 15:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've bent a little. Added my 'support' to Mooretwin's compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw. The compromise is not sufficient, though it does help dispose of the RoI problem. -- Evertype·✆ 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair dues to you, Mooretwin! You've come up with a proposal that looks like getting broad support, just when it seemed the deadlock couldn't be broken. There's been a lot of discussion in the last few days around point 2, using "Republic of Ireland" as disambiguator. I'd really like to see you respond to these ideas, to know if what is being suggested at the moment is in line with what you had in mind when you made the proposal. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 08:07, 8 December 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 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Breech of AE Sanctions

I have reported your breeches of AE Sanctions here. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and tell the teacher. Mooretwin (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a final warning on the issues above. The articles are under 1RR sanctions to general editing. If you continue in this way, you risk being blocked for a period of time. Discuss, don't revert. SirFozzie (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add it would not go amiss if you would self revert your last edits there and join the ongoing discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't self-revert as someone else has reverted it already. Mooretwin (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked 12 hours for 1RR violation on several Troubles related articles (See above for the terms), after you had been previously warned on this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favour and block the Domer48/Big Dunc tell-tale tag-team, too. They are consistently disruptive editors. Just ask The Thunderer, who appears to have been bullied off WP. Mooretwin (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, could you please stop with this tag-team nonsence. The last time you used it was here. Today you reverted regardless of four editors disagreeing with you, Gaillimh, Valenciano, BigDunc and myself. Now both myself and Snowded did ask that you not be blocked, despite your accusations, so could you please assume good faith. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above post, I've removed you post on my talk page here, and again ask you to stop with this nonsense. You are more than welcome to post on my talk page as long as you remain civil. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the ArbComc case, Mooretwin. It's been on your page already. SirFozzie (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's about Ireland article names - nothing to do with any accusation against me. Mooretwin (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

demonstration that your are confused. And, despite me asking you not to, you have posted more messages on my talk page! Do not do it any more.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When I clicked on the link at the top of this section, none of that was visible. No wonder I'm confused. And I will continue to post comments on your Talk page until you come here and explain your accusations. It is surely unjust for you to make accusations which I do not understand and refuse to explain them. Mooretwin (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the purpose of those comments is. Mooretwin (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Can you please refrain from decapitalising this phrase. It is a special status and capitalised is correct for this. Canterbury Tail talk 20:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not correct. Just because something is an acronym (of capital letters) doesn't mean that the phrase itself must be capitalised. The legislation which governs this designation does not use capitals: Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_8#pt4 - see section 82: ... the Agency may, for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, by order designate the area for the purposes of this Part as an area of outstanding natural beauty ... In this Part “area of outstanding natural beauty” means an area designated under this section as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Mooretwin (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the Tag Team references

You have been asked to stop them previously, and you've ignored that. Now you're trying to use that attack on previously uninvolved people's pages, trying to enlist them to your cause. I strongly suggest that if you want to bring up any evidence with regards to improper editing by Dunc and Domer (or anyone else) you bring it up on the ArbCom case, otherwise, cease and desist with the comments now. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's clear they're acting as a tag-team to get round the 1RR rule. Mooretwin (talk)

Also, stop with the lower case changes on Special Category Status, you're actively breaking categories on numerous things. I know you think they should be lower case, but you're being highly disruptive here by acting the way you are. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not me being disruptive. I've changed them to the correct form. Others are being disruptive, changing them to the wrong form in the face of evidence to the contrary. Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're being just as disruptive if not more so, by continuing to edit war, and deliberately breaking categories. SirFozzie (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't even know what "breaking categories" means, so I can hardly be doing it deliberately. Fixing and improving Wikipedia is not disruptive. Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SSSI

