User talk:The Thunderer

Troubles in Portadown

Be careful to assert why the victim or murder is notable in WP terms.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks.The Thunderer (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the word murdered will be change to killed. I'm afraid you wont win that argument.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a concensus on this? Logic and common sense tell me that killings carried out by proscribed organisations are murders.The Thunderer (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a big row on Norman Stronge about murder/killed I think revolving around the fact that no one was convicted of his murder.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs to be addressed again.The Thunderer (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Polite notice

At considerable expense I have acquired books on the UDR, and have noticed that your additions sometimes considerably deviate from what the sources actually say. Over the next few days I will be making amendments to the article to ensure the sources are being correctly used. Before reverting me or adding any further information that is not in the sources, please familiarise yourself with these policies - Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Having suffered the same expense for the same books (there are only two) I sympathise. My additions do not deliberately deviate from anything in those books but I refrain from quoting where possible as I am not rewriting the history, merely using the books as reference and avoiding using a UDR only point of view. If you're willing to assist in the writing of a sound, encyclopedic article then you have my fullest support. Up until now it appears that your editing policy has been to remove anything which shows the IRA as an enemy with an agenda and instead depict the UDR as the rogue element. A section is badly needed on the methodology of "Ambush Attacks" against mobile patrols by PIRA which was the major factor in loss of life outside off-duty murders. I'd like to see a well written section on that if you wish to oblige? Without condescenion you also need to acquire a little bit of military undertanding. You deleted the names of several brigadiers without realising those were regimental commanders, referred to as "Commander UDR". This is totally unique in the British army as is the position of "Colonel Commandant" and IMHO you should have maybe asked one of the other editors why the names were there. Do you see anyone postng the names of battalion commanders for example? Not that there'd be anything wrong with that but unless they were notable there wouldn't be any point because there are just too many. Play the game fair and I'll have no problems working with you and assisting you with any insight you need on obscure military information.The Thunderer (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I could say the exact same thing to you, I know none of my edits are POV, you might not like them doesn't make them POV. Notice the way alleged is used if a negative against the UDR. If I put allege before every IRA action i'm sure you would have something to say about it, and rightly so. The IRA were and i'm sure still are the enemy of all crown forces I dont dispute that and wouldn't even attempt too. You say you are here to write a sound, encyclopedic article well guess what so am I. My edits are not done to annoy you, I dont scoure the article thinking what can I do now to annoy you. So loose the ownership of the article and we can definitly work together on this. BigDunc^Talk 10:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no ownership issues over the article. If something is proven then it's not alleged. I don't need you to make allowances for me. The issue of encyclopedic knowledge comes first. What we both need to realise however is that, in the world of Irish politicians, allegations are made and repeated all the time. The more often opposing politicians repeat their allegations the more they expect the public to believe what they're saying. For example: the prime allegation against the UDR is that it was a sectarian force. Common sense tells me that there must have been people of a sectarian nature in the regiment so that means there must be some truth in that allegation, but was sectarianism institutionalised and endemic? What did the officer corps and command structure do to address it (or exacerabate it)? What has to be presented are examples. In my considered view what needs to be portrayed is how the actual workings of the regiment were affected by the politics which they were all touched with, as well as explaining what their role was and how it changed as the unit evolved. The structure, armaments, vehicles, duties, usefulness in preventing or repelling attacks. How most of the dead were killed off-duty. The border actions (which were very different to the conflict in Belfast). What they did to help the Northern Ireland situation and what they did to make it worse, whether by accident or design. That also means focusing somewhat on changing IRA tactics, from the 40 man assault on the Deanery down to the 4 man ASU's with their growing specialisation in ambush. No holds barred but impartial in every way. Is that fair enough?The Thunderer (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also have access to the books, and I see that even since this message you have continued to add unsourced information and your own commentary, arguments and conclusions into articles. Please stop this type of editing, thanks. Domer48_'fenian' 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whjere you're getting this from but I have added nothing unsourced. I left you a message telling you I had omitted references subject to your reviewing my additions. I can substantiate anything I write, it's as simple as that and if you'd read the books you'd find that out for yourself. Agreeing to work with you on the subject matter is one thing - discovering that I'm still the only one adding anything substantial to the page is rather disappointing especially when the only edits you've made appear to be counter-productive and both anti-UDR and in disagreement with the facts. May I suggest you get on with adding something or doing rewrites (unprejudiced ones)?The Thunderer (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Could this type of comment above please stop now, it is getting very tiresome, wikipedia is a colaborate project Thunderer, and saying you are the only one adding anything substantial and telling editors to make unprejudiced ones (edits) is not helpful. All editors try to remain neutral and assuming that editors are not is only doing harm to the project. Please make yourself very familiar with WP:OR especially WP:SYN because from my reading there seems to be a bit on this article. Also please take this in the manner in which it is given and assume good faith it is not an attack on you thanks. BigDunc^Talk 08:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest if you want comments like mine to stop then you cease the games and the barbed comments. I have every intention of working with you in good faith but believe that must extend both ways. I thank you for the links on policy and will familiarise myself with them because I agree that my writing style doesn't always suit what is needed. It's not POV pushing, it's merely me trying to provide an overview on certian points which wouldn't make sense if there was no background information. With your experience I'm hoping you could perhaps rewrite some passages without removing the intended meaning. As for prejudice: I think that falls into POV pushing, doesn't it? I was puzzled by your edit regarding the Gerry Adams incident. You changed the wording un-necessarily because it already said "an example" in the paragraph - you effectively repeated that but when it was read it looked as if you were trying to say that only one UDR soldier had ever been proven as unprejudiced. Given previous bickering on the page it looked to me as if it was YOU who were prejduiced. I accept my faults Dunc, you need to take yours on board too. There are none of us perfect.The Thunderer (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit just made by Gavin of Lisburn - that's exactly what I mean. By moving information which was in the wrong place he's improved the article. He's also been quietly adding relevant sections over the last two weeks which I've been chipping in and assisting with. The same goes for TU. So there has been constructive editing going on and I'd really like to see you as part of that.The Thunderer (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Per this report, you have not been warned about 3RR. Please take the time to read the policy and engage in discussion rather than edit war in future.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me formalize this:

