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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RoI article

"Parliament means both houses - no need to spell it out" - The NI Parliament includes the Monarch - just as in Ireland today it includes the President. Check it out. The difference is significant - A Parliament cannot make an address to its King - the Houses of Parliament can.

Here is the relevant section of the GOvernment of Ireland Act...:

Establishment of parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland. -

(1) On and after the appointed day there shall be established for Southern Ireland a Parliament to be called the Parliament of Southern Ireland consisting of His Majesty, the Senate of Southern Ireland, and the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and there shall be established for Northern Ireland a Parliament to be called the Parliament of Northern Ireland consisting of His Majesty, the Senate of Northern Ireland, and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, technically you're right, but in everyday ordinary language "Parliament" is sufficient. Mooretwin (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we shouldn't let accuracy stand in the way of ignorance. Its only an encyclopedia after all. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hain

On closer inpection, I see that you're right. Apologies Grblundell (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Appreciate the message. Mooretwin (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Names of the railway stations in NI in Irish and Ulster Scots

Hello Mooretwin. Could I ask you why you've deleted some names of the railway stations in Northern Ireland in Irish and Ulster Scots? These languages are officially recognized in NI, and the names often have Irish/Scots origin. Although NI Railways don't show them at the stations, I'm sure that they're used in these languages. <flrn> 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you a source that shows these names being used for the railway stations? Without one, I see no reason for their inclusion. Mooretwin (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got sources. Translink hasn't a map of railway stations in Irish ([3]) although the stations names that are included in the text (like Great Victoria Street) are translated. So now I see that other names can't be included, sorry for the trouble. <flrn> 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed page should of been at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin (Problem 1) not WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin (Problem 1) . Can you speedy delete the incorrect one Gnevin (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I speedy-delete? Mooretwin (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You just add the relevant tag at the top of the page for example {{db-vandalism}} would be used on a page that is considered vandalism. See here for the criteria and tags. BigDunc^Talk 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

add {{speedy}} to the page Gnevin (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi I made a reply to your post at my statements talk page. I am quite confused though. You say Ireland can't have two primary meanings but then say somewhere else and I quote "But the "official name" Ireland is ambiguous". Ambiguity is defined as "uncertainty of meaning". So are you still saying Ireland can't have more than one main meaning? In find this to be quite a contradiction.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said Ireland can't have more than one main meaning, therefore it would be impossible for me still to be saying so. Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But surely primary = main? You say there can't be two primary meanings but there can be two main meanings? They both mean the same thing.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't. Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that they do. I'm not going to turn this into an English lesson for you but someone not understanding the meaning of a word should not hinder consensus building. I will make it clear to the moderators the reason for you disagreeing with my statement.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Can I get some input here please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm as confused as you are. Would need more time to examine the figures, but have to go to bed now. Mooretwin (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Northern Ireland!

Hey Mooretwin, and welcome to WikiProject Northern Ireland! Thanks so much for signing up - it's great to have new people coming in. I know you've already been an active editor, but please feel free to ping me if you have any questions or would like to collaborate on any projects. Thanks again! FlyingToaster 16:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sly move

You knew full well that moving the Regional postage in Great Britain would be a controversial one, so now the Regional postage stamps of Great Britain is at its more proper WP:COMMONNAME title. Check out this book by Arnold Machin whose designs have been used since 1971 for the regional stamps. In future bring such moves to WP:RM instead of making sly moves just because you don't like the titles. You really should know better. ww2censor (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't. The stamps are UK stamps: not GB stamps. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland flag in Northern Ireland article

Hello,

Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.

Regards 89.217.188.221 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Club Honours for Drumaness Mills

I noticed that a large number of team honours were removed from this page. I realise that a full list of club honours may not be considered a notable fact for a club that has moved out of amateur football into the Irish league proper (such as Carrick or PSNI - when they played as RUC). But for teams still in the NAFL, they are notable milestones of a clubs progress through the amateur league system. And for smaller or more recent teams, a win in outside the premier division may be their only notable success.

I recently re-edited the honours section for Larne Tech OB to show how their full honours list would look. If you agree, I would like to restore the full club honours for Drumaness. Thanks and keep up the great work. DarthJoeyJoJo (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. We're skating on thin "notability" ice by including a lot of amateur teams in the encyclopaedia in the first place. I don't think, for example, winning the third division of a regional amateur league is notable. I think for consistency we note Amateur League champions, Border Cup and Clarence Cup winners, as these are significant honours. They would be the equivalent of winning the Mid-Ulster League or the NI Intermediate League. If we were to include Division 1B runners-up, etc., then we'd have to include lower divisions from these leagues. In general, runners-up are not listed anyway.