Since you are now also changing the capitalisation of "Site of Special Scientific Interest" to lower case, which is just the same kind of actions you have been doing to other categories, and which is being disruptive, I am advising you that if you make one more change after this warning, I will block you for being disruptive: you have had the problems brought about by your undiscussed actions pointed out to you sufficiently already that one more change to any related term will be judged by myself, and possibly others, as being sufficient to block you unless you engage in discussions first.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Why do you want Wikipedia to be wrong? Undiscussed actions? If you bother to read the Talk page you will see that the correct form does not have capitals. How can it be "disruptive" to seek improvements and corrections to the encyclopaedia? Mooretwin (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your choice of phrasing here really needs attention: just because I object to the manner in which you are making a change does not imply that I want wikipedia to be wrong, and your assumption that I did not "bother to read the Talk page" makes assumption about my motives that certainly do not assume good faith. In terms of the talk page: Your assertions on it Talk:Site of Special Scientific Interest and your request for someone to move the page do not constitute adequate discussion, and you should know by now from your previous editing activities and disputes that a request for contested matters like this go to WP:RM.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't move the page. I explained why it needed to be moved and requested that someone did so. I fail to see how such action could prompt such an angry reaction. I'll try the RM as you suggest. I've never done that before and don't know how to. I trust you have placed equally chastising comments on the pages of O Fenian, for example? Mooretwin (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said you had moved the page: but you have changed the capitalisation of the term of it, just as you have done (and been warned about by others) for Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. With respect to O Fenian, I have not concerned myself with edits done by them, as others are dealing with that.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? What others? Mooretwin (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot play the ignorance card anymore. There is no need to maintain good faith in an editor when there is good evidence to demonstrate otherwise: you have been on wikipedia long enough, and been in disputes with others long enough to know (a) how to look at the editing history of an article, and (b) read it to see when previous edits by yourself have been reverted. So, don't provoke things anymore and drop the ignorance pretense here, as it merely makes you look stupid. You will see that I have reverted your on each article once, and that at least two other editors have also done so a short time previously. Given that you have already got into trouble over WP:3rr reversions (which you can find evidence for in either your own memory or your block history, found when you look at your own contributions history), you are walking a very risky path here. Any more of this nonsense, and it may well go badly for you. That is not a threat, it is a warning made in good faith for you to change your behaviour and approaches here. Please do so before you get blocked again for being disruptive.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. I was asking what others are dealing with O Fenian. Perhaps you could retract the above and answer my question? Mooretwin (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am certainly not retracting this. Your asked: "I trust you have placed equally chastising comments on the pages of O Fenian, for example" which certainly is clear enough, and shows that your recollection of what you wrote a short time previously is in error. It shows a wilful attempt to distort information and claim misunderstanding, which is just plain disruptive as it is not conducive to proper discussion. There is nothing that I need retract in what I wrote. Stop this nonsense immediately.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Yes, indeed I asked "I trust you have placed equally chastising comments on the pages of O Fenian, for example". Then you said "With respect to O Fenian, I have not concerned myself with edits done by them, as others are dealing with that", and so I asked what others. Then you accused me of playing an ignorance card. I genuinely do not see the logic of this accusation. I don't see where I attempted to distort information, wilfully or otherwise. Please explain. Mooretwin (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I can explain this.

First, review the edit made above by DDStretch at 00:46 on 12 December 2008 (UTC). Notice that the word "others" occurs twice in that edit. The first occurence is about you changing capitalisation and being reverted/warned, and the second is not about you, but about other admins dealing with O Fenian. Your question "Really? What others?" was perfectly ambiguous, and DDStretch interpreted your response as questioning or challenging the assertion that your own actions had caused reverts and warnings, rather than asking for information about third party admins dealing with another editor. I'm sure you would agree that, when faced with such a choice, it is quite reasonable to assume that an editor is asking about matters related to themself rather than about third parties.

I hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Hence I said to DDStretch that I thought he had misunderstood. But he steamed ahead with his accusations, not even having the courtesy or patience to consider the possibility that he was mistaken. Mooretwin (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold the Kafka.