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Ulster Defence Regiment. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Alison ^❤ 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - what TU says. I can see that you're being tag-teamed rather effectively. Soon as you go over the limit, you immediately get reported. However, in this case, I'm also going to warn the other editors for edit-warring as it's patently obvious what's going on here - Alison ^❤ 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the even handed treatment. Thank you Alison.The Thunderer (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IRRELEVANT COMMENTS ABOUT THE 50s & 60s

I am ex R IRISH so sympathetic but the paragraph deleted is not relevant. It predates the UDR and fails to supply useful context. --MJB (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. I don't care if you're Tim Collins. An admin with experience in mediating items from the Irish Troubles has reviewed the item and found it relevant. Please do not edit war. The Thunderer (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You arrogant little so and so. I have not been rude to you so how dare you adopt this tone. Clearly you see this as your article and become territorial when others intrude. Well it does not mater that much to me. Sad day when we merged. --MJB (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You had the arrogance to delete the item without considering the edit war which had taken place around 1800hrs. Even after I'd pointed it out to you. How do you expect me to react? Would you like a bar for your GSM? As for the merger - methinks you confuse me with a grunt sir, which I am not! Now put that in your barrel and pull it through. ;)The Thunderer (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You recent additions are interesting but full of weasel words and supposition. Would we accept a similar entry from someone with a Republican bias? --MJB (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No he certainly would not, and I'm glad you have taken a notice of this article Max and look forward to you doing a little tidy because if I attemt to it is instantly reverted.BigDunc^Talk 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My God, BigDunc agrees with me. Must be time for bed! --MJB (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can promise I haven't deliberately done so. I acknowledge that my writing style isn't always as good as it could be for this type of article and would welcome someone changing the wording to make it more encyclopedic. The information is relevant I believe and verifiable.The Thunderer (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TU and Max in one day I must have a temprature ;) BigDunc^Talk 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind because the involvement of these other editors will give an added dimension to the article. My complaint all along has been that certain people (no names, no pack drill) are just deleting and not improving. I know my writing style is shite and I welcome assistance from anyone who can shape up the facts I include. It should be a collaboration and don't think I don't respect your knowledge of modern Irish history. Work with me and not against me and I'll put you on my Christmas card list. If the UDR Association sell cards perhaps I could get one of those - you could give it pride of place on your mantlepiece?The Thunderer (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

That is untrue. Your 7 reverts within the 24-hour period are shown here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was tag teamed - full story is here [[1]]. Blueputtnam was one of the tag teamers but he returned this morning and deleted the information again.The Thunderer (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact I've just realised there's absolute proof of my claim just above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Thunderer#WP:3RR The Thunderer (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also there's the issue of Blueputtnam. All he/she has done since setting up the account is delete information from the UDR page. 5 deletions in the last 24 hours from the same section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BlueputtnamThe Thunderer (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, you're right. I'm sorry that I missed this before. I'll unblock you should you agree not to revert anymore (not even one time). No matter who is "right" edit warring, which you undoubtedly were doing with the other users, is disruptive. I've left a warning with one of the other users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You'll appreciate I'm finding this rather difficult. Thank God others are noticing what's been going on. To be honest I just want to get on with it, not spend my time complaining about or fighting with other editors.The Thunderer (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you will not continue to edit war and discuss disputes with the involved people on the talk page? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. I felt that's what I was doing in any case. The revert of information this morning was genuinely as a result of me writing in new material. If I hadn't done a cut and paste the new information would have been orphaned and not made any sense at all. That should be evident from the page history, what was put back after Blueputtnam's deleting was substantially larger.The Thunderer (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the unblock. It's nice to be taken seriously.The Thunderer (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Solution offered

In an attempt to resolve the issue over the UDR with other editors I have started a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and also posted a set of objectives on the talk page. I've invited BigDunc and others to participate in an editing and discussion session to see if we can agree something which might resolve the issues which seem to exist. I would very much appreciate anyone examining the objectives and perhaps commenting or correcting anything which they think is inappropriate. The Thunderer (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just request unprotection at WP:RFUP if you feel it is ready. I don't really think it is though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

At my talkpage. Benea (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just fixed the cut-n-paste page move. You may feel free to move the page to any location you desire via the move tool. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

rubbish link

thanks for warning and reporting me, sheriff, but the link you provided didn't lead anywhere. you're pretty crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChubmasterFat (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too...

...probably some bot adding a welcome template, or someone not looking at the block log.

I doubt he'll try again under that name, and since he's not auto-confirmed he can't post to his talk page anyway. I figured semi-prot would be better under the circumstances. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I always believe in giving someone all the rules when they've been a prick. The friendlier you are to them, sometimes they smarten up ... blocked or not, they may be back someday. BMW(drive) 16:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That one looks as if the account was created just to post rubbish on certain accounts. I suspect a sock.The Thunderer (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, socks are more subtle ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He/she knew things. Knew which accounts to go for.The Thunderer (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

...but socks are so good at trying so hard at convincing us they're not socks! BMW(drive) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

They didn't pick me, BigDunc and Traditional Unionist out of a hat. That was premeditated.The Thunderer (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) at the same time, they're not wikismart enough to know how to sign their posts. They also visited FisherQueen...

Is that wikismart or just smart?The Thunderer (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to insult a fat chubby. Then again, I never want to talk to a chubby at all. BMW(drive) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to lose weight.The Thunderer (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, of course, I was probably referring to a different use of the word "chubby" that isn't appropriate for discussion here BMW(drive) 13:33, 24 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) 14:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Constabulatorical..

