User talk:SonofSetanta

E-mail tool. Special:Emailuser

Thanks for the note

About DPL bot - I always want to know when something goes wrong. In this case, though, the problem came from the tool you used to do the fixing - Dab Solver. I've dropped a note at Dispenser's talk page to ask about it. (The bug appears to have already been fixed BTW.) Cheers, --JaGa^talk 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Black Watch, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages George II, Charles II and Gaelic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Bellamy (soldier)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

1RR article

If what your claiming is indeed the truth I urge you to self revert on the article, if not you are aware of the troubles restrictions and the sanctions which cover them. Mo ainm~Talk 13:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AE report

See here Mo ainm~Talk 15:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to AE comment

Using caps to "shout" at another use is not appropriate. Neither is calling them an "idiot" like you did. Since that bad action was easily remedied I removed the caps and replaced "idiot" with "editor" so it won't inflame the situation. Please remember to stay cool even in the face of accusations of policy violations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at The Devil's Advocate's talk page.

Outing of other editors

Please read WP:OUTING, then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#User Mo ainm's alternate account status. Specifically "His clean start is legit, and a Checkuser and Oversighter confirmed it. She also stated the previous account was connected to his real name, hence no public connection as that would defeat the entire purpose of the new account and would be WP:OUTING. If he gets into trouble with this new account, he will of course receive consequences, and the connection will be utilized by those aware of it if necessary. At this point, I recommend you stop beating the dead horse". I have redacted various uses of a username which may or may not be correct, and I strongly recommend you don't attempt to link Mo ainm to any previous account due to the reasons already given. Obviously you can't make any similarly claims about WP:OUTING, since you claim you're not a sock.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not give you authority to redact anything I have written. If you have assumed this authority based on precedent then be aware the privilege does not extend to you. I also ask you to cease the personal attacks and incivility you are directing at me. I am not a sockpuppet. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• SonofSetanta, just to make it clear. You post that information again, including undoing any of the redactions, and I block you. And I do have the authority to do that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with me posting the information when it's true and has been admitted? Also, who had the right to redact anything from my comments except me or an admin? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where has it been admitted? Mo ainm~Talk 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin (Arbitrator, Checkuser and Oversighter). In this very specific instance, if I tell you to stop, you stop. I have also said that others should drop arguing about whether you had a previous account - if you did, it's not blocked, and it stopped editing too long ago to be relevant. You're going good to get this account blocked even if it is new, so I suggest you calm things down a bit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

How is asking for help going good to get my account blocked? I've come to you, genuinely with cap in hand, asking for help. I note your advice and will take it, as I hope others do. All I want to do is edit Wikipedia, I don't want any hassle. Advise me as much as you want and I will take your advice - that's what I want. I'm a littler bit slow to edit and see everything as it changes around me though because I'm not used to all of this page to page conversation.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick tip - Underpants of Doom is a sock of a banned user. Now there is a very strict rule about being banned and coming back as a sock.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know that. I'm afr4aid I still have much to learn. That kind of blows the theory about me being a reincarnation of an experienced user. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Redaction

If any redaction is to be done in an AE thread, it will be done either by the author of that comment or by an uninvolved administrator; it will not be done by the subject of the complaint, period. Don't do it again. T. Canens (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing me because another editor did exactly that to me this morning and when I undid it I was threatened with sanctions (see post above yours). SonofSetanta (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

AE report

FYI here Mo ainm~Talk 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Per this AE decision on a complaint that you violated 1RR on 8 January at Ulster Defence Regiment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that you've not yet received a formal notice of the discretionary sanctions, I'm leaving one now.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your appeal template below, you actually have to fill in the contents for it to be copied over to AE for you. You can't just say 'I appeal' and give no reasons. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

Appeal withdrawn. Whether I like it or not I have fallen foul of the 1RR restriction due to gaming by others. Had I not been locked down tight since last week I would have appealed through a sense of chagrin but other things are now assuming more importance than being cornered by gamers. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Harry Baxter (Soldier)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Harry Baxter (Soldier) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Harry Baxter (Soldier)

Hi SonofSetanta, you recently removed a deletion tag from Harry Baxter (Soldier). Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Harry Baxter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Report at AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sono, you should fix up your reports at AE. They're a tad sloppy, concerning broken links. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry mate I really haven't got a clue what I'm doing so I'm just doing my best until I can forget about all this fighting and get back to editing. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AE Result

Pursuant to this AE Report you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, broadly construed across all namespaces for 90 days. Further, for filing multiple frivolous bad-faith requests at Arbitration Enforcement you are banned from participation there for 90 days. You may only post to WP:AE to appeal this ban. --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)