[2] SirFozzie (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - as I've noted above, the comments were not visible from the link originally posted on my page. Hardly surprising that I've never read them. What is their context/purpose? Mooretwin (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions on Talk:Sinn Féin

I think your need to address the language you use on Talk:Sinn Féin, and posting a message which asks whether another editor will "tell teacher" if he comments about the disruptive tone he thinks you use is quite inflammatory and unnecessary. It also contravenes WP:TALK in being a response to a request to moderate your language (which would be aqcceptable once) wich is not of direct relevance to improving the article. I think you should steer clear of these kinds of subjects if you cannot contribute in a more collaborative manner or if you cannot stick to the guidelines given on WP:TALK.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The comments result from frustration at a particular editor who I perceive to have a vendetta against me. Nonetheless, I will desist. Will you explain your accusations above, please? It is only fair. Mooretwin (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Violation of canvassing rules

You seem to have violated the rules concerning canvassing on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitals, since the section was started by you after the various RMs were proposed by you, and your message is phrased using non-neutral wording and phrasing. Canvassing is viewed as being disruptive. I ask you to either remove the message or edit it to make it neutral (such as the various messages are that I posted to a variety of projects which the articles would be relevant to by virtue of dealing with UK geographical topics, and/or which have project templates on the corresponding talk pages.) If you want to lend more credibility to your proposals, you are advised that it is better to stick to the rules and guidelines in proposing moves. Don't "shoot yourself in the foot" here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This feels like a vendetta. Fine. I'll do whatever you wish. I note your failure to have the courtesy to retract your accusations against me of last night - or even to explain them. Poor show by you, but I'll follow the letter of the law as you suggest. Maybe I'll just give up altogether - what do you think? Would that work? Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Conform with the established policies and the warnings will stop. I have no intentuion of explaining my comments last night, as they are quite clear, despite your protestations that they are not. The tactic of continually asking questions on every minor point and claiming ignorance or lack of understanding is tiring, and I suggest you change tactics if you wish to continue. Remember that I am not the only administrator who is tiring of your tactics you are using in a variety of areas on wikipedia, and I cannot vouch for any of the others not issuing a block if your disruptive behaviour does not stop.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

They're not clear at all. I asked who was dealing with O Fenian and you said others were dealing with that. I asked what others, and you launched into a tirade of accusations against me. How on earth can that not require an explanation? You repeat another accusation here - "continually asking questions on every minor point and claiming ignorance or lack of understanding":

- You said others were dealing with O Fenian and I asked who - that is not "every minor point" - it was a genuine question.

- I genuinely do not know who is dealing with O Fenian - so I do not "claim" ignorance, I actually am ignorant.

- I never claimed lack of understanding.

Now, I suggest that your personal attacks on me are disruptive. A simple, courteous explanation of your comments is a perfectly reasonable request. Is it "established policy" randomly to accuse people of things and not explain those accusations? If not, can I do anything to stop you? Mooretwin (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Brought up the current situation on WP:AN

I've started a new discussion over the current situation at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Can_someone_counsel_User:Mooretwin.3F SirFozzie (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Caps to no caps

Hello Mooretwin. I have closed most of the move requests you made as consensus not to move. While, personally, I agree with you, and find the over capitalization on Wikipedia an example of us adopting poor English, there is a strong consensus that the widely adopted use of caps is sufficiently verifiable as to fulfill our requirements.

I haven't closed the SCS request, because I was more significantly involved in the discussion and the consensus is less clear. Rockpocket 18:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's disappointing and frustrating to witness Wikipedia adopting the recent trend towards ugly and unnecessary capitalisation: an example, in my view, of the intrusion of business language into the general language. It was also surprising to witness the hostility with which the requests were met - verging on a personal vendetta in the case of one editor! Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to make personal attacks at Talk:Sinn Féin

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and personal attacks. 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.

This edit contains personal attacks against another editor. I see that you have twice reverted the removal of this edit by different editors. Neither the attacks nor the edit-warring are accepted behaviour in the Wikipedia community. You should always discuss content rather than contributors, and attributing bad-faith motivations to other editors is almost never excusable. When your post is described as disruptive and at odds with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines you should seriously consider whether there isn't a less aggressive way of saying what you want to say. Even if you are utterly convinced that you are correct, there are very few situations where policy allows you to get involved in an edit war. Considering the number of times you've been blocked for edit warring in the past, you should know this by now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the "personal attacks" are very serious. Indeed, the one to which you have linked contains truthful and verifiable statements: "Domer48's refusal to engage in discussion"; "He agreed to compromise text on 7th October, but has since reverted, refusing to discuss his volte-face", followed by an honest assessment as to my understanding of his tactics and motivation for the behaviour: "It would seem that he reckons consensus is no longer necessary since he believes he can force his will on to the article now that most editors have abandoned it save for himself and a few allied editors".