Hehe, no worries. I use Firefox and the inline spell checker add-on; I'm not quite that sharp. Fully recommend it! Some good additions and cites in the RUC article. Well in! GiollaUidir (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Gnevin

Can I reciprocate, and suggest you stop "feeding" Gnevin at Talk:Republic of Ireland? His heart is in the right place, but he has an unfortunate manner, and as long as you keep responding that argument is going to keep going round in circles. Scolaire (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be interested in your response to my response to the "package". I really was hoping to get the debate back on track and get substantive input from interested parties. Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I was rather enjoying winding his spring a wee bit LOL but I'll stop now. You could see the humour in my comments though? Vis-a-vis the debate, I don't think it's going to go anywhere. I can find nothing further to add, except to further re-inforce the points I've already made. There's no doubt in my mind however that the insistence on using Ireland is an unconcious extension of the de Valera policy of claiming the North. The Unionsist realise that and they're determined to stop it. I think it's a political hot potato which no-one in the Republic can change now because they'd be condemned and lose votes left, right and centre. There's no doubt in my mind that the "Republic of Ireland" title is the best choice in the matter, even if it is seen by some as a sop to conscience. I think I've kind of proven that by just referring to the state as "The Republic" which is quite normal for me, along with using the "Free State" out of habit (since childhood, when the name hadn't long ceased to be official).The Thunderer (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's always amused me that that is one thing Northern unionists and Northern republicans have in common - they both refer to the South as the "Free State". You're probably right that the debate is going to die the death, and the unfortunate RM is totally forgotten at this stage! But such is life! Scolaire (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is something there though that we need to observe. When referring to the "Free State" I have often been corrected by others which is why I'm increasingly inclined to refer to it just as "The Republic" or "The South". Now I love the place, and I certainly wouldn't do anything to upset the people. I've spent years down south on business, not a town or village I haven't been to. That's where MY conditioning comes from. If someone like me, with such moderate views on Irish issues then thinks that ROI is acceptable and respectful and others disagree, what chance do we have of ever having a concensus beyond the one which already exists?The Thunderer (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ulster Defence Regiment

I've unprotected the article and left a note on the talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis

No, it was me that was out of order. As soon as I went away and thought about it I realised that I had it all wrong. I have replaced my self-righteous rant with a grovelling apology. Unfortunately your comment looked really strange underneath it so I took the liberty of deleting it. Sorry about that. Scolaire (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)+

Well I did think it out of character for you but I read Matt's post the same way and I was slightly taken aback too.The Thunderer (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An idea

Hi there, I have put forward an idea Here on the Republic of Ireland talk page. I would appreciate your views, positive or negative. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment album images

I don't care whether this page is the most controversial one on Wikipedia, blatant misuse of non-free media is not acceptable, and should be removed on site. If the existence of the album can be proved only by the use of non-free media (and not by reliable sources) then it probably should not be mentioned at all. The use of album covers is generally only considered acceptable on articles on the album, or somewhere that the cover itself is discussed- perhaps because of artistic merit- not somewhere where the album is briefly discussed. Furthermore, I can't think of many occasions when a scan of the back cover could be used in compliance with our guidelines on non-free content. I will ask you not to revert me again- I am happy to discuss this issue, but we should err on the side of caution and not use the non-free images until we are sure they meet our criteria. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, so there are basically three reasons to use the images- display the uniforms, prove the existence of the album and list the regimental marches. I'm assuming you're referring specifically to the uniforms of the musicians, as the regiment's uniforms are displayed in free images above. I see the uniform is discussed in the text, and so an image would be useful, but I suspect a free image could be created- even if the regiment no longer exists, I would imagine there will be uniforms on display in museums, which could easily be photographed. The existence of the album should be proved not by non-free images, but by reliable sources- if none exist, then the album is not worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Finally, the marches could easily be simply listed, with reference to the liner notes or another source- the image is not actually needed. Furthermore, the general consensus is that album covers in discographies are not justified- you will see that they have, for the most part, been removed, and any similar use should and will be removed. Generally, such use is considered decorative. You're welcome to ask on the non-free content talk page if you would like a third opinion from someone else experienced in non-free media use. J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the images as orphaned. If you are going to request permission for their use, please realise that permission for Wikipedia to use is not enough. Instead, they must be released under a free license or into the public domain, and email evidence must be forwarded to OTRS. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They're orphaned- they're not in use. The fact I 'don't understand' what they're here for (and the fact you don't understand the non-free content criteria) has nothing to do with it. Me doing it saves a bot doing it, which would then slap big notices on your talk page. I can see we have a discussion about possible use of the one image to show the uniforms, but the other is obviously not needed. I have already said that an image of the uniform would be useful, but I am very doubtful that another image of the uniform could not be created. This one doesn't even show the uniform that well- I think if showing the uniform is the intended purpose (as that seems to be the only purpose that could warrant a use of the image) then a better one (perhaps one with less commercial value) could be found. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, again, if you want a third opinion, I recommend you ask at the relevant talk page. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a dispute about Non-free content, it is always best to exclude the image(s) until a decision is made. We don't want to be violating any policies during discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether they are under Crown Copyright (and I'm not sure why you think they are) is irrelevant. For content to be 'free', it has to be free for anyone to use or modify, commercially or non-commercially, for any purpose. As such, until it has expired, crown copyright is not considered 'free', and so the same limitations apply to content licensed as such as with any other non-free media. For that reason, I have again removed the images until you explain why their use there meets the non-free content criteria and our guidelines on non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, you're obviously an intelligent person, I am not sure why you are resorting to this sarcasm. We're Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. At the moment, I'm devoting a lot of my on-Wikipedia time to making us as free as possible. I am not opposed to using non-free content all together, but I do feel that we have to respect our non-free content criteria in an attempt to balance our free-ness with our usefulness. It is not a simple matter of finding the appropriate tag so that these images can be used, because as far as I can see, these are non-free and will remain non-free for some time, meaning that their use is inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They are rare, important images of ceremonial uniforms of an historic regiment, integral to UK and Irish modern history, which has now been disbanded and which there are few pictures available of. Their use is justified under existing Wikipedia guidelines. In this instance I felt I was most fortunate that ONE album is still available in its original cover. My sarcasm is an indication of the level of frustration I feel. Tell you what - YOU go and see if you can find pictures of UDR pipers or drummers in full Irish military dress, no hackles in the caubeen, red cloak lining. While you're at it you can find me some of the UDR in No 2 parade dress (very, very rare). If you come up wuth any then I'll apologise unreservedly and admit that my use of Google falls far short of the required standard. The Thunderer (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