(There's also the confusion of Division 1A champions before they brought in the Premier means something different to what it means today.

Keep up your own good work, by the way. We're making some good improvements. Mooretwin (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

You know by now you need consensus for things like that. If you wish to change what it says go to the talk page.MITH 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You know by now that you don't need a consensus for simple changes to comply with policies. I noted the irony of your edit description. Mooretwin (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irelands

Republic of Ireland to Ireland (republic) (appeasing one group). Then, we allow Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) to remain as is (appeasing the other group). It has possibilites. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the problem of agreeing how the state is referred to in other articles. I'd agree to the above so long as ROI can still be used in prose elsewhere throughout the encyclopaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RoI in prose, in exchange for pipe-linkg British Isles as Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In exchange for Derry moving to Londonderry? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The possibillities are endless, IMHO. The alleged pro-British group & the alleged pro-Irish group, in these BI & Irelands disputes, should be able to compromise. Each side giving up something, to gain something in return. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I have been pushing since the IDTF (which was sadly abandoned and replaced by the ludicrous recent exercise). Worryingly the current moderator seems to be pushing for individual polls on each separate issue, and is even alluding to ruling out one of the options before a poll. Mooretwin (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinon, the Ireland naming dispute & the British Isles naming dispute, are inter-twined. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they necessarily are, except in the sense that many editors are involved in both. Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I could be a mad man, but I believe they're linked. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than the links in terms of personnel, how do you mean? Mooretwin (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They both have a common thread: Frustration over British dominance of Ireland, through the centuries. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If so, then it would seem that those objecting to British Isles and to Republic of Ireland are approaching the issue emotionally rather than rationally. Mooretwin (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether that's so, may never be known. Remember, it's just my theory. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There's emotion on both sides, for sure - we need a little bit more rationality. Don't know about you guys, but I'd say that in the last 12 months, I've detected a little teensy bit more compromise than previously... But I also agree with GoodDay that RoI and BI are linked - I was pretty active on WP:BISLES with a number of other editors, and we were asked to put it on hold until the RoI issue was resolved. At the time, I didn't want to because I believed they were separate topics, but now .... now, I think they're linked (at least in some editor's (non-rational) brains). --HighKing (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where/what is the link? Mooretwin (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert on ROI

I reverted your edit to Republic of Ireland. I've expained why here. I hope you understand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

SI

There is no edit war on my part with you. You changed a range of articles like RTE, proclaiming that the BBC was there first. The article is about Ireland, not Northern Ireland. I don't go around changing Northern Ireland articles because I disagree with some point. Point is, I don't edit war, and actually try and avoid those situations. Tfz 09:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is part of Ireland. The BBC was in Ireland before RTE. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You edit-warred at Scouting Ireland. The evidence is there on the article history: at least six reverts, including the most recent one. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You also gave a false reason for supporting the removal of "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Bottom line is, you seem to resent Ireland using the name Ireland for the title of the country. I don't think we can change that, and it is 85% of the island. Tfz 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't know about what? That Northern Ireland is part of Ireland (to what do you think the second part of the name refers?)? That you edit-warred (the article history is there for all to see)? Or that you gave a false reason for supporting the removal of "Republic of Ireland" (you said it was because there should be no change while Arbcom is ongoing, yet "Republic of Ireland" was removed while Arbcom was ongoing and I was restoring it)?

Bottom line is, you seem to resent Ireland using the name Ireland for the title of the island. I don't think we can change that, and it is 100% of the island. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The names are what they are, I don't control that aspect of things. Tfz 10:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they are, and that is why we need disambiguation. (I note your failure to explain what it was that you "didn't know about".) Mooretwin (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"false reasons" I guess. To be honest with you, I didn't even look at it to check, but it must be a misinterpretation of sorts. I wouldn't do that. Tfz 11:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You said you supported "Ireland" because there should be no change while Arbcom is ongoing, yet "Ireland" was only introduced to the article while Arbcom was ongoing. By your own logic, therefore, you should support going back to "Republic of Ireland". But you don't. Mooretwin (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working at moment and can't get back after this. Was looking at the history for a few minutes. I can't see the need to have countries mentioned in the lede at all, and think Ireland is fine, as it was in the beginning. Tfz 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't "Ireland" at the beginning. It was "Ireland (both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland)", which was WRONG. Hence it was changed just to "Republic of Ireland". The fact that you don't realise that SI is an ROI organisation demonstrates the need to make this clear in the lede. Mooretwin (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Mooretwin. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

I've blocked you for edit warring at 1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape. In view of your previous log, I've blocked you for a month. Be aware that this is probably your last block: the next will likely be indef William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I appeal this? I didn't break 3RR and all I was doing was restoring text being repeatedly changed by an editor without consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're allowed to make a request for unblock. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but how? Mooretwin (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't break 3RR. All I did was restore text being controversially and repeatedly changed by an editor without consensus, and using deceitful edit summaries.