Any "personal attacks" on my part are borne out of frustration at the stranglehold he has achieved on several articles, where he is able to act as "guardian" and cleverly revert all edits with which he disagrees while adeptly staying within the letter of various WP guidelines. This tactic of hyper-vigilance has dissuaded other editors who disagree with Domer48's perspective from bothering to edit, leaving me as often the only editor left who is prepared to challenge him - and hence the edit wars. I get punished because (a) I'm not as savvy as him in terms of the WP policies, and (b) it is against my nature to run to Admins with complaints.

This incident, however, has prompted me to consider following Domer48's lead and making a complaint against him for disruptive editing. Again, following his lead, could you advise how I should do this? I'm attempting to gather evidence to build up a case, as I genuinely believe his behaviour is harming Wikipedia by driving editors away. I have been very close to following the example of User:The Thunderer, who packed WP in, following what he perceived as bullying by Domer48 and one of his allies, Big Dunc.Mooretwin (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The only advice I can give is not to get involved in edit wars. The simple rule of thumb is: do not revert a revert. Consult dispute resolution guidelines for other ways of resolving the problem. Remember that there is no deadline and the article (or Talk page) can always be corrected after the dispute is resolved and consensus is established. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice.Mooretwin (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been continually warned [3] [4] [5] about both your accusations and your edit warring, and I’d wish you’d stop. I have asked on two occasions that you not be blocked, and you still persist. In addition to me, you’ve made accusations against two Admin’s that you were being victimised. So I suggest that you file a RfC or make a report on AE, because this has to stop. If you persist, I will have no choice to file a report myself. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting messages on my talk page. Thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Any further personal attacks, edit warring, or other such disruptive editing behavior will result in escalating blocks, the next one for 4 weeks at a minimum. Note that blocks are preventative and not punitive, so you have all the information you need to contribute to Wikipedia without further disruption. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

BigDunc is wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Don't forget to sign your posts, there. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Because it had already been raised at WP:AE, which was the proper place for it. Black Kite 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How was it the proper place for it? And, in any case, it wasn't investigated there. Mooretwin (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because issued regarding Troubles-related articles are covered by ArbCom enforcement and thus belong on AE. As you can see, you originally raised the issue at AN, was told to move it to AE, no action was taken at the AE noticeboard, and so moving it back to AN is merely forum shopping. Black Kite 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I only moved it back to AN because it was ignored on AE with (I think) the suggestion that it should be seen at AN. Why was it ignored on AE and what can I do to have it investigated? Mooretwin (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Scouting Ireland

The edit war on this article has to stop. You are both at the 3RR level. I have fully protected the article and removed all reference to WOSM until such a time that the affiliation with WOSM is fully clarified by reference to reliable sources. Since WOSM recognises national associations, the bottom line has to be that Scouting Ireland is the WOSM approved association in the Republic and the Scout Association is the WOSM approved association in the UK, including Northern Ireland. If this is incorrect, we need a source and with that reference the article can be edited to add back reference to WOSM and then be unprotected. Please find such a source. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree totally! Mooretwin (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

How do you deal with editors like this? I gather you've experienced the same things I have. I'm sick of being met with 'wiki policy' when trying to make a point. But I probably should watch my language! NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. There are editors who spend an awful lot of time on here, stand guard over certain articles, and know the wiki policies inside out and when to use them. They will also complain to sympathetic administrators and you may find yourself banned if you show frustration. There are serious "players" here who put in the hours and know how to play the game. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noted your comments above and reported them here. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. Mooretwin (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean Mooretwin. When this blows over I might get to the business of editing articles again. This wiki law malarky isn't for me! NewIreland2009 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, he's reported me now! Mooretwin (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I really had a good laugh at his actions. Such irony and I doubt he realises it. NewIreland2009 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On another point