You are mixing up Categories with inline citations no calm down it is not an attack on you or one of your articles. BigDunc^Talk 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why the hell didn't you include the categories instead of just putting in notices, or at least give me a heads up? I'm not getting at you but allofasudden I'm getting grief here for no apparant reason. Where's the good faith and assistance from the more experienced editors gone?The Thunderer (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put the cats in but as usual you just blindly revert it is time you practice what you preach and WP:AGF. BigDunc^Talk 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That was an accident but in any case you had put in the wrong cats. They should have been tranposed from the UDR page, which is what I was doing when you made your edit. The Thunderer (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not put in the wrong cats. BigDunc^Talk 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor did I remove your cats. I left them below the ones I copied and pasted from the UDR site. I have corrected the situation now because by putting in the correct cats I duplicated yours.The Thunderer (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

I reverted that instance. The IP has been blocked for 31 hours by an admin. Thanks for letting me know- in the future, you can report vandals who have gotten a final warning to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Happy editing! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfc closed

Hi there, I have now closed the Rfc. There seemed to be no new editors coming in. In trying to help I hope I haven't confused it more. I'll be off to pastures new and wish you all the best. Cheers. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It did seem to be a lost cause which was why I stopped posting. The Thunderer (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

UDR

Hi, the point is that the report says something and the job of editors is not to go refuting it.

Of course the UDR's official history is going to disagree with this assessemnt, but that is nota fact and doesn't count as a refutation. What the report says is that the British government was worried about the UDR's reliability. A refutation of this would be a source that says the British government changed its mind about this.

Jdorney (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but look, you can't put some brackets after a sentence saying (in fact ...). That's pov pushing.

What you could do is go down a line and start a new sentence, 'However some of these fears were asuaged when in 1974...'

Also, I'd be happier if the source was not only the UDR's own history. Can you find an official source about the UDR's conduct in the UWCS? Jdorney (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's always the temptation to argue our own pov, particularly if it's one that's strongly held. In fairness I've done it often enough myself. But what we're going for on wp is to let the facts speak for themselves. As much as possible anyway. And yes the way things are written makes a difference.

On the point we're talking about. I don't know how the UDR performed in 1974, but I think it's stretching it a bit to that it showed that the British fears of loyalty to Ulster were unfounded. That wasn't really put to the test in the end, was it? We can say that they were assuaged, maybe. Also, is there a government assessement of the 74 strike? Would be good to cite it if there were. Jdorney (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, I just moved it down a line and changed the wording, have another look. Jdorney (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Jdorney (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ciao beddu (bello). I thought I heard the sound of thunder. Summer storms can be so thrilling.--jeanne (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't thunder, I just had beans for lunch. Oh for a sight of Capri at dusk *sigh*. The Thunderer (talk)

Hi Jeanne. Nice to see you back on...Oops, wrong talk page. Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, there was an accompaning bolt of lightning! I know a summer storm is here when I hear your thunder. Btw, I wasn't at Capri-never been there alas. Naples yes but Capri no. I live further south than Capri,beddu.Much further south, capisti? And my beach at dusk is also a dazzling sight to behold also at dawn. Yes, I slept on the beach in a tent for Ferragosto so I saw a magnificent sunrise at my beach.What were you doing in Capri, Thunderer?--jeanne (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tildes

Just a piddling thing, but I think you signed your last post third last post on Talk:Republic of Ireland with five tildes instead of four, and now you've fixed it. It means your name isn't on the post. What a useful comment! :-)Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what happened but I corrected it and in traditional fashioned blamed somebody else - User:GoodDay in this case. The trick is to blame somebody different everytime then it's never one's own fault! When GoodDay asks who blamed him/her, I'll pass the buck onto somebody else. In Scotland they say "A big boy did it then ran away mister". The Thunderer (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird! They say exactly the same in Dublin! Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the taxi driver who ferried me from the Four Courts to the airport the first time I'd used Euros (a few years ago now). Having just won a fairly major case (outside in the car park with counsel) I was slightly euphoric and thinking Euros were like Lira I tipped the bugger 50! The fare was only about 20. Did he put me right - did he hellers like. Was probably still laughing into his pint that Thursday night in the Conan Doyle. The Thunderer (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No harm done. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RoI pipelinking

Ok Thunder, I'll give the pipelinking a chance. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you do actually. I've put it forward as an item for concensus. Don't let me walk you into trouble. The Thunderer (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks. Crispness (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Life would be so dull if we didn't laugh! Crispness (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin

I agree that Mooretwin (talk · contribs) was acting in good faith - and say as much on his talk page - but, unfortunately, it's still a violation of policy. 3RR specfically states (emphasis mine) that "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits which are against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt." If the edits he's removing are indeed against consensus, then someone else will come along and revert them. We have Dispute resolution for just this purpose. Mooretwin obviously feels very strongly about the subject - as many do. Unfortunately, that's not enough for me to unblock in this case. If I can be of assistance in the future, though, as a third opinion or otherwise, please don't hesitate to ping my talk page. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I would object to an unblock, to be honest, if Mooretwin acknowledged that he did indeed violate the policy, in letter if not in spirit. One of the key elements in evaluating a block appeal is the likelihood that the behavior will resume once the block is lifted - Will Mooretwin edit war if unblocked? Will he resume reverting an article under dispute? Or, within the bounds of 3RR, will he discuss matters on the talk page and seek to confirm consensus before reverting? That's what I would look for here. He may disagree with the policy - quite a lot of editors do - but he has to agree to be bound by it, which means (in part) that he has to acknowledge where his actions violated it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of the blocking admin, I'm hesitant to set such terms... Let's open a dialogue and see what comes up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok but I have to leave my office shortly so may not be back on for a while. The Thunderer (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Troubles articles