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring and have a long history of doing such (10 blocks for the same issue!). I'm going to put a motion forward to put you on a single revert sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Sockpuppet

Can someone check if 192.122.221.72 is a sockpuppet for User:MusicInTheHouse? This IP has just reverted the same text that Music in the House reverted earlier. Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lacking CU I can't myself; I doubt if anyone would bother for one edit, now reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A Month?

I went to Administrator Connolly's page because I thought there was a bad block on MITH (assuming no socks of course) and I find you have been blocked for a month. Why do you bother fighting on minor articles? - especially since you seem to have a reasonable approach to the main naming dispute? The month block is OTT and now we have lost one of the "moderates" in the Ireland naming dispute. I'm on the verge of despair. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I resent that the most belligerent and determined editors seem to get their way because more moderate editors tend to "give up" on content disputes. I also resent hypocrisy, when editors say "no change until IECOLL" on one article, but then proceed to make changes on another. That is why I reverted Music in the House's edits on the Mountjoy article. I made sure to keep within 3RR, (depsite Music in the House's false accusation), but that wasn't taken into consideration and I was banned for "edit-warring".

I feel like I am the only editor prepared to stand up against certain other editors, and I get punished for it.

I'm that glad Music in the House got banned, because telling tales and trying to get another editor banned is pretty low, and he got his own comeuppance as his hidden reverts were obvious to the Admin, but I'd prefer it if neither of us were banned.

If you can do anything to get my ban reduced, it would be appreciated. If I do get unbanned, I will continue to press for a compromise on the Ireland naming dispute, as I have done since last year. Mooretwin (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also mentioned to the blocking admin that I think a month is excessive. However, I think unless you and Music admit to your errors and promise to desist in future, there is little prospect of an about face and the blocks being lifted earlier. RashersTierney (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How and where can I do that? Mooretwin (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of teaching grannies to suck eggs....you should look to the banner above at "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the 'unblock' template again." The admin wants reassurance that you know why you were blocked, that you accept that a block was warranted and you will not re-engage in what has been determined to be disruptive editing. Don't rehash your initial appeal, and please drop your argie with Music. Good luck. RashersTierney (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have questions, feel free to ask them, I'm watching. If you want advice it is: blocks are preventative, not punitive. If you're prepared to commit to avoiding edit warring in future, I'll consider unblocking William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If I have a clear, unambiguous understanding of what edit-warring is, I'll commit not to doing it. I don't want, however, to commit to something where an innocent edit results in somebody running to admins to get me banned again. I can commit to 1RR - is that acceptable? Mooretwin (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that on all articles you are making that commitment you need to clarify as you said 1RR is tight and you can very easy without knowing breach it I did and got blocked for 48 hours even after I said it wouldn't happen again so don't fall for the preventitive not punitave BS that wiki is supposed to have. BigDunc^Talk 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dunc, that is what I'm trying to suss out. Mooretwin (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you'll have to learn to operate in the face of ambiguity. Because of your editing history, you'll need to lean very heavily on the side of caution. If you're unsure whether a given edit is a revert or not, you should assume it is, and instead of editing comment on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1RR is not acceptable? Mooretwin (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a moderate who's quit the Ireland naming discussion; I think it best you get unblocked sooner, rather then latter. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't quit! I've been banned. >:-( Mooretwin (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the moderate, who's quit. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you. This is conditional on:

1. you adhering to WP:1RR on all articles
2. interpreting WP:REVERT broadly; if in doubt, talk
3. leaving this message on your talk page

After a while (a month perhaps) you can ask to have this sanction removed. This will occur if you have a demonstrable record of good-faith non-controversial editing. Bear in mind that this is likely your last chance: further violations are very likely to trigger and indef block William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that one revert ever on every article? Mooretwin (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't clear, is it? 1RR in common parlance means "per 24h", just like 3RR. That is what I mean by it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for unblocking me and for clarifying the terms. I'll endeavour to be more careful and seek a review after a month or so. Mooretwin (talk)