What keeps you motivated? If I hadn't realised a couple of hours ago how absurd/hilarious the situation was I probably would have walked in frustration also. But I'm sure that'll die down as I see yet another stomach wrenching piece of irony... NewIreland2009 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

"Sinn Fein":Mooretwin, I have removed a contentious sentence from the introductory paragraph on the Sinn Fein page. If the article is about Sinn Fein since 1969 exclusively, then it should be stated in the first paragraph, before the PIRA is introduced, or else it's totally confusing. PurpleA (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning at all. The hatnote, and the intro both state that the article is about the current SF - and the PIRA connection is introduced after that. So by your own reasoning, there is no basis for removing the PIRA reference. Mooretwin (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ladbrokes Championship logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ladbrokes Championship logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've sorted it, now. Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unions in plural

Just a quick note to say that both "trades unions" and "trade unions" are acceptable plurals of "trade union". I believe that the former is the more traditional format whilst the latter is the term preferred in common usage (a bit of a focussed/focused issue). As long as the article remains consistent to a certain term (keeping up appearances) then I couldn't give a hoot anyway! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ictu logo small web.jpg — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was given as Trades Unions in the article - go ahead and change it. Looks like the TUC is flying the flag on its own. I'll concede that myself and TUC are in the minority. Mooretwin (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't see that one. I think Trades Union is an old spelling of Trade Union that has fallen out of use. The Image Mafia will be around shortly to remove this shocking use of a fair use image on a talk page -:) — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Venue for Ireland talk

Hello Mooretwin! Since you're the only one who voted against option 3, I would like to understand your concerns. Would you be completely opposed to it, or do you just prefer number 2?

You wrote "that's where the solution lies waiting to be rescued". I admit, I haven't looked carefully there, because I assumed it was made obsolete by the later discussion. But I assure you, we will work on rescuing the information from there, regardless of where we do the talking. I am confident that we can do that together. (I once did that in a situation that may have been more complicated here. Back then, I did that by myself, and it was a lot of work, but if we decide to do something like this together now, it would be much easier.)

I am impressed by the discussion so far. Editors are very civil; I sense a strong, genuine desire to resolve this. All it takes is an occasional nudge by a trusted, independed person, when the discussion is stuck in Buridan's ass's place. — Sebastian 17:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that I, and several others, devoted a lot of energy and time into the task force, and I would be disillusioned if the progress achieved there were lost. If you read my proposal there - which generated unprecedented support - you'll see that my strong belief is that the only way to resolve this dispute, and the best way to maximise support for a resolution, is for a "package" agreement that covers more than simply the title of the current Republic of Ireland article. That is why there were 4 elements to my proposal. I believe this is why it garnered support - everyone got something, but no-one got everything. Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. That sounds very good. Of course, we should include any proposal that garnered support. I have to go now, but I will look at it later. I will try and find out why it was skipped over by the ArbCom discussion (or at least why I got that impression). Please let me know if you have any ideas about that, and please don't hesitate to send them by mail, which allows a less guarded communication. — Sebastian 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force, and it seems you are talking about this proposal: "Unregistered editors should not be permitted to contribute, in my view." This is something you could propose at WP:IECOLL, too. Personally, I find the word "contribute" a bit vague - what do you mean: edit an article, write a message, or vote? Of these, the first is clearly in contradiction with general Wikipedia policies, and would need an unrefuted reason to be enacted. Writing a message can't harm; as long as the message itself is helpful; there's no difference who wrote it. Only the latter makes sense to me, but that may not be relevant if there is agreement to avoid votes altogether. — Sebastian 09:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. I'm talking about this. Mooretwin (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, of course! Sorry that I overlooked this. It's a bit too soon for this, since we're currently (1) only talking about non-content issues and (2) waiting for ArbCom. (See WT:IECOLL for details.) — Sebastian 09:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RoI/Ireland ArbCom ruling

Hi, I've been reading the various Talk pages about the RoI/Ireland naming dispute and I'd like to ask you if the ArbCom panel has arrived at a decision or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.185.56 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)