• Both of you - this is unproductive. I don't intend to waste my time following your edits round the encyclopedia and protecting articles because of petty tit-for-tat edit wars. I have protected the Ulster Constabulary article for an hour. When that protection expires, if I see that type of edit-warring occurring again, I will invoke the full ArbCom sanction - that's all Troubles articles on both of you and probably throw in a couple of blocks as well. Engage on the talk pages, please. This is helping no-one at all. Copied to User:BigDunc's talkpage. Black Kite 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel I am responding to harrassment and gaming now. The reappearance of User:Domer48 has me thinking this is a concerted effort to drive me off the articles and off Wikipedia by causing me to react to multiple deletions of items on the articles I have been working with. They get a reaction by tag teaming, I get blocked, then the articles get trashed when I'm unable to edit. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from?The Thunderer (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I have warned against tag-teaming as well. I do not want to block anyone, but if I see repeated edit-warring on contentious Troubles articles then I have no real option than to block both parties, unless one side is clearly inserting tendentiously. I hope you understand this. Black Kite 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do understand it, and thank you for your sense of fair play. My problem is getting frustrated at seeing the work of weeks or more getting deleted without so much as a by-your-leave on the talk page. If you go to Ulster Special Constabulary you'll notice than when engaged in discussion by User:BigDunc that I respond postively, respectfully and helpfully as I wish to have him on board editing these articles. I say that article because there's less on it and there's an example of co-operation from yesterday. The Thunderer (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• This would need to go to AFD. It's not a PROD. Black Kite 09:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. Any editor can remove a PROD tag if they believe such a deletion is not uncontroversial (see WP:PROD). Such articles would need to be nominated for WP:AFD to be deleted. Black Kite 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

copyright

I would like to apologise for violating copyright on this witty comment. If you are considering taking me to court for compensation I have to warn you I have hid my money, I have no money, and you don't know where I live. Skipper 360 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Darn and blast! I shall now have to go on the run, although the big red coats should be a giveaway. How life changes with just one copyright violation. Skipper 360 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh, there is no way out, I'll give myself up. You can send your lawyers letter to 2 Electric avenue, Jamaica. (That should put him off the track) Skipper 360 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Never copper, never! I'll go out all gun's blazing. HA HA HA. Skipper 360 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I shall leave my madness in the real world. :> Skipper 360 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your gesture on my talk and on the talk of Black Kite. If this is resolved then maybe both of us can get over the feelings that we are being bullied, hasseled and victimised, lets hope Black Kite does to. BigDunc^Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Border war

Hi TT,

Re the 'border war' section in the USC article, you seem a bit vague on happenings island wide at the time.

First of all, the Specials were created due to a violent summer in the north in 1920, and not just in repsonse to the events in the south. Have a look at the Irish War of Independence page. The truce was signed between the Dail and the British government in July 1921, but there was no provisional government until January of the following year.

The border war took place in between the setting up the provisional government and the outbreak of the Irish Civil War between pro and anti-treatyites in July 1922. Collins was furtivley organising a military campaign against Northern Ireland during this time, using some British donated weapons and was also hoping to use the issue to re-unite the IRA around some common ground. Again, for details I suggest the War of Independence article and for even more details the Chronology of the Irish War of Independence article. The Specials may or may have been able to keep the border situation under control, but what really brought an end to this shadowy conflict was the outbreak of the civil war on July 28, after which there were no more men, weapons, money or time to be spent on the north.

I'm going to re-write it a bit, so just a heads up. There are also some pov issues but I'll get back to you later about them

Jdorney (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell

I have read your comments regarding Oliver Cromwell on another user's talk page. You assumed that had the inhabitants of towns under seige surrendered they wouldn't have been put tp the sword. Isn't that a rather naive assumption, Thunderer? One has only to look at history to know that there are numerous examples of civilians who had surrendered to the victorious army only to be massacred anyway such as the Cathars during the Albigensian Crusade, the Huguenots at La Rochelle, the captured Saracens by Richard I, etc. Do you think Hitler would have spared the inhabitants of Leningrad had they surrendered? From what is known of Cromwell, one cannot assume that he would have shown much mercy to the citizens of Drogheda had they surrendered as one dare not imagine him sparing the life of Charles II had he fallen into Roundhead hands. Religious fanaticism is rarely coupled with mercy.--jeanne (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

it's another opinion. The rules of siege warfare however meant that the townspeople paid a heavy price for not surrendering, that much is a known fact. The Thunderer (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what would have become of the townspeople of Derry had they surrendered? That should be food for thought!!--jeanne (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert but instinct tells me the town would have been sacked and at least the town elders executed. It's hardly food for thought, custom and practice dictated what would be done. The Thunderer (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So they were right to hold out just as the townspeople of Drogheda were right not to surrender.--jeanne (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why ask me? Both towns must have felt their reasons were correct but it isn't for me to speculate on. In any case my knowledge of that particular period of history is fairly scant. The Thunderer (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

UDR Medal (UD) & ACSM Statistics

Hi, I did a Freedom of Information request (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ulster_defence_regiment_medal_ud) and obtained some statistics for you from the MoD re the UD medal. Basically, up to 1995, 1,237 medals and / or clasps were issued and post 1995, 17 further medals & 57 clasps were issued. 38 applications in the full period were refused. Can you add it in, please? Hope this helps the article. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gavin, I will do that. Very kind of you.The Thunderer (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another FOI re the ACSM statistics; all quite interesting. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/accumulated_campaign_service_med#incoming-6191 Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, so the ACSM is a very rare award then. Less than 2,000 out of 0ver 50,000 who served? Does that mean I should insure mine? The Thunderer (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You seem to be intent on starting an edit war you are well aware of the rule if you continue you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 19:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Thunderer you have reverted 8 times now the next revert and as I said you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been reverted. It is plain for you to see that I am working on the article. This is degenerating into an edit war now and I'm asking you to cease editing until a third party can intervene.The Thunderer (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