Comments

Consider this a warning for your continued commenting on editors rather than on the article. Directly pertaining to this edit. Assume good faith, and discuss article not editors. If you continue along this editing path you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not over-react to a bit of understandable frustration CT! Welcome back Mooretwin! May your stay be long and productive:)Sarah777 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sarah. I'm getting some support from some unlikely quarters - it is appreciated. For the record, I "redrafted" the "offending" comment above, although I should have thought that most of us have thick enough skins to withstand a bit of robust argument. Mooretwin (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

...and thank you for supporting my stance in the use of the term murder in the Norman Stronge article at [4]. --De Unionist (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A Deletion Discussion of an Irish Catholic Category

is being discussed at [5]--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Norman Stronge

Next time you remove other peoples (mine in particular) comments from a talk page without their permission I will report you to ANI.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The comments were removed in accordance with WP:TPG and this was explained in the edit comment. Regards. Mooretwin (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem.

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

You are confusing "Great Britain" (England, Scotland and Wales) with "Britain" (synonymous with "UK", or "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). Northern Ireland is not united with Britain in the UK, it is united with Great Britain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

'Britain' is, indeed, often used as a synonym for UK. But it is also used (perhaps more often) as a synonym for 'Great Britain'. Viz. recent advertising in Northern Ireland for HSS ferries "to Britain" from Belfast. Regardless, your use of "Ireland" is also confusing as it is an island as well as a state. Mooretwin (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

When used as a synonym for UK, it is correct. When used as a synonym for Great Britain, it is incorrect. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Mooretwin (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[6] Britain, UK: These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, however, refers only to England, Wales and Scotland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian may say it is "officially" the short form of UK, but there is no source for their claim. Even if true, "unofficially", it is often used in place of "Great Britain" and hence your suggested form of words should not be used in the interests of clarity. Mooretwin (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You said "Northern Ireland is united with Britain in the UK". There is no sense in which that is a correct statement. If you wish to continue in your state of ignorance, that's fine by me. I'm just letting you know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) ps The Guardian is a reliable source.

There is a sense in which it is correct: the sense being that "Britain" refers to "Great Britain". Personally, I would never use "Britain" in that sense, but others do: hence your proposed text should not be used in the interests of clarity. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jjbpremiership158.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Jjbpremiership158.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You can delete it. I used a bigger version of the logo and this one is unused. Mooretwin (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Algernon William John Clotworthy Skeffington, 12th Viscount Massereene

The only reference you listed on this article, here, does not mention the subject. Please provide a source for verification. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the source (which says: "Parliamentary Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister 7th June 1921 Viscount Massereene and Ferrard"). Mooretwin (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, but where did "Algernon William John Clotworthy Skeffington" come from? Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

From the main article about the viscountcy: Viscount_Massereene. Mooretwin (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for clearing that up. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Mooretwin (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, for succession boxes concerning peerage titles and their format you might wish to take a look on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Succession. For the naming of articles about peers with more than one title, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Location. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Recommended action

I've given up trying to mediate at Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army, however other admins will keep a silent watch and will extend protection if consensus isn't reached. In the meantime if things don't improve it is likely appropriate to take this dispute, along with the actions of certain editors to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Put in a request for Dispute Resolution in IRA article

Following Durova's advice, I've opened a topic here in the hopes of getting consensus moving. Lot 49a^talk 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland 1921-1925

Hi - I see that you recently created this category. It's a good idea, but the title is quite long. Would you have any objection to me renaming it Category:Northern Ireland MPs 1921-1925? That title would be similar to the categorisation of Westminster MPs by term. Warofdreams talk 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to appear unhelpful, but I wouldn't support that title as, in my view, it would be ambiguous. Readers may think that it was referring to (Westminster MPs) from Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Mayo

Mooretwin; are you trying to restore or remove the redlinks defacing this article?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither, although I agree the article is better without them. I just made a raft of grammatical improvements, we had an edit conflict, so I attempted to restore YOUR version, but with MY grammatical improvements (admittedly by C&P - bad boy). Mooretwin (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:CarlingPremiership.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CarlingPremiership.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How dare you!!!!