This article has now been fully protected for a week due to your edit-warring. Please take the matter to the talk page. You've been here long enough to understand how the process work, and edit-warring to get your POV across will not work and will just get you blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice as always. The Thunderer (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm pretty disappointed over this. You both were managing to work together and I go off-line for 24 hrs and suddenly we are back to accusations of sockpuppetry and tag-teaming? As you can see, it didn't get either of you anywhere and, to boot, it resulted in a protected article so I can continue the copy-editing I was doing. Great stuff from both of you. Rockpocket 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is read back on the talk page for today to see what was going on. I certainly admit I was in a "no-nonsense" mood but you can see I explained myself all the way down. I was gamed - plain and simple. I have appreciated your reasoning all along and I hope you continue to give the article the benefit of your judgement. Both you and I have been very patient with two old hands of the "Wikipedia School of Gaming" and no doubt we will continue to be so in the future. Your patience is obviously superior to mine though. I genuinely thank you for everything you've done. The Thunderer (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock abuse

Just so you know, you get 2 goes with the unblock template in any 24 hour period. After that pages are often locked to prevent further abuse of template as it is very disruptive for admins monitoring RFU. I just locked Domer48's talk page for his fourth request. You are on your third and I'm going to let that pass because you are clearly upset but I'm sure I don't need to point out the obvious. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry. I wasn't aware of that consideration. I will make no further requests and thank you for pointing it out and not taking action against me. The Thunderer (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Another uninvolved admin will be along sooner or later to look at the current unblock request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to educate me on an aspect of Wikipedia I don't know about. Admins are very busy people and don't always have that time. You've made some time for me and I see that as a kindness. Thank you again. The Thunderer (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish Volunteers

Could you explain to me, the other edit war you were involved in yesterday, what were you trying to insert to the article, that they were an illegal militia. I'm not sure they were illegal but I will look it up if you like or maybe you might have books that I dont that we could use thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd need to examine some of my own books but from what I can remember it may not have been illegal to raise a citizens militia, not even an armed one. I was making a point to an extent with Domer because if the UVF was illegal, then so were the Irish Volunteers and any other groups which were drilling in public at the time. If on the other hand one was legal, then so was the other. It appears that the only thing needed was the permission of two JP's to raise a citizen militia and it had been done on a number of occasions in Irish history. A lot of it's in my head now because I'm reading Ronnie Gamble's book which is essentially his website put into print as far as I can see. If you go to http://ecohcoy.tripod.com/page3.htm and read up on what he says about citizen militias it may be helpful. I certainly have a mind to quote some of what he says using the ISBN of his book. You may remember the debate when we changed the info panel on the UDR from "Line Infantry" to "militia"? In essence then they were not that markedly different from the Citizen Militias and Yeomanry of earlier times, or as far as I can see a parallel can be drawn with previous Irish Citizen Militias.

I'm sorry things went pear shaped yesterday. Not really my doing. I made some valid points but it seems that Domer is a hard man to convince (he's not from Tipp is he?). So am I as it stands but I have my reasons for disagreeing with him, as I'm sure he feels he has his. Over a pint this might be different but on Wikipedia it's very hard to get concensus sometimes. The Thunderer (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry things went per shape too I asked you both to stop, and in fairness it takes 2 to edit war, I'm sure Domer felt he made valid points too. How about you and Domer make a pact to stick to 1RR on this article and some admin can lift the 2 blocks and let you all get back to work on this article. BigDunc^Talk 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd need to think about that. The big eejit keeps calling me a sock and that isn't very fair. I've never made an abusive edit in my life. One of my major problems at the moment is fending the both of you off. I'm trying to start a new business and don't really have the time to devote to Wikipedia and if I'm not responding in time you guys are deleting stuff I've put a lot of time and effort into. I'm getting ultra fed up with the need to put balancing material in to counter political accusations about the regiment. It's finishing up looking like a manifesto for Sinn Fein and the Unionist Party. Ok, I overdid it a bit with the An Phoblacht stuff but I feel it has to be made clear that this assertion that the regiment was a reincarnation of the B Specials is a political point scoring exercise. We'd do well to reduce all that crap to one paragraph about the continual Republican assertion and the continual denials of the regiment and leave it at that. Otherwise it's a beast which gets out of control and takes away from the time needed to fill in details about operational capability, training and all the ins and outs of what a military unit actually does. All of this is sadly missing from the article because we're concentrating more on what Bernadette Devlin, Jeremy Thorpe and Ian Paisley said in 1969. Ronnie Gamble's book for example goes into a little more detail on the arms raid at Laurel Hill, because he was based there with E Coy, 5 UDR. He's also got some superb detail about gun battles in Swatragh and actually survived a landmine going off underneath the Landrover he was driving. We need to see things like that in the article. Real things about real people. Not political guff that can be summed up in a few sentences. What do you think? The Thunderer (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Solution to UDR problems

Hi Thunderer I see you have requested that Alison lift the PP on the UDR article. As a sloution to possible problems could you email Domer and come to some sort of an agreement on how you can work together. As can be seen that when you worked alongside Domer with the help of Rock, IMO it greatly improved the article, and then hopefully we can put this constant bickering behind us becuse I'm sure thats what you would like to do to. I have emailed Domer with a similar proposal seen as he is blocked not sure if he is still checking his talk page, so felt maybe email was better. BigDunc^Talk 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would already have done that except for a previous request from Domer not to e-mail him and also to stay off his talk page. I have no wish to antagonise the man. If on the other hand he wishes to e-mail me, I have no objections. The Thunderer (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that seems fair, seen as he said that to you, I wasn't aware that he had said that. Domer if your reading this thread could you respond by email to myself or Thunderer and lets all work together on this. Thanks for the response Thunderer. BigDunc^Talk 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.--Tznkai (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Probation notice

Due to your edit warring on Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation self expires in two months from this time, or until lifted by administrator or community discretion.--Tznkai (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

Hello, I can see the interwiki. What's the problem exactly? Regards, Muro de Aguas (write me) 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't see your text on the page but could on the edit page. The Thunderer (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Robert Porter

Just a friendly note about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Robert Porter. I noticed you added a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 5, but didn't make the AfD page or put an AfD notice on the article. Did you change your mind about the AfD (in which case I'll remove the listing), or did you need help completing the nomination? Let me know and I'll be glad to assist.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had done it correctly sorry. I had created the page in error and just wanted it deleted as the information is repeated elsewhere. Any help you can give in doing so would be much appreciated. The Thunderer (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, got it fixed. Someone beat me to turning the duplicate page into a redirect, which is the best way to handle it. In this case, you would have needed to select all the text on the Sir Robert Porter page and replace it with #REDIRECT[[Robert Porter (politician)]]. Hope that helps!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The Thunderer (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rv

Hello The Thunderer. A quick note: the term "rv" in an edit summary is shorthand for "revert", meaning your edit changed the article to an earlier version. It is good practice to use "rv" when you are reverting. I noted you have used it twice today [2][3]. I also note that that article is under a mandatory WP:1RR restriction. Your reverts were sequential, so technically they could be counted as one, but I just wanted to warn you to be careful. If your edit can be described as a "rv" in the edit summary and it isn't vandalism, you should think twice about making it on this article without discussion first, since it means that you are undoing someone else's work. Rockpocket 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rock. I'll be more sparing in my use of the term from now on. The Thunderer (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Thunderer have a good read of WP:REVERT because I can see editors getting caught out on this because a revert is an action that reverses the actions of other editors. I am not saying this to you in a patronising way and I hope it is received with the good faith it is added thanks. BigDunc^Talk 09:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reversed the actions of anyone Dunc. I am merely correcting text which is wrong or adding citations and correcting grammar, prior to adding new material.The Thunderer (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying you did just providing the link so that you are aware because it will be very easy to get caught and blocked the way things stand on all Trouble articles. BigDunc^Talk 09:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture.The Thunderer (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Slow Down

You are now removing or changing additions from Domer and Dunc. Each time you do this counts as a revert. Multiple single reverts are not strictly against the working of the 1RR probation on the UDR article but are undoubtedly against the spirit and before long we will be back to where we were on this article. I also can't see the wood for the trees because you are making so many single sequential edits. I think we need clearer rules of engagement for the article but I'm prepapring for a buisness trip and its half term when I get back so I'm struggling to find time to sort it out. Please slow down your editing on the article. Please try to aggregate your edits to make the changes easier to see for an external editor auditing conduct. Please try to avoiud removing cited material altogether unless you have a clear consensus supporting the change on the talk page. I'm going to leave a message on the article talk and you guys need to sort it out from there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I was just working away to improve the article as I had said on the talk page. I'm giving clear reasons for the removal of everything, bearing in mind I'm removing a lot of my own work as well. At this point I'm done removing anything and am now adding verifiable content to "Formation".Thunderer (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked twenty four hours for violation of the 1 RR parole on Ulster Defence Regiment. You know better then that.. if you have a problem with being reverted, DO NOT re-revert, bring it to an administrator. SirFozzie (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I did bring it to an administrator. I e-mailed User:Rlevse. I've made my intentions clear on the talk page. Another complaint was made about me the other day but the admins approved my edits. In this most recent action Domer has been trying to revoke those edits by another means. The simple fact of the matter is, he made an edit which I disapproved of and I reverted it once. Then he reverted it back again. I see that as the breach. It falls into the category of gaming or vandalism for him to revert again and in my view, under the current sanctions I have the right to revert him and call in admin. Which I did.Thunderer (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, your view is incorrect. You're limited to 1 revert per 24 hours on UDR. PERIOD. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, it will not cause the sun to go out if a version of an article you don't agree with is up until a neutral administrator can look at it. SirFozzie (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse asked me to look at this too. I don't dispute the block; it's quite a clear breach of the 1RR, and it's also bad form to categorise content disputes as "vandalism" in your edit summary. However, I am not entirely convinced about Domer's edits to the page either, and will look into them more closely. Black Kite 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got it in one Black Kite. His revert in one fell swoop removed everything I had done over several days, all of which was explained on the talk page with an offer to self revert on anything which proved contentious after discussion. No such offer existed this time, I was supposed to accept this as a fait accompli. Thunderer (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR

Hi - this (standard revert) and this (effectively a revert of this) appears to break 1RR on the UDR article again. Can you give me a good reason for this second edit? Black Kite 17:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Echo Coy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Echo Coy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ronnie Gamble.jpg and Image:Major George Lapsley.jpg

Can I ask where the permission for the use of these two images can be found? J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Image:Greenfinch.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to any other image in said article were the author has given permission, including Image:Damaged Land Rover.jpg and Image:Sandy Baxter - wounded.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have an e-mail from the author expressly giving me permission to use his pictures. Do you want a copy of it?Thunderer (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly send a copy of it (along with a note about which images it applies to) to the OTRS address given here, and (I suppose this isn't strictly necessary, but it will save any confusion while the email is processed) tag the applicable images with {{OTRS-pending}}? That way, the permission for the use of the images is stored by the Wikimedia Foundation, so there can be no question about the legitimacy of the claims. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the help.Thunderer (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tis done good sir. Thunderer (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert

Keep your temper, ok? I'm doing what I can. SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you to it. You can see from the time I alerted you today how long this has been going on and I think I've done a reasonable job of keeping a cool head without letting myself be pushed around. Even to the extent of getting a note onto the AE board long before the situation became too heated. I think all the issues are self-evident. You can certainly see who's been doing the real work on the article now and who the spoilers are. Thank God for the guys at Milhist.Thunderer (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Hi. I have placed you, Domer and Dunc all on a one month topic ban from Troubles related articles. See here for details of your topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Have a look here for some advice from an admin in case you miss it. BigDunc^Talk 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ThanksThunderer (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but you reverted the talk page too I think we are allowed to edit talk pages but check just in case. BigDunc^Talk 17:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I said today was that important so I can live with the loss. Thunderer (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said here is relevant to you as well.--Tznkai (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted and helpful (I hope) comment made. Thunderer (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I hope you don't think I'm taking sides on this issue, even though I defended Domer in his requests for diffs. To be honest, what puzzles me is that when both of you make complaints against each other the seemingly inevitable outcome is that both of you are either blocked or resticted, so why don't you both sit down and discuss it one to one without any outside interference. Just an idea which you might think is nonsense but an idea nevertheless. Jack forbes (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that at all Jack. I'm pleased there's another voice in the discussion. I'm not that good at the complaining to tell the truth, on the one or two occasions I've been blocked it's been because I wouldn't back down. I accept that any self-justification I make could be selfishly motivated that's why I'm letting others sort it out. I have tried to discuss this privately with Domer but he doesn't return my e-mails. The same goes for BigDunc. I'm not an unreasonable man, although it has been implied that I'm an unredeemable Hun (to coin a phrase). I can assure you I'm not, I don't even like fitba. (yes I speak a bit of Doric and Ned - but no Garlic) ;).Thunderer (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Markethill

The Troubles in Markethill - do you have any info on the Markethill bomb? I can't find many sources, I was in the rough area at the time and remember being in the town the next day. Place was a mess.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not TU. I haven't lived in County Armagh since 1991. If you go to the Operation Banner website and ask for comment from someone from 2 UDR (probably 3 or 4 Royal Irish by that time). Thunderer (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Offer of mentorship

Having seen and attempted to examine the evidence presented at the AE board related to your editing and conduct, and seeing your request for a mentor, I'm moved to put myself forward.

I would urge you to examine my contribution record - but the fact that we might seem to be diametrically opposed to each other shouldn't be an obstacle and could be an advantage.

I've provisionally come to the conclusion that your edits are generally careful, accurate and worthwhile. I will pull you up sharply if I ever think you deviate from that. I have no record of breaching CIVIL myself and don't consider it a very important policy - I reserve the right to act pre-emptively against anything I think is dubious on that score (both to you and from you since I think such accusations and counter-accusations interfere with writing good articles).

You are free to take this up or not as you see fit. You are free to create a sub-page off your UserPage and put your comments there for me (and others) to examine and respond to, or use my services in whatever other way you choose. Best to remind me at intervals about any editing that you think could become contentious so I can add it to my WatchList. PR^talk 12:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept your offer PR and will be totally guided by you. The fact that we are diametrically opposed will not cause me any problems. I welcome the opportunity to learn from you. Thunderer (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crash Action by David Rowlands.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Crash Action by David Rowlands.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban in abeyance.

The topic ban placed on both User:BigDunc and User:The Thunderer is now in abeyance. Instead, they are placed on a strict 0 Revert Rule, specifically on Ulster Defence Regiment, but this remedy can also be applied to any other article in which they find themselves in conflict, by any administrator..

Good luck, and I hope we can get things right :) SirFozzie (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Nope, I'm someone altogether different but thanks for asking :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

I've proposed modifications to your existing topic ban here please comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted - thanks.Thunderer (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your actions on the PIRA article

consider this formal notification of a 0 RR Parole being placed on you on Provisional Irish Republican Army per the modified sanctions. I am talking with other admins to determine what the next step should be after that (you've gone beyond the 1RR Troubles sanction on that page) SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't consider I'd gone beyond current sanctions. But if you say so then I won't argue. You'll notice I haven't continued to remove the information but am concentrating on dicsussion.Thunderer (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have filled a mediation case here per the latest AE recomendations your input is requested on the page. BigDunc^Talk 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, I really highly recommend mediation. While the two of you have been working together better than before (obviously), outside eyes have already expressed concern its fraying at the edges. I cannot recommend it in stronger terms.--Tznkai (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that way then I'll agree to it Tzankai. I just don't feel I have an issue with Dunc as he's more than capable of civilised discussion. Thunderer (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Formal notification

You have already been notified, but here's a formal notice regardless:

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, AGK 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I neither understand or see the need for this with regards to you Dunc. We may have different views but we have been discussing them. Thunderer (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

As a follow up to this: I don't think it's necessary to formally "ban" you from editing contentious articles while this Mediation is happening, but until I can talk with whatever poor soul gets the job of mediator, let's call this an "extremely strong suggestion from a VERY exasperated administrator". Please do not make any changes to contentious articles without the explicit ok from Dunc. (IE, do not make any changes to UDR, PIRA or other pages without posting the change to either Dunc's talk page or a page I'll set up (neutral ground, so to speak), and getting his ok on it. Ok? SirFozzie (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Do I take it that the same applies to him because in my view he caused a problem today by reverting material by dint of removal whilst a discussion was going on about that very material.Thunderer (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page, I left much the same message. SirFozzie (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated.Thunderer (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've set up a page for discussion of changes. User talk:SirFozzie/NI Article Discussions. SirFozzie (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Basic battle skills

It's one of my longterm goals to improve our coverage of tactics, so I'm interested in your offer. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no difficulty in providing any scans and uploading them. I've done one already at nowiki Image:Basic_Battle_Skills.jpg which I've released into the public domain because as far as I can see the copyright has expired. I can e-mail you scans as well. What I'd really love to get my hands on too is a copy of "Staff Duties in the Field" which would be a marvellous reference document. Just let me know what you want to see. Thunderer (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Please note that the use of italics to delineate quotations is in direct opposition to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. (See Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations) Specifically, the use of italics gives the visual appearance of adding emphasis to the words being quoted, rather than indicating that they are indeed a quote.

Please note also that you are not exempt from the 1RR rule, and I would have had ample grounds to block you for this. Discuss rather than edit war using edit summaries that imply other editors are "blind". Next time, it's a block for that kind of language. Risker (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Retract please

[4] Thunderer, please retract this statement. The WP:AE report was NOT filed by Domer48, it was filed by Big Dunc. You owe Domer an apology. Risker (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)