....create the article I had put on my long finger to create: Texaco (All-Ireland) Cup. Good job, it was a hole in the Irish football bucket for too long. :-) Fribbler (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Mooretwin (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Orangefield

By any chance, are you Moore Sinnerton, former teacher at this school? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No chance whatsoever, I'm afraid. Sorry to disappoint! Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1996 Manchester bombing

Fair enough, care to discuss how it was inappropriate and what improvements can be made to the section? Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was more appropriate to an article about the history of Ulster or Northern Ireland, rather than a single event. Indeed, it looked like it had been copied and pasted from such an article. Mooretwin (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So you suggest having no background section at all? The background isn't simple, and perhaps the section was too detailed (although I actually thought it didn't explain the situation half as well as it needed to), perhaps it should be limited to stuff about Irish home rule rather than extending back to the 16th century? As for copy and pasting, when someone edits Wikipedia they "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License", so even if material is copied from one article and posted to another there's no problem. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would the background to a bombing in 1996 need to refer to Irish home rule bills from the 19th century? Mooretwin (talk)

The reason for the existence of the IRA is to gain independence for all of Ireland from Britain and to defend Irish home rule, at least that's what Coogan says. Nev1 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, then add your information to the Provisional IRA article. Mooretwin (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time, I'm going to reinstate the section. It may need a trim, but the event can't be taken out of context. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to copy and paste long histories into every article about every incident in the Troubles? Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I've removed the first paragraph for deviating from the topic too much. The section now focusses on the IRA and why they were using violence to achieve their aims of Ireland's independence from Britain. What do you think now? Nev1 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it won't be long before someone removes it. Mooretwin (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as maybe, and I'm guessing you think there's a good reason, but could you explain? Nev1 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GAA

Would you please revert your unilateral edits on the Gaelic Athletic Association page. Consensus has not been reached on any of your POV edits, in fact you seem to be in a minority of one. Please also be careful on the number of reverts you make, or you could get into trouble once again for edit warring. Thank you. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a multilateral edit? I haven't made any POV edits: kindly read WP:AGF and do not come to my Talk page if all you can offer are accusations. Mooretwin (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to make an edit the does not violate consensus. I've posted a dispute notice at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Gaelic_Athletic_Association. I notice that you've reverted the article 3 times. Please be more careful with reverts. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Did someone say it wasn't possible to make an edit that does not violate consensus?? Mooretwin (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Perhaps move your notification from his user page to his user talk page, where he'll see it? Shenme (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Silly mistake. Mooretwin (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish

Howdy Mooretwin. Do as I, avoid using those 'four' terms & go with British. Afterall, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Clancy McDermott

I have nominated Clancy McDermott, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clancy McDermott. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Eric Treverrow

I have nominated Eric Treverrow, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Treverrow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sammy Hughes (footballer)

I have nominated Sammy Hughes (footballer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammy Hughes (footballer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Billy Neill

I have nominated Billy Neill, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Neill. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Arthur Stewart (footballer)

I have nominated Arthur Stewart (footballer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stewart (footballer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources,

The source which you have been using on various Biographies, the source listed in the following link has been deemed unreliable. Please do not use it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AfDs and VK

Are suggesting I'm some kind of sock of VK? I'm the one that nominated the article, not him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not. But your nomination was prompted by him. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd say

Although we don't always agree on some things and we've had ....discussions... in the past, just thought I'd say that I like your work. Keep it up. --HighKing (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Doug Wood a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Dougie Wood. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is 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, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, 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. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Didn't really happen like you say. I created the page and only later realised that an article existed at another name. Was too late, then. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mooretwin. You have new messages at Philosopher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Mooretwin. You have new messages at Philosopher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IE collab

Hello, Mooretwin. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

S-par

I've added the Northern Ireland parameters to {{s-par}}. You can see them at Template:S-par#United Kingdom; Ireland. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Many many thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer)

Howabout moving that article to Trevor Thompson (b. 1936)? GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:QUALIFIER, the Northern Irish footballer parenthetical is the more correct one - you usually disambiguate by profession or some other well-known characteristic, and avoid using birth- or death-dates as the qualifier as such dates are hardly common knowledge. Particularly for the case of athletes, the (nationality type of athlete) convention is fairly widely accepted. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a powdered keg, concerning (not surprisingly) Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because of a concerted effort by a small group of editors to make it a powdered keg. Mooretwin (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is it "powdered keg" or "powder keg"? I thought it was the latter. Mooretwin (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Campbell & Thompson

I have started two RMs for Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer) and Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothern Irish, oops

IMHO, we should be using British, in place of 'Northern Irish, Scottish, English & Welsh'. But, I know that's gonna meet resistants from atleast 3 factions. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should open that Pandora's Box, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Probation

Because of ongoing edit-warring at Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies, your account is now under official probation for the next 90 days: "Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." --Elonka 01:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)